Thread Options
#2200332 - 12/11/18 04:12 PM Anti-Steering - stated preference
complyorelse Offline
Gold Star
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 442
U.S.
We are a community bank that offers both portfolio and secondary market loans. If a borrower states that they would like to obtain a loan and keep it with us so it isn't sold, serviced by another lender, etc., do we have to provide options on the Anti-Steering Disclosure?

Return to Top
Loan Originator Compensation Rule
#2200334 - 12/11/18 04:21 PM Re: Anti-Steering - stated preference complyorelse
Adam Witmer Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,622
I assume the "Anti-Steering Disclosure" is one that your LOS has available for you to use as there isn't a regulatory requirement for such form. That said, the point of such disclosure is to reduce steering risk by "proving" that the customer directed the product selection and wasn't unjustly led to a product that is less beneficial for them. So, if you are using the disclosure in some cases, I'm not sure why you wouldn't use the disclosure in a case where you aren't putting the customer in a secondary market product, which often has a lower rate and more flexible terms than portfolio loans.
_________________________
Adam Witmer, CRCM

All statements are my opinion, not those of my employer, and should not be taken as legal advice.
www.compliancecohort.com

Return to Top
#2200337 - 12/11/18 04:37 PM Re: Anti-Steering - stated preference Adam Witmer
rlcarey Online
10K Club
rlcarey
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 79,315
Galveston, TX
Originally Posted By Adam Witmer
I assume the "Anti-Steering Disclosure" is one that your LOS has available for you to use as there isn't a regulatory requirement for such form. .


What about 1026.36(e)(2)?
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com

Return to Top
#2200342 - 12/11/18 04:51 PM Re: Anti-Steering - stated preference complyorelse
Adam Witmer Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,622
Well, the prohibition is there, but I don't recall mandatory use of a specific model form. I could have been more clear in my reply, so thanks for the clarification, Randy.
_________________________
Adam Witmer, CRCM

All statements are my opinion, not those of my employer, and should not be taken as legal advice.
www.compliancecohort.com

Return to Top
#2200347 - 12/11/18 05:57 PM Re: Anti-Steering - stated preference complyorelse
complyorelse Offline
Gold Star
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 442
U.S.
We use a form provided by our LOS. I just need clarification if we have to provide the various options if the borrower stated they want to keep the loan with us.

Return to Top
#2200352 - 12/11/18 06:27 PM Re: Anti-Steering - stated preference complyorelse
ComplyCycle Offline
Gold Star
ComplyCycle
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 391
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see a disclosure requirement in 1026.36(e)(2). Based upon a strict reading of the regulation, a consumer can be "presented" with various oral options and still meet the requirements.

Return to Top
#2200357 - 12/11/18 06:53 PM Re: Anti-Steering - stated preference complyorelse
rlcarey Online
10K Club
rlcarey
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 79,315
Galveston, TX
Yup - if you are in a position that you are required to "present" various loan options to the borrower, I would want to rely and to prove that your loan officers did such orally in each and every case. No written disclosure required - I agree. But not documenting the presentation in writing - not a wise choice IMHO.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com

Return to Top
#2200364 - 12/11/18 07:21 PM Re: Anti-Steering - stated preference complyorelse
complyorelse Offline
Gold Star
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 442
U.S.
If someone is only interested in a 30 year fixed rate loan, we only have one option for them. I understand (e)(4) to be that we would be in compliance if that is the only option we present.

My original question really was trying to ascertain if we would be in compliance by only presenting a portfolio option if someone stated they wanted a portfolio loan. Portfolio vs. Secondary is not one of the examples in (e)(2) Permissible Transactions, but it has the same spirit. However, it seems it would not technically meet the requirement.

Return to Top