Onity Group (ONIT) Risk Analysis

The closing of our transaction with Finance of America Reverse LLC ("FAR") is dependent upon regulatory approval. Until the transaction closes, we will be unable to utilize in our operations the expected net proceeds, and our liquidity and operations may be negatively impacted. In addition, our reverse originations production may be impacted in the pre-closing period as potential counterparties await additional certainty. If we must abandon the transaction because it fails to receive regulatory approval, we may not be able to stabilize reverse originations volume at pre-announcement levels and we may face difficulty attracting or retaining highly qualified personnel in our reverse originations business. In addition, our inability to close the transaction may raise concerns for potential clients, business partners, and future potential strategic transaction partners and we may have difficulties executing on our business plan and key initiatives.

We are subject to a number of ongoing federal and state regulatory examinations, consent orders, inquiries, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, requests for information and other actions that could result in further adverse regulatory action against us, including certain matters summarized below. See Note 25 - Regulatory Requirements and Note 27 - Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Our business is subject to extensive regulation by federal, state, local and foreign governmental authorities, including the CFPB, HUD, the SEC and various state agencies that license and conduct examinations of our servicing and lending activities. In addition, we operate under a number of regulatory settlements that subject us to ongoing reporting and other obligations. See the next risk factor below for additional detail concerning these regulatory settlements. From time to time, we also receive requests (including requests in the form of subpoenas and civil investigative demands) from federal, state and local agencies for records, documents and information relating to our servicing and lending activities. The GSEs, Ginnie Mae, the United States Treasury Department, various investors, non-Agency securitization trustees and others also subject us to periodic reviews and audits. We must devote substantial resources to regulatory compliance, and we incurred, and expect to continue to incur, significant ongoing costs to comply with new and existing laws and governmental regulation of our business. If we fail to effectively manage our regulatory and contractual compliance, the resources we are required to devote and our compliance expenses would likely increase. Any significant delay or complication in fulfilling our regulatory commitments and resolving remaining legacy matters may jeopardize our ability to return to sustainable profitability. We must comply with a large number of federal, state and local consumer protection and other laws and regulations including, among others, the CARES Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, the TCPA, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the FDCPA, RESPA, TILA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as individual state laws pertaining to licensing, general mortgage origination and servicing practices and foreclosure and federal and local bankruptcy rules. These laws and regulations apply to all facets of our business, including, but not limited to, licensing, loan originations, consumer disclosures, default servicing and collections, foreclosure, filing of claims, registration of vacant or foreclosed properties, handling of escrow accounts, payment application, interest rate adjustments, assessment of fees, loss mitigation, use of credit reports, handling of unclaimed property, safeguarding of non-public personally identifiable information about our customers, and the ability of our employees to work remotely. These complex requirements can and do change as laws and regulations are enacted, promulgated, amended, interpreted and enforced. In addition, we must maintain an effective corporate governance and compliance management system. See "Business - Regulation" for additional information regarding our regulators and the laws that apply to us. We must structure and operate our business to comply with applicable laws and regulations and the terms of our remaining regulatory settlements. This can require judgment with respect to the requirements of such laws and regulations and such settlements. While we endeavor to engage proactively with our regulators in an effort to ensure we do so correctly, if we fail to interpret correctly the requirements of such laws and regulations or the terms of our regulatory settlements, we could be found to be in breach of such laws, regulations or settlements. Failure or alleged failure to comply with the terms of our remaining regulatory settlements or applicable federal, state and local consumer protection laws, regulations and licensing requirements could lead to any of the following: - administrative fines and penalties and litigation;- loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses;- governmental investigations and enforcement actions;- civil and criminal liability, including class action lawsuits and actions to recover incentive and other payments made by governmental entities;- breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements;- damage to our reputation;- inability to raise capital or otherwise secure the necessary financing to operate the business and refinance maturing liabilities;- changes to our operations that may otherwise not occur in the normal course, and that could cause us to incur significant costs; or - inability to execute our business strategy. Any of these outcomes could materially and adversely affect our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. In recent years, the general trend among federal, state and local legislative bodies and regulatory agencies as well as state attorneys general has been toward increasing laws, regulations, investigative proceedings and enforcement actions with regard to residential mortgage lenders and servicers. The CFPB historically has taken a very active role in the mortgage industry, and its rule-making and regulatory agenda relating to loan servicing and origination continues to evolve. Individual states have also been active, as have other regulatory organizations such as the MMC, a multistate coalition of various mortgage banking regulators. In addition to their traditional focus on licensing and examination matters, certain regulators make observations, recommendations or demands with respect to areas such as corporate governance, safety and soundness, and risk and compliance management. We must endeavor to work cooperatively with our regulators to understand all their concerns if we are to be successful in our business. The CFPB and state regulators have also historically focused on the use, and adequacy, of technology in the mortgage servicing industry, privacy concerns and other topical issues, such as communications from debt collectors and the ability of borrowers to repay mortgage loans, including in relation to the government shutdown. See below as well as Business - Regulation for additional information regarding the rules, regulations and legislative developments most pertinent to our operations. Presently, a level of heightened uncertainty exists with respect to the future of regulation of mortgage lending and servicing. We cannot predict the specific legislative or executive actions that may result or what actions federal or state regulators might take in response to potential changes to the federal regulatory environment generally. Such actions could impact the industry generally or us specifically, could impact our relationships with other regulators, and could adversely impact our business. New regulatory and legislative measures, or changes in enforcement practices, including those related to the technology we use, could, either individually or in the aggregate, require significant changes to our business practices, impose additional costs on us, limit our product offerings, limit our ability to efficiently pursue business opportunities, negatively impact asset values or reduce our revenues. Accordingly, they could materially and adversely affect our business and our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (the S.A.F.E. Act) requires the individual licensing and registration of those engaged in the business of loan origination. The S.A.F.E. Act is designed to improve accountability on the part of loan originators, combat fraud and enhance consumer protections by encouraging states to establish a national licensing system and minimum qualification requirements for applicants. Thus, Onity must ensure proper licensing for all employees who participate in certain specified loan origination activities. Failure to comply with the S.A.F.E. Act licensing requirements could adversely impact Onity's origination business.

As a business with a global workforce, we need to ensure that our activities, including those of our foreign operations, comply with applicable U.S. and foreign laws and regulations. Various states have implemented regulations which specifically restrict the ability to perform certain servicing and originations functions offshore and, from time to time, various state regulators have scrutinized the operations of our foreign subsidiaries. Our failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could, among other things, result in restrictions on our operations, loss of licenses, fines, penalties or reputational damage and have an adverse effect on our business.

We must comply with FHA underwriting guidelines in order to successfully originate FHA loans. If we fail to do so, we may not be able collect on FHA insurance. In addition, we could be subject to allegations of violations of the False Claims Act asserting that we submitted claims for FHA insurance on loans that had not been underwritten in accordance with FHA underwriting guidelines. If we are found to have violated FHA underwriting guidelines, we could face regulatory penalties and damages in litigation, suffer reputational damage, and we could incur losses due to an inability to collect on such insurance, any of which could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Various federal, state and local laws have been enacted that are designed to discourage predatory lending and servicing practices. The federal Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in residential loans that have mortgage rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain additional disclosures prior to origination. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases impose restrictions and requirements greater than are those in HOEPA. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain residential loans, including loans that are not classified as "high cost" loans under HOEPA or other applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefits test with respect to the related borrower. A failure by us to comply with these laws, to the extent we originate, service or acquire residential loans that are non-compliant with HOEPA or other predatory lending or servicing laws, could subject us, as an originator or a servicer, or as an assignee, in the case of acquired loans, to monetary penalties and could result in the borrowers rescinding the affected loans. Lawsuits have been brought in various states making claims against originators, servicers and assignees of high cost loans for violations of state law. Named defendants in these cases have included numerous participants within the secondary mortgage market. If we are found to have violated predatory or abusive lending laws, defaults could be declared under our debt or servicing agreements, we could suffer reputational damage, and we could incur losses, any of which could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The reverse mortgage industry is largely dependent upon rules and regulations implemented by HUD, FHA and Ginnie Mae. There can be no guarantee that HUD/FHA will retain Congressional authorization to continue the HECM program, which provides FHA government insurance for qualifying HECM loans, or that they will not make material changes to the laws, regulations, rules or practices applicable to reverse mortgage programs. For example, HUD previously implemented certain lending limits for the HECM program, and added credit-based underwriting criteria designed to assess a borrower's ability and willingness to satisfy future tax and insurance obligations. In addition, Ginnie Mae's participation in the reverse mortgage industry may be subject to economic and political changes that cannot be predicted. Any of the aforementioned circumstances could materially and adversely affect the performance of our reverse mortgage business and the value of our common stock. Regulators continue to be active in the reverse mortgage space, including due to the perceived susceptibility of older borrowers to be influenced by deceptive or misleading marketing activities. Regulators have also focused on appraisal practices because reverse mortgages are largely dependent on collateral valuation. If we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations relating to the origination of reverse mortgages, we could be subject to adverse regulatory actions, including potential fines, penalties or sanctions, and our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

HMDA requires financial institutions to report certain mortgage data in an effort to provide the regulators and the public with information that will help show whether financial institutions are serving the housing credit needs of the neighborhoods and communities in which they are located. The data points include information related to the loan applicant/borrower (e.g., age, ethnicity, race and credit score), the underwriting process, loan terms and fees, lender credits and interest rate, among others. The scope of the information available to the public could increase fair lending regulatory scrutiny and third-party plaintiff litigation, as the changes will expand the ability of regulators and third parties to compare a particular lender to its peers in an effort to determine differences among lenders in certain demographic borrower populations. We have devoted, and continue to devote, significant resources to establishing and maintaining systems and processes for complying with HMDA on an ongoing basis. If we are not successful in capturing and reporting the new HMDA data, and analyzing and correcting any adverse patterns, we could be exposed to regulatory actions and private litigation against us, we could suffer reputational damage and we could incur losses, any of which could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The TRID rules include requirements relating to consumer facing disclosure and waiting periods to allow consumers to reconsider committing to loans after receiving required disclosures. If we fail to comply with the TRID rules, we may be unable to sell loans that we originate or purchase, or we may be required to sell such loans at a discount compared to other loans. We also could be subject to repurchase or indemnification claims from purchasers of such loans, including the GSEs. Additionally, loans might stay on our warehouse lines for longer periods before sale, which would increase our liquidity needs, holding costs and interest expense. We could also be subject to regulatory actions or private lawsuits. In response to the TRID rules, we have implemented significant modifications and enhancements to our loan production processes and systems, and we continue to devote significant resources to TRID compliance. As regulatory guidance and enforcement and the views of the GSEs and other market participants such as warehouse loan lenders evolve, we may need to modify further our loan production processes and systems in order to adjust to evolution in the regulatory landscape and successfully operate our lending business. In such circumstances, if we are unable to make the necessary adjustments, our business and operations could be adversely affected and we may not be able to execute on our plans to grow our lending business.

When a mortgage loan that we service is in foreclosure, we are generally required to continue to advance delinquent principal and interest to the securitization trust and to make advances for delinquent taxes and insurance and foreclosure costs and the upkeep of vacant property in foreclosure to the extent that we determine that such amounts are recoverable. These servicing advances are generally recovered when the delinquency is resolved or upon liquidation. Regulatory actions that lengthen the foreclosure process will increase the amount of servicing advances that we are required to make, lengthen the time it takes for us to be reimbursed for such advances and increase the costs incurred during the foreclosure process. Increased regulatory scrutiny and new laws and procedures could cause us to adopt additional compliance measures and incur additional compliance costs in connection with our foreclosure processes. We may incur legal and other costs responding to regulatory inquiries or any allegation that we improperly foreclosed on a borrower. We could also suffer reputational damage and could be fined or otherwise penalized if we are found to have breached regulatory requirements.

Most of our servicing agreements and debt agreements contain provisions requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. While the specific language in these agreements takes many forms and materiality qualifiers are often present, if we fail to comply with applicable laws and regulations, we could be terminated as a servicer and defaults could be triggered under our debt agreements, which could materially and adversely affect our revenues, cash flows, liquidity, business and financial condition. We could also suffer reputational damage and trustees, lenders and other counterparties could cease wanting to do business with us.

We are subject to various pending private legal proceedings, including purported class actions, challenging whether certain of our loan servicing practices and other aspects of our business comply with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. For example, we are currently a defendant in various matters alleging that (1) certain fees imposed on borrowers relating to payment processing, payment facilitation, or payment convenience violate state laws similar to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (2) certain fees we assess on borrowers are marked up improperly in violation of applicable state and federal law, (3) we breached fiduciary duties we purportedly owe to benefit plans due to the discretion we exercise in servicing certain securitized mortgage loans, (4) certain legacy mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA, (5) we failed to subservice loans appropriately pursuant to subservicing and other agreements, (6) we violated the False Claims Act related to our participation in the Home Affordable Modification Program, and (7) we originated and sold loans to counterparties that were not underwritten in accordance with applicable guidelines. In the future, we are likely to become subject to other private legal proceedings alleging failures to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including putative class actions, in the ordinary course of our business. While we do not currently believe that the resolution of the vast majority of the legal proceedings we face will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations, we cannot express a view with respect to all of these proceedings. The outcome of any pending legal matter is never certain, and it is possible that adverse results in private legal proceedings could materially and adversely affect our financial results and operations. We have paid significant amounts to settle private legal proceedings in recent periods and paid significant amounts in legal and other costs in connection with defending ourselves in such proceedings. To the extent we are unable to avoid such costs in future periods, our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected.

Regulatory examinations by state and federal regulators are part of our ordinary course business activities. If we are unable to respond effectively to regulatory examinations, our business and financial conditions may be adversely affected. In addition, we receive various escalated borrower complaints and inquiries from our state and federal regulators and state Attorneys General and are required to respond within the time periods prescribed by such entities. If we fail to respond effectively and timely to regulatory examinations and escalations, legal action could be taken against us by such regulators and, as a result, we may incur fines or penalties or we could lose the licenses and approvals necessary to engage in our servicing and lending businesses. We could also suffer from reputational harm and become subject to private litigation.

Our servicing portfolio naturally decreases over time as homeowners make regularly scheduled mortgage payments, prepay loans prior to maturity, refinance with a mortgage loan not serviced by us or involuntarily liquidate through foreclosure or other liquidation process. Our ability to maintain or grow the size of our servicing portfolio depends on our ability to acquire the right to service or subservice additional pools of mortgage loans or to originate additional loans for which we retain the MSRs. Historically, our regulatory settlements significantly impacted our ability to maintain or grow our servicing portfolio because we agreed to certain restrictions that effectively prohibited future bulk acquisitions of residential servicing. While the majority of these restrictions have been eased in connection with our resolution of state regulatory matters and acquisition of PHH Corporation, we are still restricted in our ability to grow our portfolio under the terms of our agreements with the NY DFS. If we are unable to satisfy the conditions of the regulatory commitments we made to these and other regulators, or if a future regulatory settlement restricts our ability to acquire MSRs, we will be unable to grow or even maintain the size of our servicing portfolio through acquisitions and our business could be materially and adversely affected. Moreover, even when regulatory restrictions are lifted, the reputational damage done by these actions may inhibit our ability to acquire new business.