Skip to content
BOL Conferences Top Gun 23
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Thread Options
#2193934 - 09/26/18 10:45 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
GTS333 Offline
Gold Star
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 256
I guess at least there is this footnote from the final interpretive rule that suggests collected is covered:

The Act’s two partial exemptions operate independently of one another. Thus, an insured depository institution or
insured credit union could be eligible in a given calendar year for one of the partial exemptions but not the other.
For example, if an insured depository institution that does not have a negative Community Reinvestment Act
examination history originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar
years but originated 500 or more open-end lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years, it is eligible
for the partial exemption for its closed-end loans but is not eligible for the partial exemption for its open-end lines of
credit. In this circumstance, the institution is not required to collect and report exempt data for its closed-end loans.
It also collects and reports complete data for its open-end lines of credit unless it qualifies for a complete regulatory
exclusion under Regulation C, §§ 1003.2(g)(1)(v) and 1003.3(c)(12).
_________________________
My opinion, take it for what its worth. Opinions expressed are my own and not those of my employer and are not legal advice.

Return to Top
HMDA

   
HMDA Academy
#2193936 - 09/26/18 10:49 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
burke116 Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 549
RVA
From the CFPB's interpretive and procedural rule:

Pursuant to the Act, insured depository institutions and insured credit unions need not collect or report these 26 data points for transactions that qualify for a partial exemption under the Act, unless otherwise required by their regulator.

Return to Top
#2193937 - 09/26/18 10:50 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
GTS333 Offline
Gold Star
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 256
Yeah, just saw that again and had forgotten about it. Apologies for the fire drill, and thanks.
_________________________
My opinion, take it for what its worth. Opinions expressed are my own and not those of my employer and are not legal advice.

Return to Top
#2194055 - 09/27/18 05:32 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
David Dickinson Offline
10K Club
David Dickinson
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 18,762
Central City, NE
You don't need to collect or report any of the optional data. However, I recommend you continue to collect (but not report) some things like LTV, DTI and credit score. These can be used to defend your credit decisions.
_________________________
David Dickinson
http://www.bankerscompliance.com

Return to Top
#2194073 - 09/27/18 06:22 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
John Burnett Offline
10K Club
John Burnett
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 39,870
Cape Cod
A lot of the data isn't really new and you will have it anyhow, such as LTV, DTI and credit score. In fact a lot of the stuff you aren't going to have to file will be in the loan file as a by-product of the application and underwriting process. You just won't have to assemble it and plug it into the LAR.
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8

Return to Top
#2194094 - 09/27/18 08:51 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House John Burnett
ccman Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 924
Having been absent from HMDA for several years, can you guys breakdown a list of the 26 items the bureau is
exempting the banks from as per S. 2155. thanks.

Return to Top
#2194108 - 09/28/18 12:52 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
Adam Witmer Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,643
The 26 items included in the exemption include the following:

§ 1003.4(a)(1)(i) – Universal Loan Identifier
§ 1003.4(a)(9)(i) – Property Address
§ 1003.4(a)(12) – Rate Spread
§ 1003.4(a)(15) – Credit Score
§ 1003.4(a)(16) – Reasons for Denial
§ 1003.4(a)(17) – Total Loan Costs or Total Points and Fees
§ 1003.4(a)(18) – Origination Charges
§ 1003.4(a)(19) – Discount Points
§ 1003.4(a)(20) – Lender Credits
§ 1003.4(a)(21) – Interest Rate
§ 1003.4(a)(22) – Prepayment Penalty Term
§ 1003.4(a)(23) – Debt-to-Income Ratio
§ 1003.4(a)(24) – Combined-Loan-to-Value Ratio
§ 1003.4(a)(25) – Loan Term
§ 1003.4(a)(26) – Introductory Rate Period
§ 1003.4(a)(27) – Non-Amortizing Features
§ 1003.4(a)(28) – Property Value
§ 1003.4(a)(29) – Manufactured Home Secured Property Type
§ 1003.4(a)(30) – Manufactured Home Land Property Interest
§ 1003.4(a)(32) – Multifamily Affordable Units
§ 1003.4(a)(33) – Application Channel
§ 1003.4(a)(34) – Mortgage Loan Originator Identifier
§ 1003.4(a)(35) – Automated Underwriting System
§ 1003.4(a)(36) – Reverse Mortgage Flag
§ 1003.4(a)(37) – Open-End Line of Credit Flag
§ 1003.4(a)(38) – Business or Commercial Purpose Flag
_________________________
Adam Witmer, CRCM

All statements are my opinion, not those of my employer, and should not be taken as legal advice.
www.compliancecohort.com

Return to Top
#2194137 - 09/28/18 04:15 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Adam Witmer
ccman Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 924
Thank you, Adam.

Return to Top
#2194163 - 09/28/18 06:00 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Adam Witmer
Bbgreen Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 76
Texas
Do you still report the following:
Record Identifier
LEI

Since the ULI isn't reported? Just the loan number.

Return to Top
#2194168 - 09/28/18 06:04 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
raitchjay Online
Power Poster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,875
OK
_________________________
I'm fixin' to fix that.

Return to Top
#2194170 - 09/28/18 06:08 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
Adam Witmer Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,643
Originally Posted By Bbgreen
Do you still report the following:
Record Identifier
LEI

Since the ULI isn't reported? Just the loan number.

I think quite a few financial institutions are going to keep reporting the ULI as it might be the easier option - especially if their software helps to generate this number.

If you don't use the ULI, you will still have to jump through quite a few hoops. Here is an excerpt from my training manual on this:

"In lieu of using a ULI, the CFPB has clarified that HMDA reporters must provide a “non-universal loan identifier” that complies with certain requirements if a partially exempt loan does not include an ULI. First, the ULI does not need to include a Legal Entity Identifier like the ULI does, as it does not need to be “unique within the industry.” Secondly, the NULI may be composed of up to 22 characters to identify the covered loan or application which:

-May be letters, numerals, or a combination of both.
-Must be unique within the HMDA reporting institution.
-Must not include any information that could be used to directly identify the applicant or borrower.

The CFPB has clarified that information “that could be used to directly identify the applicant or borrower” includes, but is not limited to, the applicant’s or borrower’s name, date of birth, Social Security number, official government-issued driver’s license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, or employer or taxpayer identification number. In addition, an NULI:

-Cannot be reported when a non-exempt institution purchase a loan without a ULI from a partially exempt institutions - the non-exempt institution must create and report a ULI for their institution;
-Can only be assigned to one particular covered loan or application;
-Must correspond to a single application and ensuing loan (in the case that the application is approved and a loan is originated);
-Be different on a refinancing from the loan being refinanced; and
-Cannot be the same NULI as a previously reported NULI if an institution reinstates or reconsiders an application that was reported in a prior calendar year."
_________________________
Adam Witmer, CRCM

All statements are my opinion, not those of my employer, and should not be taken as legal advice.
www.compliancecohort.com

Return to Top
#2194264 - 10/01/18 02:45 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
David Dickinson Offline
10K Club
David Dickinson
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 18,762
Central City, NE
Adam's right that this is a software/vendor issue. I'm hearing from our clients that they may go back to simply using the loan number (for originated loans) and/or application numbers rather than a ULI.
_________________________
David Dickinson
http://www.bankerscompliance.com

Return to Top
#2194271 - 10/01/18 03:14 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
rlcarey Offline
10K Club
rlcarey
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 80,365
Galveston, TX
All reporting institutions have to maintain their LEI though, even if not producing a ULI.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com

Return to Top
#2194288 - 10/01/18 04:11 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
David Dickinson Offline
10K Club
David Dickinson
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 18,762
Central City, NE
Correct. The LEI is needed to file the LAR. However, Small Filers don't need the LEI and check digit to identify each application.
_________________________
David Dickinson
http://www.bankerscompliance.com

Return to Top
#2194532 - 10/03/18 12:37 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
Traceyb258 Offline
New Poster
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 24
While reviewing the FFIEC guide "2018 A Guide to HMDA Reporting Getting it Right", we noticed some contradictory language regarding the Loan Amount data field. The instructions regarding loan amount are as follows:

7. Loan Amount. Enter the amount of the loan or application. Do not report loans below $500. Show the amount in thousands, rounding to the nearest thousand (round $500 up to the next $1,000). For example, a loan for $167,300 should be entered as 167 and one for $15,500 as 16.

However, the Filing Guide for 2018 showing each data field in a chart form includes this information:

(9) Loan Amount § 1003.4(a)(7), Comments 4(a)(7)-1 through -9 Amount of the loan or the amount applied for Enter, in dollars, the amount of the covered loan, or the amount applied for, as applicable. Example: If the loan amount is $110,500, enter 110500 or 110500.00. If the loan amount is $110,500.24, enter 110500.24.

Our specific question is should we be rounding the loan amount as we have always done or should we now be entering the loan amount in full including cents, no rounding? The two guides seem to contradict each other. Has anyone come across information that may be helpful in determining the correct way to file?

Last edited by Traceyb258; 10/03/18 02:35 PM.
Return to Top
#2194538 - 10/03/18 01:18 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Traceyb258
burke116 Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 549
RVA
Quote:
While reviewing the FFIEC guide "2018 A Guide to HMDA Reporting Getting it Right", we noticed some contradictory language regarding the Loan Amount data field. The instructions regarding loan amount are as follows:


That's under the 2017 data section.

Transition Requirements for Data Collected in 2017 and Submitted in 2018
The instructions for completion of the loan/application register in part I of this appendix applies to data collected during the 2017 calendar year and reported in 2018. Part I of this appendix does not apply to data collected pursuant to the amendments to Regulation C effective January 1, 2018.

Return to Top
#2194549 - 10/03/18 02:36 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House burke116
Traceyb258 Offline
New Poster
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 24
Completely read over that part....thank you for helping clarify. Much appreciated!

Return to Top
#2195905 - 10/18/18 09:07 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
CompliantOkie Offline
Gold Star
CompliantOkie
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 423
OOOOOOklahoma
I am curious how other small filer banks are treating LAR entries that were actioned prior to the 8/31/2018 interpretation or the 5/26/2018 relief bill passing? Are you going back through the LAR and changing the reported fields to "Exempt" or "1111"?

In other words is the partial field exemption retroactive to 1/1/2018?

Return to Top
#2195913 - 10/18/18 10:00 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
GTS333 Offline
Gold Star
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 256
Unless you're concerned about what that data might say about your institutions lending practices, I don't see any value in going back and changing existing records. The interpretive rule specifically allows us not to do so, and the whole point of the rule was to make things easier on lenders. Unnecessarily modifying existing entries seems like a lot of work and doesn't seem to add any value, at least in my eyes. I'll be curious to hear what others think as well.
_________________________
My opinion, take it for what its worth. Opinions expressed are my own and not those of my employer and are not legal advice.

Return to Top
#2195927 - 10/19/18 11:39 AM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
burke116 Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 549
RVA
Yes, we are going back and changing the partial exemption fields to 'exempt' for the entire calendar year, back to 1/1/2018. The vendor we use will do this for us, without having to go through each individual LAR entry.

Return to Top
#2195929 - 10/19/18 12:00 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
Adam Witmer Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,643
Originally Posted By CompliantOkie
In other words is the partial field exemption retroactive to 1/1/2018?

Originally Posted By GTS333
Unless you're concerned about what that data might say about your institutions lending practices, I don't see any value in going back and changing existing records.

I have seen quite a few questions on this, so there still seems to be some confusion regarding both 1) the applicability to early 2018 entries and 2) the benefits of of utilizing the exemption for those entries.

When teaching on this in my compliance class/video webinar, I have advised two things. First, the partial exemption is absolutely retroactive to 1/1/2018, so there is no problem in changing early 2018 entries to exempt - even though you were required to collect the information earlier in the year. Secondly, the biggest benefit of changing your existing records to exempt is that you aren't handing your examiners extra data that could be used against you in a fair lending exam. As comparative evidence of disparate treatment is most often identified (in part) through the HMDA LAR entries, handing examiners more data to query can only increase the risks of them identifying concerns. This is a risk decision and may not be a big deal for some, but reducing FL risk is always a good idea.

To explain this another way, here are two Q&As on this topic that were included with my video webinar on the partial exemption:

Q5: I really don’t want to undo everything I already have for 2018 and think it will be easier to just finish out the year and report all 48 data fields in 2018. What are the risks associated with reporting exempt data fields in 2018 and not beyond, and will examiners have a problem with that.
A: The examiners should not have a problem with this as you would be voluntarily reporting, which is completely acceptable. Additionally, the examiners have said that they do not intend to assess civil money penalties during the first year of review of the new data, which would keep your HMDA risk relatively low. Fair lending risk, on the other hand, could actually be increased. The reality is that you would be handing your examiners extra information that could be used against you during a fair lending exam. Therefore, you should consider your risks in voluntarily reporting extra HMDA data for 2018 and beyond.

Q6: On pre May 2018 transactions - would we be ok to go back and change the fields to 1111 or Exempt as applicable?
A: Yes. The partial exemption was made retroactive back to January 1, 2018. The CFPB stated the following in their executive summary: “In addition, [exempt] institutions are not required to report certain data that may have been collected on or before May 24, 2018. For example, if an insured depository institution is eligible for a partial exemption for its closed-end mortgage loans and the institution collected data for its closed-end mortgage loans prior to May 24, 2018, the institution is not required to report in 2019 any data covered by the partial exemption for its closed-end mortgage loans."
_________________________
Adam Witmer, CRCM

All statements are my opinion, not those of my employer, and should not be taken as legal advice.
www.compliancecohort.com

Return to Top
#2195942 - 10/19/18 01:42 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
rlcarey Offline
10K Club
rlcarey
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 80,365
Galveston, TX
I sat in on a regulatory panel on Tuesday and the examiners actually encouraged partially exempt banks to continue to report all data eek mad Nothing like the field examiners undercutting regulatory relief. No wonder banks are so confused about regulatory expectations.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com

Return to Top
#2195945 - 10/19/18 01:55 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
CompliantOkie Offline
Gold Star
CompliantOkie
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 423
OOOOOOklahoma
I'm not necessarily concerned about fair lending implications in our HMDA data as we don't do many HMDA loans, I'm more concerned about errors that may have occurred that are immaterial now.

Thank you all for the input.

Edit: We also keep our LAR in Excel format so changing our data is merely a matter of copying and pasting across cells. We're a VERY small HMDA shop.
Last edited by CompliantOkie; 10/19/18 01:57 PM. Reason: Add'l Info
Return to Top
#2195946 - 10/19/18 02:04 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House rlcarey
Adam Witmer Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,643
Originally Posted By rlcarey
I sat in on a regulatory panel on Tuesday and the examiners actually encouraged partially exempt banks to continue to report all data eek mad Nothing like the field examiners undercutting regulatory relief. No wonder banks are so confused about regulatory expectations.

I'm not really surprised to hear this, Randy. The increased LAR is a great benefit for conducting fair lending reviews and I can absolutely see why field examiners want that information. Even I have traditionally asked creditors to add a few columns to their LAR when I've conducted FL reviews - things like credit score and age are (typically) extremely easy to gather and make a huge difference in a comparative analysis. The partial exemption probably feels like the rug got pulled out from under the examiners who were anxiously awaiting this new data.

If it were me, I would do the extra work to undo the early 2018 entries and not voluntarily file a thing from the exemption. Just like banks didn't voluntarily report HELOCs. Just like they didn't voluntarily report denial reasons (unless OTS/OCC). The only thing I ever recommend voluntarily reporting is geocoding as it is often easier to avoid violations by over-reporting than to try to only report what is absolutely required. (Debatable, I know...)
_________________________
Adam Witmer, CRCM

All statements are my opinion, not those of my employer, and should not be taken as legal advice.
www.compliancecohort.com

Return to Top
#2195951 - 10/19/18 02:26 PM Re: HMDA bill passes House Truffle Royale
David Dickinson Offline
10K Club
David Dickinson
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 18,762
Central City, NE
Like Adam, if it were me, I'd remove all the exempt data. I do recommend keeping DTI, LTV and credit score info - but not reporting it. These 3 can easily be used to defend you.

I also agree with Adam about the address info (geocoding). My research of the new small filer exemptions for this and information and discussions with clients makes me believe it is more difficult to exempt certain fields, it's highly confusing and needs clarification and isn't that hard to get all of the data. In other words, it's easier to report this than to determine what things (and when) they can be reported as exempt.
_________________________
David Dickinson
http://www.bankerscompliance.com

Return to Top
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8