I am interested in knowing who everyone is using for obtaining census tract numbers for HMDA and CRA. I am familar with the FFIEC web site. I would like contact info. for the company that you recommend. I am preparing for next year and the use of 2000 data. I appreciate any input. Also, does any one use the company that contracts with the government that is included in the HMDA and CRA data CD's? It seems expensive to me.

There are many vendors such as PCi, Centrax and Don Narup's (a frequent poster here). You should test different products to see which meets your needs for geocoding, mapping and analysis. Also, prices may vary based on your selected features and asset size.

Census Traks plus is another software. It is put out by Business Information Technologies, Inc. in Edina, MN. We get ours through American Bank Systems in OKC, OK. After using CRA Wiz with the OCC, the CT Plus seems simpler, but it does a good job if you are a Small Bank under CRA rules.

We get our geo-coding from our FZD vendor. They include it on every FZD form. I'd have to check with the mtg. dept., but I think it is only an extra $1.50.

Here's the address if interested. Floodplain Consultants, Inc. 800 East 56th St. Brownsburg, IN 46112 (800)945-0246.

I recommend Questsoft, on the web at www.questsoft.com.

This software was used at a previous employer and it is easy to use. Also, as I remember, the support was very good when needed.

Julie B. -

Do you have the web address for Census Traks Plus?? We are in the market for a census track/mapping product and I need to find a certain number of products to present to the compliance council.

Thanks,
Vicki

Found it.

Here is CT Plus' toll free number - 1-800-533-7742. Ask for Cindy to explain how the software works. Not only does it do the census tracking, it will prepare the HMDA-LAR and CRA-LAR (if you are a Large Bank for CRA). There are two separate programs for HMDA and CRA.

Be careful using census tracts on FZDs. They're not guaranteed and not necessarily accurate. The FDIC verifies at the ffiec website and sometimes there is a difference.

I don't recommemd questsoft-I'll leave it at that.

I use PCI CRA Wiz. Not only does it provide you with the mapping and submission information you need, it also has the ability to do very sophisticated analisis of your data. The examiner worksheets module produces exactly what your examiners see when they check you out. No suprises due to a lack of information on your part. Being in one of the hardest states to census tract, I've found they do better than anything else I've tried (Alaska has many unpopulated or very small populated areas which are rarely found on the FDIC website).

I'd add a warning...the new program seems to be ummm how to say this nicely...BLECH! Stick with the old version until they are able to work out the bugs on the new. (I believe 5.9 is the old version). I've checked out other programs (they all have their faults) and though this one isn't cheep, its what examiners use. I like to see what they see.

You can buy parts of the program verses the entire package, including a mapper and geo-code system. I really like the whole package.

Again, just watch out for the "new" upgrades (I think they've backed out on rolling them out). I have found that they can have bugs in them and I'm conservative...and like my office to be bug free. Let the big guys work out the bugs before I get them!

Good luck!

www.pciwiz.com (I think this is the website)

Help me understand. You work for Questsoft and you recommend Questsoft?

I should hope that he would recommend them.

JulesB - Thanks for the information.

Also, is there anyone out there that has a good argument to present to senior management pertaining to the cost of a good CRA program (census tracking/geo-coding, mapping/data collection, etc.). I am in desparate need of some tools to help with this, however the cost always sets me back. As so often happens, the Compliance Department is considered "Sales Prevention", etc.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Vicki





Any advice would be appreciated.

Several years ago we had a bad CRA Exam. It wasn't necessarily because we were doing badly on the goals of CRA but that we were not prepared to show the examiners what we were doing. We also had no available program to help us shore up any weaknesses we had, and show us what we had to spend extra effort on. When the examiners came in, we said, here ya go...no explaination, no nothing. Golly gee, it didn't go well.

Had we spent a little cash, we wouldn't have been blindsided by the examiners results. We would have seen our stregnths to highlight, and any perceived weaknesses to discuss or explain to the examiners. I've looked at the data for the bad exam...I think we were doing ok, but didn't know what to discuss with our examiners due to a lack of information. How on earth do you present yourself when you have no idea where you stand?

We spent the cash the next year. (I was not with the bank during either time).

I had a goal of Outstanding during my first exam with this bank (my first exam ever as I come from a lending background). I was able to pull reports from the CRA Wiz that showed me exactly where we stood with the regulation. (Well exact as you can be with the vagaries of CRA). For instance, I can pull a report that says my overall market share in home purchase loans during a specific period of time is 3.62%. In low income geographies I am actually taking 5.48% of the market share and in moderate income geographies I'm at 6.49%. This means..I rock (ok my lenders do).

On the other hand, there are 2.04% owner occupied units in loa income geographies in this same area. What if only 1.03% of my loans went to those geographies? I'd need to explain that to the regulators. Perhaps a special program focused on those geographies dried up, or housing was so tight that homes just weren't available to meet the needs? Or a transient population had discontinued in that area (a large employer closed thus removing 500 laborers who used to live and work in the geography) and home sales were in a complete slump, but I'd put together a program to assist new residents...which was not yet showing in the numbers?

This is the kind of information I get from the program I've purchased. I know that there are other programs out there that do the same thing. It's sometimes not so much what you do, but why, how and whats behind what you do that matters in an exam. A low figure can be supported and presented as a positive IF you know it's there to deal with. With no abiltiy to discover this...you're blind at exam time. I'd be scared to death to be in this position.

I can manipulate the data to cover many different areas, periods of time, products, etc. Marketing can use the data as well for product development. Spending this money keeps me up to date on where we sit, and where we need to scootch over to on occasion Not spending it...could leave you with less than satisfactory results in examinations. You could be just like us...we're Outstanding...and frankly I think we've been Outstanding for many years but we just didn't know how to share that with our examiners.

Whatever you do...get something! I recommend the program my examiners use because I like to see what they see, but it does have some flaws. I think they all do from what I've heard.

I hope that helped. If I were you, I'd start calling the companies that provide these programs and ask them for some samples to show your board. Sometimes that is all it takes.

My board is behind me, and wants another Outstanding in the future. They understand that this isn't free, but it's worth the money in the long run!

Thanks Dawn. I have been shopping and will continue to do so. I have been with my bank for almost 11 years and we were always an "outstanding CRA bank" until our last exam. We received a "Satisfactory" mostly due to "subjectivity". However, as CRA is my "thing", I was (and still am) very upset! I guess that the next thing I will have to do is polish up my sales skills, and present this problem to the Board and Senior Management before it's too late.

Thanks again,
Vicki