Truffle is right. As the CFPB hasn't given us anything clear and there is a discrepancy between Appendix B and the FIG, there seems to be two camps on this right now.

Camp 1 follows the FIG and says essentially what Likes to Comply said: that the FIG does not list "not seen in person" as a reason to use NA.

Camp 2 looks at Appendix B and essentially says what Truffle stated: That you don't have to make a visual observation if the application was not taken in person, which translates to reporting NA.

Personally, I have been in Camp 2 and have debated this on other threads, but also fully know that a) some vendors will force a hand into Camp 1 and b) the CFPB could end up clarifying this at a later time.

At the end of the day, this topic is a gray area due to the discrepancy in Appendix B and the FIG. Therefore, banks are probably best to following the guidance that Banker K referenced previously in this thread from the CFPB in post 2166858: "Since the rule does not specifically address this, we are not prohibited from selecting “NA” or “Not Collected…”. Recommended whatever we decide to use, be consistent."

The FIG (Filing instructions guide for HMDA data collected in 2018) is instructions how to report the collected data.

Appendix B is part of the regulation and it and its sample collection form specifically refers to in person applications. I will stay in Camp 2 until the CFPB issues written clarification.

I want to be in that camp

Well, after hours this morning on the phone, I will be writing an argument for a case against the vendor's choices/decisions on this subject to submit for escalation to their legal division.

I have a horror of having to go back one by one on every single record and change everything...again...and the LAR only grows daily. Ugh.

Like others here, I've also spoken with the CFPB about this question. They indicated to me Reg. C does not specifically answer this question, and that from their perspective you can report either code “2. Not collected on the basis of visual observation or surname” or code “3. Not Applicable” for data fields 31/32 [Ethnicity], 49/50 [Race], and 53/54 [Sex] in this scenario.

I get that...what annoys me is my vendor took the liberty to only allow one option in one of their software pieces...but not the other...which is really frustrating....let ME decide which way to go.

And both Camps "win!" Although, Camp 1 wins a little bit stronger, lol.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/pol...closure-act-faqs/#ethnicity-race-and-sex

I have a question pertaining to Visual Observation. Up until recently, we consistently completed the URLA section for whether or not the DMI was collected based on Visual Observation, even if the application was not taken in person. Our LOS now updated the system so that field only opens up for in person applications. My only concern is there is not a reference in writing for any upcoming exam that the DMI was not collected based on a Visual Observation, unless it is an in person application.

Am I correct in being concerned, or do think it will pass in an exam?

Is there documentation that the application was not in person? If so, I don't think you have anything to be concerned about. We have this in one of our systems as well, and it wasn't an issue on any data validation.

Not sure I understand the question. The ONLY time you're to fill out and report the DMI based on Visual is when the borrower answers 'I do not wish to provide' first. Then you would have two check marks in each section the borrower declined on, one for the decline and one for the visual observation. Otherwise, you're not supposed to be filling out that section. that's been discussed in an exam for us.

"Otherwise, you're not supposed to be filling out that section. that's been discussed in an exam for us."

What did they cite? I see nothing in Appendix B that wouldn't allow an institution to document their DI collection by marking not taken based on V/O for applications not taken in person, especially when the CFPB suggests (but does not require) the HMDA data be reported with code 2 (not taken based on V/O) in these situations. Only time that information NEEDS to be documented is for in person apps, but I've never seen any support for not allowing it to be used for documentation purposes.

I think** ya'll are arguing different points. I believe TR is talking about reporting "not Hispanic, white male" (for one example) when an application is not taken in person and the applicant refused to provide. I don't believe she means you can't check "no" for the visual observation/surname questions.