Comment Detail

Comment

As a mutual bank, we are dedicated to taking care of our customers in a fair and equitable manner. Further, we take our relationship with the agencies and the sustainable housing of those we serve very seriously. We strive everyday to deliver quality loans to the agencies while meeting the needs of our communities.

For years it has seemed that the agencies favor the large institutions in the pricing (g-fees). Currently, it feels like the agencies only want to deal with the large aggregators. We find our direct relationship with the GSE's is not in the market for pricing and loans are being originated and sold to the aggregators - this does not allow us to maintain the servicing at the local level which is important to many customers.
The greatest concern lately is the FHFA's directive on the GSE's pricing grids and the perceived penalty being assessed to the higher credit borrowers. It seems that if the administration is desiring to meet the needs of the LMI borrowers, there must be a better way than penalizing the consumers who have worked so hard to maintain their credit. Perhaps the FHFA would have been better to tell their own story in the news rather than let the news run with a story they perhaps didn't fully understand. That being said, the number of consumers who are "angry" about the recent approaches are vast and our ability to explain it (while we understand the premise) isn't great as consumers only see the impact to them.
Lastly, a better runway for deploying changes should be deployed. Locks should be based on "Lock Date" not "Loan Delivery Date" as the system management based on delivery is a nightmare for lenders.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.