Mortgage Loan Origination

Subscribe to Mortgage Loan Origination via RSS

On March 24, 2026, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) announced that it is launching an investigation under the federal Fair Housing Act into a state-sponsored special purpose credit program (described below) that reportedly uses race as an eligibility factor.

The Washington Homeownership Resource Center runs the Covenant Homeownership Program (the “Program”), which the state legislature created in 2023 to “address the history of housing discrimination due to racially restrictive real estate covenants in Washington state.” The Washington legislation provides that generations of systemic “redlining, racially restrictive covenants, mortgage subsidies and incentives” created barriers to mortgage credit and homeownership for black, indigenous, and people of color and other historically marginalized communities in Washington. To remedy those circumstances, the legislature created a down payment and closing cost assistance program for eligible first-time homebuyers, repayable upon the sale or refinancing of the home, and forgivable after a period of time for certain eligible households.

According to the Program’s website, persons eligible for the Program are those who lived in the state before 1968 (or have a parent or grandparent who did), are first-time homebuyers who meet the income guidelines (up to 120% Area Median Income), and are a member of a racial group identified through the organization’s mandated study.

HUD asserts that the Program may violate the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing and mortgage financing discrimination based on race, among other factors. HUD Secretary Turner stated that the agency will vigorously enforce the Act and seek to eliminate illegal racial preferences.

Continue Reading HUD Launches Fair Housing Investigation into Special Purpose Credit Program

In January 2026, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) adopted its regulations (the “Regulations”) implementing the provisions of the state’s Community Reinvestment Act covering non-bank, independent mortgage bankers, also known as independent mortgage bankers, licensed under the New York Licensed Mortgage Bankers Law (“Mortgage Bankers”). Because the federal Community Reinvestment Act only applies to insured depository institutions, some states, including Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York, have adopted similar laws and applied those laws to non-depository mortgage companies. The Regulations impose filing, self-testing, and self-assessment requirements on Mortgage Bankers; require DFS to evaluate Mortgage Bankers, including by testing their performance in meeting community credit needs; and implicate applications. The evaluation requirements are similar to those imposed on insured depository institutions under the federal Community Reinvestment Act and its implementing regulations.

While the Regulations became effective the same day of their publication—January 7, 2026—the compliance date is July 7, 2026.

Continue Reading New York State Department of Financial Services Adopts Regulations Implementing the Community Reinvestment Act Covering Mortgage Bankers

Ginnie Mae recently announced that it will permit the issuance of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) backed by mortgage loans documented using electronic promissory notes (eNotes) under its Pools Issued for Immediate Transfer (PIIT) program beginning February 1, 2026.  The PIIT program is a “co-issue” program that allows loan originators to pool loans with Ginnie Mae, and simultaneously transfer the issuer and servicing responsibility to a purchaser of the related servicing rights.  Loans backed by eNotes are a quickly growing part of the residential lending market – in its announcement Ginnie Mae states that since it began accepting digitally backed loans (the pilot program launched in 2020) at least $92 billion dollars in eNote backed assets have been included in Ginnie Mae MBS, with over 50 issuers participating in the program.  Until now, however, Ginnie Mae was unable to accommodate eNotes in the PIIT program.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already have co-issue programs for the purchase and pooling of loans backed by eNotes.

Continue Reading Ginnie Mae Accommodates Further Use of eNotes

On October 1, 2025, the interagency final rule implementing quality control standards for automated valuation models (“AVMs”) became effective. The rule requires the adoption and maintenance of policies, practices, procedures, and control systems for the use of AVMs by mortgage originators in making credit decisions, and by secondary market issuers that use AVMs…

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has published a concept release inviting public comment on potential reforms to disclosure requirements for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) in the registered asset-backed securities (ABS) market. The initiative aims to address longstanding concerns that current rules, particularly those under Item 1125 of Regulation AB, have stifled public issuance of…

While federal regulatory agencies retreat from enforcing disparate impact discrimination, at least one state agency has stepped forward. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell announced on July 10, 2025 a settlement with a student loan company, resolving allegations that the company’s artificial intelligence (“AI”) underwriting models resulted in unlawful disparate impact based on race and immigration status.

The disparate impact theory of discrimination in the lending context has been controversial. It has been 10 years since the Supreme Court held in Inclusive Communities that disparate impact is available under the Fair Housing Act if a plaintiff points to a policy or policies of the defendant that caused the disparity. In the fair lending context, then, disparate impact applies to mortgage loans. However, for other types of consumer credit – like auto loans or student loans – a plaintiff or government enforcer claiming discrimination would need to rely on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”). While ECOA prohibits discrimination against an applicant with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, there has been much debate over whether it applies to discrimination in the form of disparate impact. The federal government for years relied heavily on ECOA to bring credit discrimination actions. The Biden Administration pursued a vigorous redlining initiative against mortgage lenders. The government used the vast amount of data obtained under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) and compared the activities of various lenders within a geographic area to determine whether a lender was significantly lagging its peers in making loans to certain protected groups. The government then looked to the lender’s branch locations, advertising strategies, the racial/ethnic make-up of its loan officers, and other factors to assert that the lender had discouraged loan applicants from protected classes. Through that redlining initiative, the government settled dozens of cases, resulting in well over $100 million in payments.

HMDA data provides extensive, if imperfect, demographic data on mortgage lending activities and has been key to building claims of lending discrimination, particularly disparate impact. However, that level of data is not generally available for other types of lending, like student loans. Without such data, the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General (“OAG”) in this case reviewed the lender’s algorithmic rules, its use of judgmental discretion in the loan approval process, and internal communications, which the Attorney General described as exhibiting bias.

Disparate Impact Based on Race, National Origin

In that review, the OAG looked back to the scoring model the lender used prior to 2017, which relied in part on a Cohort Default Rate – the average rate of loan defaults associated with specific higher education institutions. The OAG asserted that use of that factor in its underwriting model resulted in disparate impact in approval rates and loan terms, disfavoring Black and Hispanic applicants in violation of ECOA and the state’s prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts or practices (“UDAP”). The public settlement order did not provide the level of statistical disparities. In addition, until 2023, the OAG asserted that the lender also included immigration status in its algorithm, knocking out applicants who lacked a green card. That factor “created a risk of a disparate outcome against applicants on the basis of national origin,” and as such violated ECOA and UDAP according to the OAG. The settlement order prohibits the lender from using the Cohort Default Rate or the knock-out rule for applicants without a green card (although it appears the lender had discontinued those considerations years ago).

Continue Reading Massachusetts AG Settles Fair Lending Action Based Upon AI Underwriting Model

In a social media post on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop guidelines for considering cryptocurrency holdings as assets in mortgage originations. The FHFA oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which purchase and securitize a significant portion of the nation’s mortgage…

On June 24, 2025, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) published a Request for Information (“RFI”) to better understand how increasing consumer use of Buy Now Pay Later (“BNPL”) products impacts housing affordability and stability in connection with the residential loan programs insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”). BNPL products, which allow consumers to purchase goods and services and repay over time (typically, though not always, through four or fewer deferred installments payable over six to eight weeks with no periodic interest or other finance charges), have continued to gain popularity over the past decade. To date, however, HUD has not incorporated consideration of BNPL products into underwriting guidelines for FHA-insured mortgage loans. With the RFI, HUD is seeking more information on whether it should develop policies to address potential ability-to-repay risks from these relatively new products.

Background on BNPL

While retail financing has a long history in the U.S., the concept of BNPL as a distinct class of product largely stems from the introduction of a “pay-in-4” product into the U.S. around 2018. This core element of the BNPL market involves the origination of unsecured, interest-free short-term installment loans to pay for relatively small-dollar retail purchases. Payments are usually due in four or fewer equal installments, with the first payment often due as a down payment at the time of sale. Subsequent payments are typically due every two weeks. Consumers enter into BNPL loans frequently through apps or purchase-and-origination flows managed by fintech BNPL providers. BNPL lenders may approve or deny a loan based on their own individual underwriting criteria, which may include reliance on a consumer report (often pulled as a soft pull to prequalify a consumer for a potential range of terms) and/or the consumer’s repayment history with the BNPL lender. BNPL lenders generally do not report repayment history or default to the consumer reporting agencies, although: (i) some lenders offer consumers the option to report positive repayment histories, and (ii) credit bureaus are planning to incorporate BNPL payments into credit scores and craft new categories to better match typical BNPL structures (as compared to reporting formats currently relevant for installment loans with monthly payments or traditional credit cards), each of which may increase adoption of BNPL credit reporting over time.

Continue Reading HUD Requests Information on Buy Now Pay Later

On June 12, 2025, Judge Valderrama of the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the joint motion to vacate the stipulated final judgment reached between the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and Townstone Financial, Inc., in an action alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”).

As explained in Mayer…

Maryland’s secondary mortgage market has been in turmoil since a disruptive 2024 court decision held that a purchaser of mortgage loans inherits the original lender’s obligations—including the obligation to obtain a Maryland Mortgage Lender license. Secondary market investors that acquire residential mortgage loans through a passive trust can breathe a sigh of relief now that…