Article 1
Rethinking Dodd-Frank in Wake of JP Morgan
By Stacy Kaper
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.
The House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday questioned the Federal Reserve Board’s ability to oversee firms that pose a systemic risk to the financial system.
The debate about whether the Fed is fit for the job comes as a few lawmakers are renewing efforts to pass legislation that would expressly order the breakup of big banks in the wake of JPMorgan Chase’s sudden $2 billion loss.
“Does Dodd-Frank go far enough or should we have done more to take apart the big banks?” asked Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C.
During the panel’s Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee hearing, lawmakers aired bipartisan concern about the Dodd-Frank Act’s regime for subjecting nonbanks, like insurance companies or brokerages, to stricter oversight closer to the way banks are supervised.
A primary goal of the Dodd-Frank Act was to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown by better regulating the risks that led to the collapse and taxpayer bailout of the industry, especially of nonbanks like insurer American International Group. To that end, the law established a panel of regulators known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, whose job it is to identify risky firms, often referred to as “too big to fail” institutions, that will be brought under the purview of the Fed.
But lawmakers took turns on Wednesday peppering representatives from the Fed and Treasury Department with a series of questions regarding whether the central bank is adequately equipped to carry out this task.
“Do you have the expertise to look at the firms you are going to be looking at?” asked the panel’s chairwoman, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.
Subcommittee ranking member Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., was also worried about a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation and how it might not be as effective as if regulators modified standards to suit specific companies’ business nature, noting that “insurance companies are very different.” Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., picked up on the same thread, pointing out that asset managers do not invest their own balance sheets, but rather client funds.
Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., pressed the point, prompting the Fed’s witness, Michael Gibson, the director of its division on banking supervision and regulation, to acknowledge that the Fed’s pending standards are indeed “bank-centric,” focusing on areas such as capital, liquidity, and leverage—the traditional measures of bank risk.
“Is there any recognition … that these standards don’t really appear to fit, say, asset managers or money markets or captive finance companies or insurance companies?” Bachus asked. “You can look at a bank and tell what you are going to do, but they need a lot of work on the nonbanks.”
Gibson defended the Fed, saying that it has experience from overseeing bank holding companies with other lines of business, such as insurance and asset management, and would consult with outside experts as necessary to focus its rules.
“We understand that there are some nonbank companies for which the bank-like standards that we have proposed would likely be a bad fit, and we have committed to looking at that when those companies are designated and doing what we can to tailor the standards,” he said.
Article 2
Massachusetts: Elizabeth Warren Releases New Ad
By Joshua Miller Posted at 4:03 p.m. on May 16
Elizabeth Warren, the presumptive Democratic nominee for Senate in Massachusetts, released a new ad today that continues to introduce the Harvard Law School professor and consumer advocate to voters.
“Her father was a janitor; my father was a janitor,” a woman says at the beginning of the ad.
“She’s one of us!” says a man, reflecting a sentiment seen at a recent Warren event with union voters.
The ad was rotated into an earlier buy of about $760,000 that ends May 20. It will also be part of a new significant statewide buy that will go beyond Saturday. Warren has had a substantial presence on Massachusetts TV in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, she has struggled to turn the page from a weeks-long controversy about her identifying as a Native American intermittently during her professional career.
Warren will face Sen. Scott Brown (R) in a tossup race this November.
“Big banks, institutions, Wall Street — she’s not afraid of anybody,” the woman says in the ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d4RV8WH5wVg
Article 3
M.M. INTERVIEW: ELIZABETH WARREN RIPS JPM
M.M. spoke with Elizabeth Warren, consumer advocate and Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts. On her call for JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon to step down from the NY Fed board: “Jamie himself said he was sloppy and stupid. And sloppy and stupid should have consequences. He should resign from the board … because he should not be in a position of public trust. He should not be advising the New York Fed on banking policy. …The New York Fed made the decisions for the bailout of AIG and set the terms of that bailout [in which] all counter-parties got 100 cents on the dollar. Those were decisions made at the New York Fed. This is important. This is not a question of resigning a country club membership” …
By Stacy Kaper
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.
The House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday questioned the Federal Reserve Board’s ability to oversee firms that pose a systemic risk to the financial system.
The debate about whether the Fed is fit for the job comes as a few lawmakers are renewing efforts to pass legislation that would expressly order the breakup of big banks in the wake of JPMorgan Chase’s sudden $2 billion loss.
“Does Dodd-Frank go far enough or should we have done more to take apart the big banks?” asked Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C.
During the panel’s Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee hearing, lawmakers aired bipartisan concern about the Dodd-Frank Act’s regime for subjecting nonbanks, like insurance companies or brokerages, to stricter oversight closer to the way banks are supervised.
A primary goal of the Dodd-Frank Act was to prevent a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown by better regulating the risks that led to the collapse and taxpayer bailout of the industry, especially of nonbanks like insurer American International Group. To that end, the law established a panel of regulators known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, whose job it is to identify risky firms, often referred to as “too big to fail” institutions, that will be brought under the purview of the Fed.
But lawmakers took turns on Wednesday peppering representatives from the Fed and Treasury Department with a series of questions regarding whether the central bank is adequately equipped to carry out this task.
“Do you have the expertise to look at the firms you are going to be looking at?” asked the panel’s chairwoman, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.
Subcommittee ranking member Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., was also worried about a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation and how it might not be as effective as if regulators modified standards to suit specific companies’ business nature, noting that “insurance companies are very different.” Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., picked up on the same thread, pointing out that asset managers do not invest their own balance sheets, but rather client funds.
Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., pressed the point, prompting the Fed’s witness, Michael Gibson, the director of its division on banking supervision and regulation, to acknowledge that the Fed’s pending standards are indeed “bank-centric,” focusing on areas such as capital, liquidity, and leverage—the traditional measures of bank risk.
“Is there any recognition … that these standards don’t really appear to fit, say, asset managers or money markets or captive finance companies or insurance companies?” Bachus asked. “You can look at a bank and tell what you are going to do, but they need a lot of work on the nonbanks.”
Gibson defended the Fed, saying that it has experience from overseeing bank holding companies with other lines of business, such as insurance and asset management, and would consult with outside experts as necessary to focus its rules.
“We understand that there are some nonbank companies for which the bank-like standards that we have proposed would likely be a bad fit, and we have committed to looking at that when those companies are designated and doing what we can to tailor the standards,” he said.
Article 2
Massachusetts: Elizabeth Warren Releases New Ad
By Joshua Miller Posted at 4:03 p.m. on May 16
Elizabeth Warren, the presumptive Democratic nominee for Senate in Massachusetts, released a new ad today that continues to introduce the Harvard Law School professor and consumer advocate to voters.
“Her father was a janitor; my father was a janitor,” a woman says at the beginning of the ad.
“She’s one of us!” says a man, reflecting a sentiment seen at a recent Warren event with union voters.
The ad was rotated into an earlier buy of about $760,000 that ends May 20. It will also be part of a new significant statewide buy that will go beyond Saturday. Warren has had a substantial presence on Massachusetts TV in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, she has struggled to turn the page from a weeks-long controversy about her identifying as a Native American intermittently during her professional career.
Warren will face Sen. Scott Brown (R) in a tossup race this November.
“Big banks, institutions, Wall Street — she’s not afraid of anybody,” the woman says in the ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d4RV8WH5wVg
Article 3
M.M. INTERVIEW: ELIZABETH WARREN RIPS JPM
M.M. spoke with Elizabeth Warren, consumer advocate and Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts. On her call for JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon to step down from the NY Fed board: “Jamie himself said he was sloppy and stupid. And sloppy and stupid should have consequences. He should resign from the board … because he should not be in a position of public trust. He should not be advising the New York Fed on banking policy. …The New York Fed made the decisions for the bailout of AIG and set the terms of that bailout [in which] all counter-parties got 100 cents on the dollar. Those were decisions made at the New York Fed. This is important. This is not a question of resigning a country club membership” …
By Joshua Miller Posted at 4:03 p.m. on May 16
Elizabeth Warren, the presumptive Democratic nominee for Senate in Massachusetts, released a new ad today that continues to introduce the Harvard Law School professor and consumer advocate to voters.
“Her father was a janitor; my father was a janitor,” a woman says at the beginning of the ad.
“She’s one of us!” says a man, reflecting a sentiment seen at a recent Warren event with union voters.
The ad was rotated into an earlier buy of about $760,000 that ends May 20. It will also be part of a new significant statewide buy that will go beyond Saturday. Warren has had a substantial presence on Massachusetts TV in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, she has struggled to turn the page from a weeks-long controversy about her identifying as a Native American intermittently during her professional career.
Warren will face Sen. Scott Brown (R) in a tossup race this November.
“Big banks, institutions, Wall Street — she’s not afraid of anybody,” the woman says in the ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d4RV8WH5wVg
Article 3
M.M. INTERVIEW: ELIZABETH WARREN RIPS JPM
M.M. spoke with Elizabeth Warren, consumer advocate and Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts. On her call for JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon to step down from the NY Fed board: “Jamie himself said he was sloppy and stupid. And sloppy and stupid should have consequences. He should resign from the board … because he should not be in a position of public trust. He should not be advising the New York Fed on banking policy. …The New York Fed made the decisions for the bailout of AIG and set the terms of that bailout [in which] all counter-parties got 100 cents on the dollar. Those were decisions made at the New York Fed. This is important. This is not a question of resigning a country club membership” …
M.M. spoke with Elizabeth Warren, consumer advocate and Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts. On her call for JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon to step down from the NY Fed board: “Jamie himself said he was sloppy and stupid. And sloppy and stupid should have consequences. He should resign from the board … because he should not be in a position of public trust. He should not be advising the New York Fed on banking policy. …The New York Fed made the decisions for the bailout of AIG and set the terms of that bailout [in which] all counter-parties got 100 cents on the dollar. Those were decisions made at the New York Fed. This is important. This is not a question of resigning a country club membership” …
ON JPM AS REASON TO REINSTATE GLASS-STEGALL – Warren: “The argument for Glass-Steagall is that banking should be boring. Risk-taking should be separated from ordinary consumer banking. Banks are different from every other kind of company. They hold our money in trust and they get government guarantees. That fundamentally changes the game. The trade-off is they agree to engage in only low-risk activities. JPMorgan just showed that is not what they are doing.”
ON THE VOLCKER RULE ARGUMENT – Warren: “I find it very interesting that at first the defenders [of JPM] said ‘Well, even if the Volcker Rule were in place this would not have violated it.’ First of all, I think people would be surprised [Volcker is] not in place. And it’s not in place because of this guerilla war banks have fought against it. … But the correct response is not that [the JPM trader is] OK because it wouldn’t violate the Volcker rule. The correct response is that the Volcker Rule isn’t strong enough and we need Glass-Steagall.”
ON NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUE – Warren, on whether questions about her past claims of Native American heritage are damaging her campaign: “I just try and keep talking about the things that are important. JPMorganChase has lost at least $2 billion in a matter of weeks and Scott Brown and all of the Republicans voted to double the interest rates on student loans. I just get out there and keep talking about that.”
Article 4
Why CFPB Must Share Oversight on Consumer Policy
By Joe Adler
MAY 14, 2012 7:23pm ET
WASHINGTON — The conventional wisdom is the federal agency born out of the crisis — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — is the last word on financial consumer regulatory policy, with other more established regulators playing a supporting role.
But a growing number of experts are putting more stock in the authority older agencies kept in the Dodd-Frank Act to enforce consumer rules at small banks they supervise, and see one policy in particular — the ban on “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices” — where the prudential regulators could carry substantial weight.
“Even though it is clear today the CFPB is the leader on consumer rules, that doesn’t have to be the case for every aspect of consumer issues going forward,” said Kip Weissman, a partner at Luse, Gorman, Pomerenk & Schick.
Dodd-Frank gave the CFPB vast authority to write rules for banks and nonbanks to comply with preexisting and new consumer statutes, as well as enforcement powers over larger institutions. But the bank regulators — Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Reserve Board and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — kept authority to ensure their institutions under $10 billion in assets were in compliance with the statute and any implementing regulations.
That is still the rule of thumb under UDAAP. The law took rule-writing for the old “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” standard for banks away from the Fed — giving it to the CFPB — and also authorized the bureau to write rules around the new “abusive” standard. (The Federal Trade Commission retained rule-writing authority for certain nonfinancial companies.)
But absent a rule, some observers say, the prudential agencies have the ability to put the new standard to work if they see an institution under their watch committing an infraction.
If there is not a rule on the books, “there is an obligation for them to make sure their institutions are not violating the law,” said Michael Calhoun, president of the Center for Responsible Lending. “The CFPB has signaled that certainly in the short run they’re not going to come out with a wide range of specified unfair, deceptive and abusive rules. … Historically, the CFPB is following the tradition that how this is enforced is through enforcement in individual cases.”
In a recent American Banker interview, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said the new “abusive” standard was “pretty well-defined” in the law, and indicated that enforcement actions may be the model for how the standard is established.
“We have given some exam guidance around these concepts, and I think maybe we’ll have more to say over time. I don’t anticipate us writing a rule around UDAAP,” Cordray said. “Again, I think a lot of the law is really clear in that area, and what is maybe not clear to people because they haven’t had experience with it has been specifically defined by Congress, so that is what it is. We’ll continue to develop as we go.”
While interpretations of the law are still being debated, many believe the agencies’ surviving authorities — cast against Cordray’s remarks — give them significant authority in the UDAAP regime for institutions they supervise under the $10 billion threshold. In addition to outlining the preexisting UDAP framework, Dodd-Frank said abusive acts or practices, among other things, are those that interfere with a customer’s ability to understand terms or take advantage of someone’s lack of understanding about a product’s risk.
The other agencies “could look at whatever regulation is adopted by the bureau down the road, but there is a statute out there that defines abusive. I don’t think the bank regulators, if they see a practice that is unfair or deceptive or abusive, I don’t think they’re going to feel constrained not to use their enforcement powers,” said Michael Mierzewski, a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP. “I don’t think they have to wait.”
With the regulators still in an aggressive stance coming out of the crisis and Dodd-Frank passage, the bureau will likely set the tone for all the agencies on UDAAP and other measures. But if the CFPB does not promulgate a rule, the other regulators would have a strong device for acting in the future if the bureau became less aggressive under different political leadership.
“The whole legislative scheme envisions that new” practices subject to UDAAP “may arise in the future. At that point we may be in a different political environment with different leadership of the agencies,” said Weissman. “If in the future the bureau is headed by a less aggressive director and another banking agency is more consumer-oriented, we could see another agency take the lead.”
But even though Dodd-Frank gave some guidance about how UDAAP is defined, the path forward is still marked by uncertainty, especially since there have not been any enforcement actions in the new regime.
The industry has been most concerned about the addition of the new “abusive” standard, which some say could cover relatively benign practices, and there is additional confusion about how the three different standards — unfair, deceptive and abusive — could overlap.
“Everything about UDAAP is in flux and to the extent we’re trying to pin down clear guidance we’re going to have to be patient. It’s going to unfold over time,” said Jo Ann Barefoot, a co-chairman of Treliant Risk Advisors.
Barefoot said without an implementing rule for the new “abusive” standard, all the agencies have found the pre-Dodd-Frank UDAP authority sufficient in monitoring institutions for compliance.
“The other agencies have been aggressively enforcing UDAAP and will continue to do so. What I hear from the other regulators is the ‘abusive’ standard isn’t an essential tool, since ‘unfair and deceptive’ is covering the issue,” she said. “Over time we’ll have more clarity, but right now the regulators are taking the broad mandate under UDAAP and they’re all enforcing it, including the bureau.”
However, she added, ultimately it will be the bureau that will set the tone.
“My prediction is the bureau will dominate this issue with its enforcement actions and interpretations. It’s possible though that one of the other agencies will take a different view,” she said. “There is a lot of interagency dynamism. … But the more likely scenario is the bureau will take enforcement actions that amount to guidance for the other agencies.”
But some noted there is precedent in the old UDAP regime — which was part of the Federal Trade Commission Act — for a regulator that lacked rulemaking authority to act without there being a specific regulation. Specifically, in 2000, the OCC took action against San Francisco-based Providian Bank for allegedly deceptive credit card marketing practices. At that time, only the Fed had authority to issue FTC-related rules for banks identifying unfair and deceptive practices. (The now-defunct Office of Thrift Supervision had rulemaking authority for savings-and-loan institutions.) But no such rules existed.
In a 2004 American Banker interview, Jerry Hawke, who had been comptroller when the agency targeted Providian, said the OCC had found that even “without the benefit of a defining rule, we could bring an action and prove the facts of a particular case that the conduct was unfair or deceptive.” Though the OCC’s authority was challenged somewhat at the time, the agency got backing in a written opinion from then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.
“When Providian came out, there were those including some at the FTC who thought the OCC didn’t have authority to enforce section 5 of the FTC Act because the Federal Reserve Board had not promulgated implementing regulations. … But Jerry Hawke as comptroller wasn’t afraid to flex his muscles even in the absence of Fed regulations,” said Mierzewski. “Just as the regulators had interpreted section 5 of the FTC act, I think they’re going to feel they have the authority to interpret the new abusive standard if they see a practice that satisfies the elements of the statutory language.”
Yet industry representatives are hoping for a common approach by the agencies so enforcement is consistent across different charter types.
“Right now we’re not seeing any real regulatory activity involving the new ‘abusive’ area. It’s one which the bankers would rather have some upfront, explicit guidance about where future application might occur, rather than see it cited out of the blue in a gotcha approach during an exam,” said Richard Riese, senior vice president for the American Bankers Association’s Center for Regulatory Compliance.
“The way the statue is written it appears a bank could receive an enforcement action or a supervisory criticism under the new abusive standard without a new rule being written. From an industry perspective, we believe clarity around the new UDAAP standards should be an interagency development.”
Elizabeth Eurgubian, vice president and regulatory counsel for the Independent Community Bankers of America, agreed. “Consistent application across all of the regulatory agencies, including the CFPB” is important, she said.
Article 5
CFPB Confidentiality Bill Runs into a One-Man Roadblock
By Kevin Wack
MAY 15, 2012 5:33pm ET
Despite strong bipartisan support, a bill that would provide banks greater assurance of confidentiality when they provide information to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remains mired in the Senate.
Exactly why is hard to unravel, but most industry representatives point to Sen. Bob Corker as the chief roadblock. The Tennessee Republican acknowledged in an interview this week that he is blocking the bill’s enactment even though he supports the idea behind the legislation.
“We understand that’s a problem in giving up confidential information, and we’d like to see a fix,” Corker said Tuesday.
According to Senate rules, a single senator can hold up legislation through a maneuver known as a hold, which required 60 votes and precious time on the Senate calendar to overcome.
Corker argued his delay wasn’t technically a “hold” but instead a desire to attach the bill to a larger package of technical fixes to the Dodd-Frank Act.
“I think it’d be too strong to say we have a hold on that right now,” Corker said. “We would like to see some other things — again that are technical in nature and have bipartisan support — fixed also.”
Both Corker and industry representatives said the Tennessee Republican is not the only lawmaker to hold up the measure, but he is believed to be the key obstacle.
Still, several industry observers worry that Corker’s gambit has the potential to derail what they see as a small but meaningful correction in federal law.
In addition to having near-unanimous support on Capitol Hill, the House-passed bill also has the endorsement of the CFPB.
The bill would address banks’ concern that under current law, if they share information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege with the CFPB, that action could later be construed by a court as a waiver of the privilege, which could result in the bank having to turn the information over to other parties in litigation.
The problem with Corker’s attempt to pass the measure as part of a package of fixes to Dodd-Frank, industry representatives say, is that there is no consensus in Congress about what constitutes a technical fix to the 2010 reform law.
Corker did suggest in Tuesday’s interview that he has not dug in his heels too deeply regarding the House-passed bill.
“We understand we may get to a point where there’s no other avenue but to let this go through,” he said.
In the meantime, a separate, broader legislative proposal has been circulating in the House Financial Services Committee.
This second legislative proposal, a copy of which was obtained by American Banker, would broaden the protections provided to financial institutions when they share privileged information with the CFPB.
The second bill would offer protection to financial institutions with regard to information they provide to the CFPB and the bureau in turn shares with a state regulator.
The proposal would appear to benefit non-bank lenders, such as mortgage brokers, which have reason to expect that the CFPB will be sharing examination information with their state regulators.
In a recent letter to the leaders of the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee, the American Financial Services Association, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers and other groups that represent non-bank lenders expressed support for broadening the language in the bill already passed by the House.
“Our goal is to provide parity among examined companies of all types,” the groups wrote, “and we do not seek to advantage any type of creditor.”
Within banking industry circles, reaction was split on whether the broader legislative language being circulated in the House is a positive development.
Christopher Willis, a lawyer at Ballard Spahr, said that the new legislative language would address a problem with the House-passed bill – that it leaves unresolved the status of documents that the CFPB shares with the states.
“I’ve referred to the legislation that’s come through the House as a partial fix,” he said.
But others cautioned that broadening the legislation is a risky move that could jeopardize the support of the CFPB and Democrats in Congress.
One former Hill staffer was critical of Corker in the context of the changes being contemplated in the House, saying: “I think it does show that the delay is going to have untold consequences, which is unfortunate for the core bill, which needs to be streamlined in order to get through the Senate.”
Other bank industry officials expressed greater patience with the Tennessee Republican.
“Sometimes a meal takes a little bit longer to cook than you anticipate,” said James Ballentine, executive vice president of congressional relations at the American Bankers Association, adding that he would like to get the bill passed before the end of the year. “Time is certainly slipping through our fingers quickly.”
Paul Merski, executive vice president and chief economist at the Independent Community Bankers of America, also declined to criticize Corker.
“I don’t have any concerns with a senator using his Senate powers to bring attention to his other concerns. That’s part of the Senate process,” Merski said. “It’s a very deliberative body.”
Article 6
Web Seminar:
CFPB Examination Guidelines (or How to Avoid Being Fined $1M a Day)
DATE: Thursday, June 28, 2012
TIME: 3:00 PM ET
COST: $99 | DURATION: 75 Minutes
________________________________________
On January 4th, 2012, the CFPB launched the first nonbank federal supervision program under the authority of section 1024 of Dodd-Frank. The message was clear: Nonbanks mortgage lenders would be subject to the same enforcement traditionally reserved for bank lending divisions.
Making the right preparations will save your fines and penalties of up to $1 million per violation per day.
Don’t miss this fact-filled CFPB Examination Guidelines Web Seminar that will bring recommended actions, practices and policies for your company including:
What kind of staffing will you need
Hot-button issues to prepare for to be ready
New reporting systems and what you’ll need to know
What they will look for to see if you engage in “abusive practices”
What they will look for to see if your business creates disparate impact, no matter how unintentional
Is it true that the fines can be $1 million per day per violation?
What do you do if lawyers from the CFPB show up at the examination?
Will I be able to appeal any fines, penalties or findings?
REGISTER NOW!
Not able to attend? Forward information on this Web seminar to your colleagues.
Host:
Mark Fogarty, Editor, National Mortgage News
Mark Fogarty is editorial director of the Mortgage Group for SourceMedia. He has been associated with the mortgage publications, which include National Mortgage News, Origination News, Mortgage Servicing News, Mortgage Technology, and related websites, since 1984.
Featured Speakers:
Joseph Garrett, Principal, Garrett, McAuley & Co.
Joe Garrett advises banks, mortgage banking companies and one GSE in the areas of risk management and related issues. He has been the President/CEO of two banks and currently sits on the Board of a $1 billion commercial bank.
G. Bradley Hargrave, Shareholder, Medlin & Hargrave
Brad is a Shareholder of the Medlin & Hargrave. His practice is devoted to the representation of mortgage bankers, finance lenders and mortgage loan originators. Brad has extensive experience advising clients on compliance and licensing issues under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act, the California Finance Lenders law, HUD/FHA rules and California’s Real Estate Law.
Who Should Attend:
• Mortgage brokers and lenders
• Other industry professionals involved in origination
Senior Associate | Watts Partners
600 13th St. NW | Suite 790
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-207-2854 (o) | 202-207-2853 (f)
202-716-3361 (m)
JJackson@jcwatts.com
