Tag Archives: Regulatory Relief

In a letter to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) Director of Regulatory Affairs Alicia Nealon encouraged the NCUA to use its 2015 Regulatory Review as an opportunity to provide credit unions with regulatory relief.

Among the bills that passed in the Committee were H.R. 2243, the Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2015, which was introduced in May by Ed Royce (R-California). The bill passed by a vote of 57-1.

New legislation will also allow banks and credit unions that have less than $10 billion in assets relief from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Qualified Mortgage rule, the committee members said. This will exempt certain loans from its requirements as long as these intuitions do not sell or securitize those loans.

“The CFPB continues to issue new regulations designed for massive, ‘systemic-risk’ financial institutions without considering how those same rules harm small businesses, community banks, and credit unions,” Pittenger said last month after H.R. 1195 passed in the House.

One provision of the bill prohibits increases in guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offset losses or reductions in revenue, or for any other purpose besides business functions for the GSEs or housing finance reform. The bill also prohibits the sale of Treasury-owned senior preferred shares in the GSEs without approval from Congress.

Despite the fact that 89 percent of the mortgage industry professional surveyed by the Collingwood Group last September said regulations were hurting their business, 76 percent of respondents in March's Mortgage Industry Outlook Report said they would be willing to pay up to 25 basis points when asked how much they would pay "to be relieved of all liability for future buybacks, indemnifications and/or lawsuits."

Distressed and at-risk Montana homeowners spoke out against the two bills in the state's House Business and Labor Committee on Thursday, claiming that their respective mortgagees had misled them verbally with regards to loss mitigation practices. The borrowers said they would have had no legal claim against those mortgagees if these bills had been in enacted before they filed their respective lawsuits against their lenders.