Are Landing Platforms Like Privlo in Compliance with the SAFE Act?

Are Landing Platforms Like Privlo in Compliance with the SAFE Act?

Lender · Salt Lake City, UT · Member since 2012 · 714 posts · 169 votes

Privlo is a new lending platform that connects homeowners who can’t qualify at the bank, with private money lenders. But once the website actually launches, will Privlo be in compliance with new regulations under the SAFE Act?

Depending on which State the property is located in, if it is classified as residential 1 to 4 units, Privlo may be skirting a new licensing requirement under the SAFE Act. For example in California, even if you’re lending your own money on residential real estate, 1 to 4 units, you must run your loans under a licensed California broker.

Privlo, a California If Privlo is a licensed real estate brokerage in the State of California, they can make a commission or flat fee on transactions fused on their website for properties located in California. So what about all of these other lending platforms? Are they in compliance with the SAFE Act? Probably not. Depending on which State the property is located, if it’s a residential property 1 to 4 units, there may be a licensing requirement for brokering such a transaction, even if it takes place online. So what will lending platforms like Privlo do about the requirements for licensing under the SAFE Act? With over $2 MM in funding, Privlo better get clear on this before it launches to the world. (Read the full article here: http://www.inman.com/2013/05/02/privlo-lands-2-1m-in-seed-funding/)

0Reply
40 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
13y

David, it's not as simple as that, in the origination process DTI, qualifying ratios, verifications of assets, income and liabilities are determined and the determination is made as to the borrower qualifying for a particular loan program. Originators come in different forms as to their duties, responsibilities and liability in generating loans. If an originator has loan authority the may accomplish underwriting, these are generally senior originators. There are loan processors, prior to the new regs, that took applications and pre-qualified applicants, some knew the regs better than the loan officer but usually their job was simply to process, not to give a commitment. Processors are the entry level to the mortgage origination business. A LMO does do underwriting functions, good ones do. But today, I agree with you in that most are not really qualified.

What happens in say secondary market loans is that originators, be them broker or bank types, do field underwriting and originate the loan per the mortgage wholesaler's guidelines and send it to a second stage of underwriters in the wholesale organization. At the second stage it's more of a double check of what the originator did, ratios, docs are complete, no real brain damage as initially the files are reviewed by assistants, then the file is passed off to the underwriter with loan authority, they make the decision if the loan will be made or purchased.

The originating office is basically selling the loan to a wholesaler, while the have different motivations, each wants to make money and they need to operate on the same page. I've had some really good arguments, I think I mostly won, with wholesale underwriters who were not that experienced and often went over their heads with some.

Here is the problem. During the late 80s mortgage operations popped up like weeds, very little regulation. The industry relied on self governance as wholesalers, banks and other institutions buying or making loans were prudent, especially in secondary markets. Regs changed allowing investment banks and commercial banks to merge operations in the 90s. This allowed more leeway in portfolio holdings and selling seasoned loans in securities. Basically the flood gates opened to investors for securitized mortgages creating a greater demand for originations. All kinds of mortgage products began hitting the streets, like the no-income verification type products.

The role of the mortgage originator became more mechanical in checking off program requirements which got easier. Wholesale underwriters also got off easy and to fill the pipe line underwriting got very lax. It got so lax that new hires with no financial experience were placed in underwriting offices to simply follow a book of instructions in some operations. This continued through the next decade to the crash.

What we have now are old car salesmen who got into mortgage originations, Wal-Mart employees hired into lending operations years ago, whose experience is that learned from their organization or what they picked up, mostly from a marketing point of view to sell a financial product filling a pipe line. Not saying there aren't financially astute originators or underwriters now, saying that most have really had narrowly defined operations experience and there are many that have no formal financial training out there.

Now, take these types who are accustom to meeting written loan policies, checking of a list of requirements, have them take a test with a few hours of classroom training and you have today's LMO. You still have some small banks, brokerages and origination offices hiring as they have for the past twenty years. Not bad folks, just not qualified as they were once required to be. There is a lot of nepotism in banking and in mortgage businesses as well, certainly a good ole boy aspect.

The other issue is that regulators and lawmakers are only aware of square holes, the secondary market, prudent lending practices based on statistical evidence of large populations. Conventional lending is all they have to relate to. So they set the bar a little lower making the existing square hole a little larger allowing more applicant to fit through.

What they don't understand is individual underwriting, that is the round peg, while some will slide through that square hole, most won't.

Underwriting seller financing is not about meeting certain guidelines today, it's about determining the degree by which buyers miss qualifying standards, it's not about bad, but how bad. It's about determining the likelihood of a borrower improving over time to meet conventional guidelines. It's backward planning from the date an obligation matures to the present, looking into the future and assessing the ability of a buyer to perform, their motivation and how high the hurdles are. This is not taught and it would be difficult to teach.

You certainly can't underwrite a seller finance deal unless you can underwrite a conventional loan, by underwrite I mean determine a successful loan with a great deal of certainty. It's an objective and subjective process. You may find that most LMO will claim to have knowledge to underwrite, ask them if they would buy the loan at the UPB in the event of default, doubt they have that much confidence. I did that for almost 15 years, had the only loan guarantee for seller financed transactions like it in the country as I was told, it was a loan purchase arrangement, but that's another subject. Still have several of those loans going as well.

The SAFE Act has made seller financing a hard pill to swallow for sellers, especially the amortization requirements. With new laws pertaining to loan servicing, only a fool would service their own loan without an extensive servicing background, things are fine when all is well but when things go bad, they can end up really bad.

The liability involved for a LMO is now huge in a seller financed or cash loan, one crash can end their world, it's going to take either a really sharp originator or a really brave one willing to roll the dice and they may be unaware of the issues. Most LMOs work under a sponsor an institution and about all will not allow them to originate anything that is not their product or any third party arrangement. In fact, the old third party originations are not allowed now.

There is also the CFPB, a new cop on the block, they will be looking at big players and pretty busy, but if someone coughs out there they could come down on any individual or private deal that is in violation.

Back on topic, as I said, I'll bet the firm mentioned will have a compliance officer, I can't see something at that magnitude not being compliant or at least attempt to be. I'll stop my morning ramblings now, all being IMO. :)

See this reply in the discussion

4 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    13y

    Sounds like competition to me.

    The officers seem to be from legit companies in the industry.

    I'd also assume that to get 2.1M in seed money with expectations of 20+M someone contacted legal counsel and established the brokerage or as residential lender covering compliance issues. I'd be very surprised if they didn't.

    That concern will probably be addressed shortly after the launch, if you really need to know, contact the state finance department and see if they are registered. :)

  • Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    13y
  • Investor · Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2010 · 1k+ posts · 928 votes
    13y

    This whole thing about using a LMO has lots of issues. Per the regs, the seller or LMO is supposed to ascertain that the borrower has "ability to repay". Well, that's an underwriting process, not a LMO function. Does the LMO have liability for validating that the borrower has "ability to repay". There is also something in the new regs about a max DTI ratio (for some reason, 43% comes to mind). Again, it's an underwriting function to determine what income and debts should be reflected in the DTI ratio. So again, is the LMO liable for computing this in accordance with prevailing standards? Or is any reasonable approach OK?

    And let's not forget that the owner-financing borrower is almost always unable to obtain conventional financing, so in order to make them a loan, you (by definition) are having to relax underwriting standards relative to generally recognized guidelines. So are you (the lender) preying on them and setting them up to fail and "steal" their down payment (as construed by a judge in hindsight after your defaulted borrower sues you to stop foreclosure). I think we can all see how ridiculous these regs are if applied in a literal fashion.

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    13y

    David, it's not as simple as that, in the origination process DTI, qualifying ratios, verifications of assets, income and liabilities are determined and the determination is made as to the borrower qualifying for a particular loan program. Originators come in different forms as to their duties, responsibilities and liability in generating loans. If an originator has loan authority the may accomplish underwriting, these are generally senior originators. There are loan processors, prior to the new regs, that took applications and pre-qualified applicants, some knew the regs better than the loan officer but usually their job was simply to process, not to give a commitment. Processors are the entry level to the mortgage origination business. A LMO does do underwriting functions, good ones do. But today, I agree with you in that most are not really qualified.

    What happens in say secondary market loans is that originators, be them broker or bank types, do field underwriting and originate the loan per the mortgage wholesaler's guidelines and send it to a second stage of underwriters in the wholesale organization. At the second stage it's more of a double check of what the originator did, ratios, docs are complete, no real brain damage as initially the files are reviewed by assistants, then the file is passed off to the underwriter with loan authority, they make the decision if the loan will be made or purchased.

    The originating office is basically selling the loan to a wholesaler, while the have different motivations, each wants to make money and they need to operate on the same page. I've had some really good arguments, I think I mostly won, with wholesale underwriters who were not that experienced and often went over their heads with some.

    Here is the problem. During the late 80s mortgage operations popped up like weeds, very little regulation. The industry relied on self governance as wholesalers, banks and other institutions buying or making loans were prudent, especially in secondary markets. Regs changed allowing investment banks and commercial banks to merge operations in the 90s. This allowed more leeway in portfolio holdings and selling seasoned loans in securities. Basically the flood gates opened to investors for securitized mortgages creating a greater demand for originations. All kinds of mortgage products began hitting the streets, like the no-income verification type products.

    The role of the mortgage originator became more mechanical in checking off program requirements which got easier. Wholesale underwriters also got off easy and to fill the pipe line underwriting got very lax. It got so lax that new hires with no financial experience were placed in underwriting offices to simply follow a book of instructions in some operations. This continued through the next decade to the crash.

    What we have now are old car salesmen who got into mortgage originations, Wal-Mart employees hired into lending operations years ago, whose experience is that learned from their organization or what they picked up, mostly from a marketing point of view to sell a financial product filling a pipe line. Not saying there aren't financially astute originators or underwriters now, saying that most have really had narrowly defined operations experience and there are many that have no formal financial training out there.

    Now, take these types who are accustom to meeting written loan policies, checking of a list of requirements, have them take a test with a few hours of classroom training and you have today's LMO. You still have some small banks, brokerages and origination offices hiring as they have for the past twenty years. Not bad folks, just not qualified as they were once required to be. There is a lot of nepotism in banking and in mortgage businesses as well, certainly a good ole boy aspect.

    The other issue is that regulators and lawmakers are only aware of square holes, the secondary market, prudent lending practices based on statistical evidence of large populations. Conventional lending is all they have to relate to. So they set the bar a little lower making the existing square hole a little larger allowing more applicant to fit through.

    What they don't understand is individual underwriting, that is the round peg, while some will slide through that square hole, most won't.

    Underwriting seller financing is not about meeting certain guidelines today, it's about determining the degree by which buyers miss qualifying standards, it's not about bad, but how bad. It's about determining the likelihood of a borrower improving over time to meet conventional guidelines. It's backward planning from the date an obligation matures to the present, looking into the future and assessing the ability of a buyer to perform, their motivation and how high the hurdles are. This is not taught and it would be difficult to teach.

    You certainly can't underwrite a seller finance deal unless you can underwrite a conventional loan, by underwrite I mean determine a successful loan with a great deal of certainty. It's an objective and subjective process. You may find that most LMO will claim to have knowledge to underwrite, ask them if they would buy the loan at the UPB in the event of default, doubt they have that much confidence. I did that for almost 15 years, had the only loan guarantee for seller financed transactions like it in the country as I was told, it was a loan purchase arrangement, but that's another subject. Still have several of those loans going as well.

    The SAFE Act has made seller financing a hard pill to swallow for sellers, especially the amortization requirements. With new laws pertaining to loan servicing, only a fool would service their own loan without an extensive servicing background, things are fine when all is well but when things go bad, they can end up really bad.

    The liability involved for a LMO is now huge in a seller financed or cash loan, one crash can end their world, it's going to take either a really sharp originator or a really brave one willing to roll the dice and they may be unaware of the issues. Most LMOs work under a sponsor an institution and about all will not allow them to originate anything that is not their product or any third party arrangement. In fact, the old third party originations are not allowed now.

    There is also the CFPB, a new cop on the block, they will be looking at big players and pretty busy, but if someone coughs out there they could come down on any individual or private deal that is in violation.

    Back on topic, as I said, I'll bet the firm mentioned will have a compliance officer, I can't see something at that magnitude not being compliant or at least attempt to be. I'll stop my morning ramblings now, all being IMO. :)

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.