Thread Options
|
#1952628 - 08/13/14 05:38 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
GTS333
|
10K Club
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 21,293
|
And lastly, campers and RVs used as residences would be excluded. The full commentary statement:
"2. Exclusions. Recreational vehicles, including boats, campers, travel trailers, and park model recreational vehicles, are not considered dwellings for purposes of § 1003.2(f), regardless of whether they are used as residences. Houseboats, floating homes, and mobile homes constructed before June 15, 1976, are also excluded, regardless of whether they are used as residences. Also excluded are transitory residences such as hotels, hospitals, and college dormitories, and structures originally designed as dwellings but used exclusively for commercial purposes such as homes converted to daycare facilities or professional offices."
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1952743 - 08/13/14 07:54 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
Kathleen O. Blanchard
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 914
|
[i]The proposal also is recommending some additional slicing and dicing of reporting on manufactured homes. Reporting entities would be asked to identify if a manufactured home is treated as real or personal property and whether it is on owned or leased land.[/i]
Would the above additional information have to be reported on all applications- even those that do not close? For those that get denied, or do not close-would you know that information?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1955511 - 08/20/14 09:30 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
GTS333
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 18,765
Central City, NE
|
Here's my analysis of the COVERAGE. I’m only concentrating on the coverage (what’s a covered loan and what’s exempt from reporting at this time) of the proposal. I'm also approaching this for bankers (not brokers) as they are our clients. I will begin to read the data reported next.
Please read my comments and let me know if you disagree or if I'm missing any thing important. Thanks!
Who must report: Any financial institution that makes 25 closed-end, dwelling secured loans is to report. You don’t count HELOC’s in this test. No change to the requirement of having an office in a MSA and assets in excess of an annually threshold.
What do you report: All applications for a “Covered Loan” (Closed-end & Open-end HELOC’s secured by a lien on a dwelling). • This means home equity loans, not used for home improvement purposes, are reported. • HELOC’s, as defined in Reg Z are reported. [§1003.2(o) – page 461] o Includes business lines too (“without regard to whether the credit is for personal . . . purposes, without regard to whether the person to whom credit is extended is a consumer”). o Therefore, ALL business LOCs secured by a dwelling are reported. • Unsecured Home Improvement loans that are classified as “home improvement” are no longer reported. The loan must be secured by a lien on a dwelling. (non-dwelling secured loans and classification issues are gone) • A mobile home without land is still reported. • Home improvement is not “majority wins”. If any % is for HI, the entire loan amount is reported. • If a loan is for HI to a mixed used property, report IF the proceeds are used primarily to improve the residential portion. [Commentary to §1003.2(i)#4 – page 517] • Therefore, if you have a dwelling as collateral, it’s probably being reported. If you don’t have a dwelling as collateral, it is never reported. • All agricultural purpose loans are exempt [1003.3(c)(9) – page 462] o What about Ag LOC’s secured by a dwelling. Does the HELOC inclusion “win” or does the “ag purpose exclusion “win”? o What about those that are refinanced? Does the ag exemption trump the refinance definition?
Dwelling [§1003.2(f)]: Any place where someone dwells (vacation, rental, multifamily). Dwelling does not include: • Recreational vehicles, boats, campers, travel trailers and park model recreational vehicles. [Commentary to §1003.2(f)#2 (page 513)] • Transitory residences (hotels, hospitals, dorms)
Mixed used property [Commentary to §1003.2(f)#3 – page 513] = determine the primary use. You can use any reasonable standard and apply it on a case-by-case basis.
Refinancing: [§1003.2(p)] The definition of “refinancing” is cleaned up a little. • I’d like to see clarification of when 2 loans are needed to replace 1 loan. Is either a refinancing? • There’s clarification of “same borrower” in the commentary: Only 1 borrower must be the same on both the old and new loan. [Commentary to §1003.2(p)#3 – page 520] (I don't this is a change but a clarification and can be used under the current HMDA rules before this proposal is finalized and in place)
What do you not report [1003.3(c)]: Unimproved land; Temporary financing Loans < $500 Loans used primarily for agricultural purposes (but what about a refinancing of these?)
Preapproval & Prequalification [§1003.2(b)(2)]: I don’t see any differences in the new definitions from the old. There’s clarification that a bank can do preapprovals on an ad hoc basis and not have a preapproval program. In other words, an occasional preapproval does not get reported [Commentary to §1003.2(b)#3 on page 512]. What’s occasional? (I don't this is a change but a clarification and can be used under the current HMDA rules before this proposal is finalized and in place)
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1955548 - 08/21/14 11:22 AM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
GTS333
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 79
FL
|
I did not see anything in the proposed rules/commentary as to what data fields would be required or answered NA for denied, withdrawn and cancelled applications.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1956629 - 08/25/14 04:45 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
Kathleen O. Blanchard
|
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 17,410
|
From the ABA Staff Commentary out Friday comes this: To help alleviate burden, filers would no longer have to provide copies of their HMDA-LAR but would be able to refer requesters to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) website to obtain copies of disclosure statements. I've gotten two requests in the last ten years. Pardon me, CFPB, but you can keep your bone. This is not going to touch the additional burden you're lining up for me.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1962163 - 09/16/14 02:39 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
Kathleen O. Blanchard
|
Gold Star
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 270
State of Confusion
|
Okay... so if I have a manufactured home, built prior to June 1976 (no HUD plate), I do not have a covered loan? Even though it's dwelling secured.
Oh my.......
_________________________
Waiter, there's too much pepper in my paprikash
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1964637 - 09/25/14 03:52 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
Kathleen O. Blanchard
|
Gold Star
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 335
The South
|
Unsecured Home Improvement loans that are classified as “home improvement” are no longer reported. The loan must be secured by a lien on a dwelling. (non-dwelling secured loans and classification issues are gone)
I am particularly HAPPY about this. Last year HMDA Help and FDIC indicated if the loan purpose was stated on the application as home imrovement this 'classified' the loan on the books even though unsecured. Many in these forums indicated they did not report these types of loans and several others indicated they did report unsecured HIL's even though not classified as such.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1964815 - 09/25/14 07:50 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
SouthoftheBorder
|
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,729
Florida
|
[quote]Unsecured Home Improvement loans that are classified as “home improvement” are no longer reported. The loan must be secured by a lien on a dwelling. (non-dwelling secured loans and classification issues are gone)
Great for fair lending. In a comparative file review (where policy was no bankruptcies within 3 years) regulators matched $10,000 home improvement loans: denied was to a protected class who was renting (therefore unsecured) and approved was to a control group applicant who pledged $20,000 in CD's (CD exception to bankruptcy was in policy) We were required to explain the differences why both HIP loans had different outcome.
_________________________
Integrity. With it, nothing else matters. Without it, nothing else matters.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1964836 - 09/25/14 08:25 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
GTS333
|
Power Poster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,232
OK
|
"Last year HMDA Help and FDIC indicated if the loan purpose was stated on the application as home imrovement this 'classified' the loan on the books even though unsecured..."
I'd love to know how home improvement being stated on the application equates to the bank 'classifying' the loan as HI on its books.
Last edited by raitchjay; 09/25/14 08:28 PM.
_________________________
I'm fixin' to fix that.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1967104 - 10/06/14 02:02 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
GTS333
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
The question above about what to use if a primary MLO hasn't been identified for the loan being reported isn't answered by the provision allowing for "NA" if the MLO doesn't have an NMLS ID.
And just an observation: In some higher volume lending organizations, it may be the underwriter that has the most influence over the fate of the application, not the MLO.
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1967266 - 10/06/14 07:44 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
Kathleen O. Blanchard
|
Gold Star
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 345
Northeast
|
So, just to make sure I understand...
we are not in a MSA but do make more than the 25 loan threshold. Would be have to start reporting?
_________________________
Just trying to swim in the compliance world.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1967389 - 10/06/14 11:01 PM
Re: CFPB Proposed Rule amending Regulation C/HMDA
GTS333
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Idaho
|
The MSA test is still included in the coverage test, so no you would not have to start reporting.
_________________________
All opinions are my own, not my employer's
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|