My situation is such:

-We hired on a mortgage company to assist us in the mortgage side of the business.
-The customer would be working directly with representatives from the mortgage company.
-I do not know alot about the deal that was signed at this point to request their services, however a friend of mine had called me regarding this mortgage company telling me that they were not an equal housing lender.
-The old mortgage company we did do business with had indicated this to a friend of mine.
-The other issue here with the current company is they had generated a marketing piece which did not have the house on it.
-As the mortgage piece still challanges me compliance wise, I am now concerned about any potential compliance issues with this current mortgage company.

Any feedback here would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for here. What do they mean when they tell you that the mtge co is not an equal housing lender? If they generate housing loans in the US, they had better darn well be an equal housing lender, or face consequences from the appropriate regulatory agency, up to and including the DOJ. If your issue is primarily that their ads don't contain the appropriate notices and disclaimers, you will probably want to set up an advertising review program prior to any ads being issued. If you really think they are discriminating, you need to get a handle on that fast -or disassociate yourself from them even faster. Because they are now your affiliate, you can and will be held liable for their actions. Other regulatory concerns will also come into play, such as compliance with TIL, RESPA, FCR, HMDA, etc., as appropriate. Not to mention the safety & soundness of the loans themselves and any chance of crossing the applicable state predatory thresholds.

ExGovt-Babe:

I guess I really became concerned when my friend indicated that the old mortgage company we did business with said that the new company we are dealing with is not an "equal housing lender" I have never heard that before, so I immeadiatly had a panic attack. I also didn't understand why and how are they were coming to that conclusion.

I will definately require a review of any and all advertising prior to posting it in any branch.

Does that clarify anything?

Thanks for responding so quickly.

Well, the old company may just have issues with the new company, or sour grapes, or whatever. I don't know that I would hang a ton of weight on their commentary. HOWEVER. I would do some research on the loans booked by the new company - especially on points & fees being charged, as well as general pricing - to determine if any protected class is being unfairly treated. And do some training for the brokers on y'all's policies and standards (and slip in basic ECOA/FH training as well.) And also make sure you look at all print ads, if they are going to feature your institution's name, we've all of a sudden started seeing some 'creative' ads that are problematic. Hopefully whomever did due diligence on this new firm before deciding to do business with them considered the fair lending aspects of the deal. Did you buy existing loans with them, or just future business? If existing loans, do an analysis on their book to see what you can see. Sounds like you've got a long road ahead of you, but hopefully it will all prove to be fine.

ExGovtBabe:

That certainly was what I was thinking as well as panic, but you never know.
In regards to the print material, absolutely a conversation will be made in regards to reviewing material.
We have contracted for future business, did not buy existing.

Thanks again for your awesome feedback.

I'd like to add that you should have a complete understanding of how you're doing business with them. You mentioned you're unfamiliar with the deal you signed. There's been a fair amount of discussion with respect to fair lending as to the responsbilities of third parties acting on your behalf.

For what it's worth, we also own a mortgage subsidiary.

All of the bank's mortgage loans are orginated through the subsidiary and sold to the bank.

It can be a daunting task to stay on top of the loan officers. They want to make sales, not concern themselves with compliance issues.

Training and accountability goes a long way.

We just went through a compliance exam (we're FDIC and this was our first exam with the 'new' risked based exam). Training the loan officers and processors is very important. Examiners will interview them and look at samples of their files.

A client once told me that "Loan Officer" is the perfect job for someone who could never finish anything. Does this answer your observation about loan officers just wanting to make the sale, get paid, and disappear?

Back to the discussion of Equal Housing Lender. HUD uses the phrase "Equal Housing Opportunity." Since 1997, FDIC has allowed FDIC regulated banks to use either.

HUD's version is in the Equal Housing Opportunity poster prescribed in §110.25(a) [24 CFR 110.25(a)].

So, it may be true that they do not state that they are an "Equal Housing Lender", but that does not mean that they are not lending equally.