I was the one that posted the question in the post you refered to. We posed the question to an individual who performs compliance consulting and below is the answer we received, which basically is "depends on regulator and how they interpret". Got to love all the gray areas!!! I miss those days when you could rely on what was in print.
"I wish this was an easy question to ask, but it really depends upon the examining agencies and, without sound silly, when and how a bank asks the question. Briefly, here's the problem: a renewal versus a refinancing.
There's no question that if a bank is refinancing a balloon on a consumer RE note, the HPML spread must be verified to determine if the refinance will be a HPML. But, since by definition, a renewal usually involves an extension-type agreement and technically, the original note/obligation is not being replaced - regulation Z disclosures/provisions are not applicable. However, at a convention a few months ago that I attended, representatives from several of the examining agencies (not all of them, however) said that if the renewal rate is going to go up - then the spread from the APOR to the new renewal rate must be verified for HPML purposes. In my little, non-legal opinion, I think this is ridiculous. But, I'm not the one regulating banks.
My suggestion to you is to possibly review your question with your regulator. With the agencies issuing all kinds of opinions lately (look at the FDIC Overdraft Guidance) that are not the same between all the agencies, this is one example of a very gray overall scenario. I don't believe there would be any question that the HPML provision would not need to be reviewed if the renewal rate is going to be the same or even being lowered from the original note rate; I just don't know for sure what we need to do if the renewal rate is going to be higher than the original note rate.
Sorry for the grayness, but isn't that the wonderful part of compliance!!??!!?!?!?"