According to the folks over at National Mortgage Professional Magazine, the CFPB has quietly begun drafting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. For those unfamiliar with the process, this is the first step in issuing a new or revised administrative rule, and typically opens the door for public comments on the topic at hand before the rule is actually drafted/released.
In this case, the topic at hand is the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule – or TRID – which totally revamped the mortgage disclosure process beginning in October of 2015. Since the new rules took effect, lenders have been struggling to comply with what they believe the CFPB wants, which in some areas is still unclear as the CFPB has not issued formal written guidance on many topics.
While there are positives that have come out of TRID – namely the effectiveness of the simplified Loan Estimate form that replaced the GFE for most transactions – there also have been many speedbumps. For example, many technology providers lagged behind in releasing updates to origination, document preparation and other software, which led to lenders issuing non-compliant Loan Estimates and Closing Disclosures. In fact, recently Moody’s estimated that up to 90% of loans originated in the first few months of the rule’s effective date contained at least one TRID-related defect.
A large mortgage lender – W.J. Bradley – closed its doors in March after being unable to sell a large number of loans with TRID compliance issues. This event, along with consistent industry prodding for help in understanding CFPB expectations through formal written guidance may have led to Director Cordray’s decision to revisit the rules.
While the NMP article indicates a “possible TRID rewrite,” I wouldn’t expect a massive overhaul of the key components that we’re becoming accustomed to in the origination community – namely the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure. Instead, what I believe is likely to happen is a clarifying tweak to some of the more confusing areas of the regulation, such as the sections dealing with construction and other non-traditional lending products, and (fingers crossed) significantly more written industry guidance to help us understand what we need to do to comply with CFPB expectations. If this is the case, that should make the secondary market (especially in the nonconforming space) much more comfortable in purchasing loans, which should result in an easing of credit availability and – one would hope – a reduction in loan turn-times which skyrocketed industrywide after October 1, 2015. It also may lead to a long-term reduction in compliance costs, which would make many small and midsized players in our industry very, very happy.
More on this as it develops. Until then, happy originating!