This ^^^.

I'm with you Dan. We're well under 500 but I see no point in stopping my work only to have to pick it back up in a few months when the rules may be written.

Wouldn't it have been nice if they just made the threshold to report at all at 500 all the way around?

We are still continuing on as if nothing has changed. Just not doing the final 'scrub' of things. I am hoping that it doesn't take months for our new guidance.

We're well under 500 for both of our banks, but until we see something more compelling than Trump signing the bill, we're continuing with the monthly scrub as though nothing has happened. I'm hoping for a proposal to amend HMDA sooner than it's likely to come out. At least we have enough attorneys in Legal that most people understand the difference between a bill being signed and the implanting regulation being updated.

Does the '500' threshold for Closed-End mortgage loans pertain to lines reported on the LAR total (so including all covered app and originated loans), or just originated loans?

Similar question - is the consensus that we’re talking 500 HMDA reportable “originations” or “applications” - it would make a difference for me as I have about 600 reportable transactions but around 400 originations. Everything I’m seeing says originations but I don’t know....

Not to be rude, but did you bother to pull a copy of the bill to read it???

“(1) CLOSED-END MORTGAGE LOANS.—With respect to an insured depository institution or insured credit union, the requirements of paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to closed-end mortgage loans if the insured depository institution or insured credit union originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the 2 preceding calendar years.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-cong...e06fbbf343b0cdf

just wanted to make sure- thanks, Randy.

same here. thanks for confirming.

How will this "relief" apply to Farm Credit?

"With respect to an insured depository institution or insured credit union...."

If you are not one or the other, it will not apply.

Well, that's not very helpful for us then....

I've been hearing more and more bankers say that if you are a small shop but sell loans on the secondary market, that you will not be able to revert back to 2017 HMDA because investors must still report 2018 details on the purchased loans? (Many of the fields for purchased loans are NA.) Are others hearing that? (I know we still need to "wait and see".)

The test is originate. What you do with the loan after that has no bearing on the test.

It has no bearing on the test for whether you'll be required to report the new fields, but does have a bearing on what information a purchasing investor will want/need to have for their LAR reporting on the purchased loan. I think that's what Tarhe is asking about. And the answer, I think, will have to be wait and see how BCFP rolls out regulations for this. In the meantime, keep collecting all of the data.

At least we have enough attorneys in Legal that most people understand the difference between a bill being signed and the implanting regulation being updated.

Presidents sign bills into Law. The law is the law. The Federal Agencies are then tasked with implementing the Law by passing Federal Regulations that are supposed to stay within the bounds and intent of the Law. They seek public comment to see where they can make the rulemaking product as functional as possible for those affected, all the time remaining true to the Law. This is called Administrative Law. When there's a conflict, a law suit could ensue and the Judiciary decides who is correct. So the for the CFPB to propose or pass a Regulation that will still require small banks to report the new HMDA data for 2018 is begging for a Law Suit. Because, clearly the intent of Congress and the President is to have this onerous requirement levied on small banks at all. Where are the Alphabet groups on this and why aren't they banging on doors making this case??
What is disturbing to me is the lack of Leadership in D.C. Where is the Finance Committee issuing a statement about their intent on this open-ended issue? Why don't they send a letter to the CFPB stating that is their intent? I just think the whole thing is ridiculous. Write your Senators and Congressmen and tell them to make sure this thing doesn't apply to 2018 data.

I hear where you are coming from on this. There was a lot of fanfare surrounding this bill when it was passed into law and the industry is still waiting to hear for some type of direction. Even a release from the agencies acknowledging that the law has changed and a tentative timeline for enactment would be appreciated. It seems that everyone has taken the stance to continue forward as nothing has happened until we hear from the BCFP, but the fact is that it has been passed into law. I guess we'll have to keep waiting.

If we're taking potshots at Washington, we might fault the senators and their staffs who crafted the HMDA amendment for ignoring the fact that they messed with a law that is all about reporting full years of actions. Congress used to avoid wording like the ham-handed language in section 104 of EGRRCPA. And those issuing the regulations used to work with congressional staff in drafting laws. Unfortunately, implementing section 104 is not as simple as reverting to the smaller pre-2018 data set for HMDA submissions for the banks addressed in section 104. But given the tenor of Bureau management this year, I'm confident there will be (1) guidance on what to expect, and (2) amendments to Reg C on the horizon.

I used to write rulemaking for a Fed. Agency. I grade the CFPB with an "F" for not having an NPRM out the day after the Bill became Law. It's a pretty simple rule to add exemption wording to (the 2018 HMDA rule). And I blame the alphabet groups (ABA, CFPB, etc) for patting themselves on the back, saying "Horray for us, look at what we did for you" and disappear into the night without any follow up. The silence is deafening.

What can you expect from the CFPB? We are still waiting for the safe harbor geo tool almost seven months into the change???? If they had pushed it back since their tools were not ready January 1st then we would not be having to wait for them to tell us what to do now.

The ink is barely dry on something no one really thought would pass... We are already half way through the year...I don't really understand why people are so upset...I'd rather they think through things and get it as right as possible than to rush it and majorly mess it up.

I agree with Huskers. The silence is deafening. They should have had the NPRM ready to roll quickly.

The Bureau put out a statement today that they plan on providing further guidance on HMDA data collected in 2018. In the statement they outlined the following:

2018 Loan/Application Registers (LARs) formatting and submission

For all institutions filing HMDA data collected in 2018, the Act will not affect the format of the LARs:

•LARs will be formatted according to the previously-released 2018 Filing Instructions Guide for HMDA Data Collected in 2018 (2018 FIG).

•If an institution does not report information for a certain data field due to the Act’s partial exemptions, the institution will enter an exemption code for the field specified in a revised 2018 FIG that the Bureau expects to release later this summer.

•All LARs will be submitted to the same HMDA Platform. A beta version of the HMDA Platform for submission of data collected in 2018 will be available later this year for filers to test.

The FDIC and OCC have both release statements today as well:

https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial...rce=govdelivery
https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2018/bulletin-2018-19.html