Home > Mortgages > Mortgage Mischief? Why It Pays to Shop Around

Comments 0 Comments

Home borrowers got a reminder Thursday that the mortgage process remains a potential minefield.

A nationwide mortgage firm accused of paying employees bonuses to steer borrowers into less-favorable mortgage terms has agreed to pay $13 million in penalties to settle the charges, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced Thursday.

Utah-based Castle & Cooke was accused of paying quarterly bonuses to employees that ranged from $6,100 to $8,700, based on their ability to get borrowers to accept higher interest rates than they qualified for.

Such bonuses, which create perverse incentives that work against consumers, were banned by the Federal Reserve in a regulation that took effect in 2011.  The CFPB enforces that regulation, and this is the first legal action it has taken in accusing a firm for breaking the rule.

“We are taking action against the type of practices that precipitated the financial crisis,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray when the suit was filed. “Consumers should be able to get a mortgage without worrying about how the financial incentives of their loan officers may cause them to pay higher rates than they actually qualify for.”

Castle & Cooke admitted no wrongdoing in a statement issued to Credit.com, saying it was “committed to legal and regulatory compliance.” A non-bank lender, Castle & Cooke originated $1.3 billion in loans during 2012, operating in 22 states, including California, Arizona, Colorado and Texas.

Bonus Plans in Question

Before the rule took effect, it was common for brokers and lenders to grant sales staff a per-loan bonus each time a borrower was steered towards a loan with higher rates, an arrangement sometimes called a yield-spread premium.

Castle & Cooke was not accused of that, but rather tying quarterly bonuses to more profitable loans. According to the CFPB lawsuit, an estimated 1,100 bonuses were paid to 215 loan officers.

“(The firm) developed and implemented a scheme by which the company would pay quarterly bonuses to loan officers in amounts that varied based on the interest rates of the loans they originated—the higher the interest rates of the loans closed by a loan officer during the quarter, the higher the loan officer’s quarterly bonus,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit also accused the financial institution of not keeping proper records about the bonus program.

“The company does not refer to the quarterly bonus plan in any written policies (and) has failed to maintain a written policy explaining the method (an executive) uses to calculate the amount of the loan officers’ quarterly bonuses,” the suit alleged.

Castle & Cooke has agreed to pay $9 million into a restitution fund. Approximately 9,400 borrowers will receive compensation for mortgage overpayments.  The firm will also pay a $4 million civil penalty.

“With today’s resolution we are pleased that we can now focus our undivided attention on our core mission: extending high quality loans and superior service to borrowers,” the firm said in an email. “The regulations are complex, but we are committed to legal and regulatory compliance in our lending.”

Red Tape Wrestling Tips

Several steps in the mortgage process may involve commissions that create the potential for perverse incentives which work against consumers. The only way for buyers to truly protect themselves is to engage in competitive bidding.  Buyers should always get Good Faith Estimates from at least three lenders/mortgage brokers, and compare the total loan coasts.  While new federal regulations ban yield-spread premiums and other bonuses paid based on selling higher-cost loans, other financial arrangements between third parties can add unnecessary costs to a mortgage. Comparison shopping is the best defense.

Image: iStock

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team