I think I know the answer to this question, but would like some reassurance. If we have a loan that was funded and there was a house taken as collateral as an abundance of caution, is it considered HMDA reportable? Thanks

It depends on the purpose of the loan and whether the loan would be considered "temporary financing" under HMDA. First, if the loan would be considered temporary financing, then it would not be reportable regardless of purpose. Let's assume it's not temporary financing. If the loan is to purchase a dwelling (even if not the one securing the loan) , then yes as a home purchase loan. Also if the loan is replacing another loan that was secured by a dwelling, then yes, as a refinance. If the loan is primarily for home improvement purposes then yes, as a home improvement loan. If none of these apply, then no.

Thanks, and where can I find the definition of Temp Financing? THanks

There is not a specific definition. The regulation provides two examples - bridge loan and construction loan. A recent FFIEC Q&A stirred up a lot of controversy regarding whether short term loans to an investor to purchase, fix up, and quickly resell a property would be considered temporary financing. Many institutions had previously considered such loans as temporary, but the new Q&A said that was incorrect. Do a search on these forums over the last year using the terms "HMDA" and "temporary" and you'll find much discussion.

FFIEC issued new Q & A's in December (http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/faqreg.htm#TemporaryFinancing) - they have a brief, not in detail view of Temporary Financing.

I think it would be helpful to note that 'abundance of caution' is only something that the lender/bank thinks about or references.

If you are taking something as 'abundance of caution', you are in essence taking it as collateral end of story. You are still filing a mortgage so all applicable regulations adhere to your transaction.

The regulations don't care that basically you are making a credit decision knowing that you may not have much collateral to depend on. They do care if you are actually filing a mortgage, etc. So, even if the lender isn't relying to heavily on the collateral value, if a mortgage is being filed it is to be treated as any other R/E loan.

To further expound on Sooner Fan's comment - the only place where "abundance of caution" gives any latitude at all with regard to a regulatory requirement is with regard to appraisal regulations. In no other regulatory capacity should the question of applicability based on "abundance of caution" even be an issue.