Hot Off the Press

ABA White Paper on HMDA

http://www.aba.com/Advocacy/Documents/HM...5598.1482277304

I can never get the hyperlink feature to work.

Love this recommendation:

"ABA believes that all commercial loans should be excluded from coverage. This
would be consistent with other statutes, such as the Truth-in-Lending Act and the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Excluding commercial loans would avoid
confusion and uncertainty and would streamline and make the process more efficient,
consistent with the purposes of HMDA, allowing for a better focus on the realization
of HMDA’s purposes."

Of course, I would rather see the whole thing repealed!!!

I like it...and pretty much agree with every word of it.

::applause::

Totally and whole-heartedly agree.

And boy oh boy, if they would get rid of some of those data points that compromise privacy as well as commercial loans...I'd be one happy camper. Commercial, even rental properties, is not really relevant to the real intent of HMDA. I'd be willing to say that if commercial was totally removed, our LAR would be about 1/3 of what it is right now.

Agreed.

I'd like to see loans not in an MSA removed too....it can't be that large a percentage of loans nationally, but for me, it would remove 80% of the loans from my LAR.

And since one of the kickers for having to report at all is having a branch in an MSA....it only makes sense to only report MSA loans.

I am in that same situation - if non MSA loans were removed it would knock out 60% of my report. But then I suppose if you eliminate the non MSA areas you would be removing a good chunk of low income as well at least in my area.

Yes, but think of all the banks that don't have a branch in an MSA--they aren't HMDA reporters. None of the loans they make in those rural, non-MSA areas get on any LAR, and the government seems fine with that....why do they need to see your bank and my bank's non-MSA loans? What is so special about our non-MSA loans?

I am totally in agreement - I think they shouldn't be in there at all. I see why that would be an issue for THEM because they say it would take out so many of of the reported loans, but agree with you - why do they care about my non MSA loans if those loans wouldn't be reported if not for my one MSA branch.

Plus, we aren't even required to report the Census information if not in an MSA - so what good does it do them anyway? All mine go in as N/A.

I'd say the vast majority of home loans in non-MSA's aren't currently reported--i would think most of them are originated by non-HMDA banks--so again, why do they need to see the 2% or 8% or whatever the figure is of non-MSA home loans that are originated by HMDA banks? If those loans are so important, why aren't they trying to capture the lost 90%?

I think they just like making us explain every year why such a high percentage of our loans are in "MSA - NA."

Haha....it isn't a huge deal to me under current HMDA (you know....normal, not insane HMDA).....if you're going to create Dr. Frankenstein HMDA--then we need some good sense relief for loans in Podunkville.

FRANKENHMDA! I love it!

Just reading the ABA Whitepaper on HMDA and came across a new word (for me) and I love the way it is used because of the double entendre:
"While the addition of new data points may provide a more fulsome picture of the mortgage markets,...."

Fulsome - as an adjective has the following meanings:

1.offensive to good taste, especially as being excessive; overdone or gross:
fulsome praise that embarrassed her deeply; fulsome décor.

2.disgusting; sickening; repulsive:
a table heaped with fulsome mounds of greasy foods.

3.excessively or insincerely lavish:
fulsome admiration.

4.encompassing all aspects; comprehensive:
a fulsome survey of the political situation in Central America.

5.abundant or copious.

Of particular glee to me is how the meaning that will likely be read in is #4, however the first definition is, imho, so much more appropriate.
Yea...I'm a word geek. I just love how they slipped that in.

It's gotten to be a rather popular word lately. I've seen it more than once now.

Right up there with "bifurcated".

It's not the word. It's the use of the word in that particular context and the vastly different ways that sentence would read if you used definition #1 vs #4. I happen to know some wordsmiths, editors, and the like, and it would be just like them to slip a word in that has a double entendre just to see if anybody got it.

I've been waging a personal crusade to eliminate using the word fulsome within my workplace. Why use a word that can have a contradictory meaning when there are any number of more precise words that won't?

Alas, I'm clearly losing the battle.

I wish this would have come out before I read the dang proposal. I should have known better!!

I'm now going to incorporate fulsome into my vocabulary hahaha

now*