IMHO, the best thing you can do is to take a risk based approach. When I have done compliance reviews as a third party consultant, I've found that a 2 year cycle works best logistically - I really believe in keeping things simple. Within the two year cycle, I've set up quarterly reviews, while some areas are reviewed multiple times during the two-year cycle and others are only reviewed once. For example, you could review TRID in Q1 of each year and then do a full loan file review (which includes TRID) in Q3 of each year, meaning that TRID is reviewed every 6 months. Other areas (maybe flood, Reg CC holds, and EFT disputes) could be reviewed once a year, while the lowest-risk items (think disclosures that shouldn't change or low-risk areas) could be reviewed every other year. I've tried 18 month and 36 month cycles, and just found that 24 months seems to be the easiest logistically, at least for me. Then, once the two years is up, you can make minor adjustments based on risk and reuse the same schedule.
As far as specific frequency requirements for compliance audits, the SAFE Act, ACH, and BSA are the only ones that come to mind having specific requirements. Everything else should be able to be risk-based.
_________________________
Adam Witmer, CRCM
All statements are my opinion, not those of my employer, and should not be taken as legal advice.
www.compliancecohort.com