I just visited HUD's web site and saw a press release that announces that HUD has issued a final rule to amend Regulation X (RESPA). Here's a link to the news release. http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr08-175.cfm

I don't see a link yet to the rule. They include a link to the new GFE form and the new HUD-1 form. The use of the new forms will not be required until January 1, 2010.

Ugh! Thanks for the heads up. I had heard about a week ago that they were planning on having it out before the end of the year. We were truly hoping they would go back to the drawing board and work more closely with Fed. Res. At least we have a while before implementation of the new forms.

A new acronym for RESPA - UGLY

Funny how the new HUD has 5 lines that refer to GFE #3 and the new GFE has only 3 lines available for #3. I'm sure that once I read the final rule I will be wishing that this was the only issue...

Its still going to be contradictory to the Early TIL and will most likely result in customer confusion. Why don't these guys ever listen?

HUD spelled backwards is still.....

HUD posted links to a 341 page final rule and a 571 page regulatory impact analysis document on the following web page.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/res/respa_hm.cfm

They also posted a link to the new HUD-1A form.

For those of you who attended the Conference in Vegas.

Looks like the predictions made about this coming out after the election weren't as far fetched as some thought.

Hope they get the proposal out soon. This is just another of the changes for us to be concerned with in the upcoming year.

Looks like another year of job security!!!

Well, we should have really good job security with the democrats in power - they usually pass a number of consumer protection regs and with everything that's been going on I fear we are in for a wild ride! Republicans pass regs too, but theirs are concerned with BSA/AML, saftey soundness types of issues.

I heard that the rule is supposed to be published tomorrow.

Reads Regs published the link - Thank you so much! I've already printed out the 341 pages to combat my insomnia this weekend! Some items are to be in place by 1-16-09 while the remainder must be in place by jan. 2010. Gotta figure out what comes first!

In a news conference, HUD officials conceded they lack legal authority to penalize violators of the rule. Legislation would be required to give HUD those powers. But they said state and federal regulators of lenders and brokers can insist on compliance with federal rules and that the threat of class-action suits may keep lenders in line.

Can someone explain this one(from a Wall Street Journal article)? So we will wait for the rule to be published and then wait for the regulators to say "yup it must be done" or the threat of a class action law suit?

As usual...clear as MUD which rhymes with....

Exactly! Despite the industry's opposition HUD proceeds to implement its poorly drawn amendments to RESPA. Despite the fact that nothing has happened to RESPA since 2002, why would the administration be in such a hurry to get this done NOW!! Someone recently said that the banking industry will be burdened with a host of new rules and regulations, no doubt, but what should be considered is "smart regulation" not mere quantity. Its hard to find any support for this action by any one except the squeeky wheel activists. This may change with the incoming administration, for the better or worse. We'll have to wait and see.

Lovely, just lovely!!!! Job security for sure, between this and the gosh darn Red Flags I just might work long enough for my 401K to build back up so I can actually retire some day. Looks like I have some reading to do.

I think they are referring to the fact that section 19 of RESPA doesn't grant HUD enforcement authority. Section 10(c) permits HUD to assess civil money penalties regarding failure to provide certain escrow disclosures. The Federal banking agencies can take action under the provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that outline the FIRREA penalties.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Did anyone bother to look at the regulatory impact of this rule. One-time costs of almost $600 million and recurring costs of almost $1 billion to the financial industry.

"Costs of the Rule
Chapter 6 examines the compliance and other costs associated with the new GFE form and its tolerances. Additional costs could arise from the new GFE and changes to the HUD-1. The total one-time compliance costs to the lending and settlement industry of the GFE and HUD-1 are estimated to be $571 million, $407 million of which is borne by small business. Total recurring costs, in the high-cost scenario, are estimated to be $918 million annually or $73.40 per loan. The share of the recurring costs on small business is $471 million. For a more detailed discussion of these recurring costs, as well an analysis of one-time adjustment costs, the reader is referred to Chapter 6.."

And take a look at the cost benefits. Do they think that people are suddenly going to actual read these things and shop around??? The general public has never done that before.

Cost benefits:

In the base case, the estimated price reduction to borrowers comes to $8.35 billion annually, or 12.5 percent of the $66.7 billion in total charges (i.e., origination fees, appraisal, credit report, tax service and flood certificate and title insurance and settlement agent charges).6 Thus, there is an estimated $8.35 billion in transfers from firms to borrowers from the improved disclosures and tolerances of the new GFE.


So, I guess we now know what the first $10 Billion dollars of the bailout bill is going to cover. Someone is going to kill this thing long before it goes into effect.

Guess I should have started with the impact report.

Randy, we can only hope that you are right.

Its absoultely amazing that our leaders still do not have a clue that they are the problem. Ineffective overly burdensome regulations and inept leadership. Talk about the costs, what happens if these rules are implemented and the tremor effect is that there are fewer participants and even fewer applicants, the costs are exacerbated further when capital is at such a premium. This is not "smart regulation", but regulation for the sake of regulation without consideration of consequences to either the public or the companies affected.

(There are no leaders, just blind followers. Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of anyone else, but they should be.)

The final rule was published in today's Federal Register. It is 86 pages.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-27070.pdf

Oh please Lord, PLEASE let Randy be a Prophet !!!

Didn't I see something from either Fed Chairman or Treasury, just 2 days before the HUD Announcement, that asked them to not come out with this as Final ???