Learn. Share. Connect. (55,964 Members)  - Join
 

Site Tools

Join Now or Sign In
for Full Access to All Features

Contributors

JOE MURIN
Managing Director
Murin was appointed CEO of Ginnie Mae in 2008. Prior, he served as Chief Executive Officer of Lender Services Inc....

BRIAN MONTGOMERY
Managing Director
As FHA Commissioner, Brian Montgomery was responsible for the oversight and modernization of the insurance fund’s $600 billion portfolio. He was responsible for HUD's regulatory responsibilities to...

BRIAN O'REILLY
Managing Director
O’Reilly has 23 years of financial services industry experience. Co-founder of Capital Financial Solutions, O’Reilly earlier was Fannie Mae’s Director of Automated Underwriting and Risk Management Solutions...

TIM ROOD
Managing Director
Rood brings to The Collingwood Group two decades of mortgage industry experience. He co-founded Capital Financial Solutions. He was Vice President at First American, where he successfully lead the company’s professional services group...

JIM RUSSELL
Managing Director
Russell has 37 years of financial management and advisory experience. Most recently he was Managing Director of Prescient, Inc. where he led project teams for USDA, HUD, ICE, CUNA and SBA, and secured more than $400 million in federal government contracts.

About this Blog

The Collingwood Group has partnered with Mortgage News Daily to bring you the VOICE OF HOUSING Blog.  Contributors include former Ginnie Mae CEO Joe Murin and former FHA Commissioner Brian Montgomery.
Sponsored by:
The Collingwood Group, LLC.
(http://www.collingwoodllc.com)

The New RESPA Rule – The ESSENTIALS

Posted
 Email Page   |     Print   |     Bookmark

If you’re a home mortgage loan originator, mortgage broker, realtor, title agent or other provider of services related to the processing or closing of a residential mortgage loan, you know that January 1, 2010 is D-Day for the use of the new Good Faith Estimate (GFE) of settlement charges (www.hud.gov/respa) and HUD-1 Settlement Statement (www.hud.gov/respa) prescribed by the RESPA reform final rule published January 16, 2009.  Hopefully, you and your firm are well on you way to being ready to implement the rule.

RESPA reform has had a long and tortuous history spanning several administrations.  A final rule developed in 2004 was withdrawn by HUD in response to strong objections largely directed at provisions of the rule which would have permitted the “packaging” and sale of settlement services free of concerns that packaging would violate the anti-kickback provisions of RESPA, and be particularly damaging to smaller businesses and a wide range of settlement service providers.

HUD held extensive roundtables to solicit comment from industry, consumer groups and federal and state government agencies.  The final rule did away with packaging in favor of the approach summarized below. 

HUD was particularly concerned that an important part of the current mortgage crisis was a result of families going to the closing table without understanding their loans and without the meaningful ability to shop for the best loan for them.  But HUD was also intent on accomplishing reform in a balanced way that considered those in the business of homeownership.

Points to Keep in Mind.  Here are some key points to keep in mind as you work through the details that will provide perspective concerning the purposes and approach of the rule, and a framework for addressing issues not otherwise specifically addressed in the rule.  See also HUD’s “New RESPA Rule Frequently Asked Questions” at the above link.

The Need for the Rule.  A May 2008 study for HUD by the Urban Institute found:

  • Settlement charges vary widely for similar loans with similar interest made to similar borrowers.
  • Most borrowers see virtually no benefit in reduced settlement charges when they pay higher interest rates.
  • Borrowers who pay “points” at settlement do not, on average, benefit from lower interest rates.

Purpose of the Rule and the New Standardized Forms.  To help borrowers understand and shop for mortgages, which will result in better mortgage products, lower interest rates, and lower settlement charges for borrowers.

The Key Building Blocks and Concepts of the Rule.

  • The GFE
  • Tolerances
  • The HUD-1 Settlement Statement

The GFE.  Page 1 of the GFE substantially enhances the disclosure of loan terms, including the initial interest rate and monthly payment, whether the interest rate and principal balance can rise and the maximum to which they can rise, and whether the loan has a prepayment penalty and/or a balloon payment.

Lender payments to mortgage brokers tied to the interest rate of the loan (yield spread premiums or YSPs) are disclosed as part of Loan Origination Charges in Block A at the top of page 2 because of the borrower’s need to understand the trade off between upfront settlement charges and the interest rate.

The GFE consolidates settlement charges into major categories in Block B on page 2 to simplify the disclosure of charges and avoid fee proliferation.

Total Estimated Settlement Charges (the total of Blocks A and B) from the bottom of page 2 are carried forward to the bottom of page 1.  This total becomes the borrower’s bottom-line settlement cost shopping number for a particular loan that can be compared to those on other GFEs the borrower obtains.

Tolerances.  Settlement charges on the GFE are grouped into three categories:  1) those that cannot change between the time the GFE is given and the closing;  2) those whose total can increase up to 10% at settlement; and those charges that can change at settlement.
    The tolerances are generally described at the top of page 3 of the GFE, and a detailed explanation of the tolerances and exceptions will be discussed in a later blog.  However, in general, the items in 1) are or should be within the knowledge or control of the loan originator; those in 2) are for loan originator-required services which the originator selects or the borrower may select from a list of providers required to be provided by the loan originator; and the items in 3) are those over which the loan originator has no control or the borrower selects on his or her own.

The HUD- 1 Settlement Statement.  
Two important conceptual changes have been made to the HUD-1:

  • Where applicable, the itemized final settlement charges listed on page 2 reference the GFE line numbers where the charges were either itemized as a charge on the GFE or were part of a consolidated grouping of charges on the GFE, to enable the borrower to track settlement charges from the GFE to the HUD-1.
  • A new page 3 has been added to the HUD-1.  The top portion compares the items in each of the “cannot change,”  “total cannot increase more than 10%,” and “can change” categories of the GFE to the final charges on the HUD-1 to clearly indicate to the borrower whether or not the tolerances have been violated.
  • The bottom portion of page 3 summarizes the final loan terms and monthly escrow account payments, if any, in much the same format as on the GFE.
  • The loan originator is required by the rule to provide the information necessary to complete page 3 of the HUD-1 to the settlement agent.

In future blogs we will explore in greater detail the requirements of the rule as they pertain to completion of the GFE and HUD-1 and other important provisions of the rule.  Look also for our upcoming webinar on the new rule.

 
Filed under: , , ,

Comments

on
The new HUD GFE is clearly a document created by non-industry folks that have no concept of what the consumer needs. IF anybody at HUD thinks this solves the problem they are trying to solve....show me.
on
I believe this could be good for the honest loan officers in the industry, however, I think that they should limit the interest rate and 800 series fees to this new rule for these are the only things we have complete control over.
Scott Wm. Cheffer
on
What do you expect from a mindset that thinks a 3-page disclosure simplifies a single-page disclosure? They must be paid by the hour. The GFE should be dropped, and a preliminary HUD-1 prepared. HUD already as this explained line-by-line. The rules on allowable errors could be easily attached.
Becky
on
This organization should be focused on how to help homeowners if, as you say, it is the voice of housing!! Based on the blatant advertisements, it appears to be just another string of cliches doing nothing. Come on Joe, you are better than this. The RESPA changes are just like anything else new; it takes a while to get used to them. If anyone needs real business process help they can always contact rjbWalzak Consulting since their training program focuses on how to deal with the issues and not on compliants about the new rules. Real issues today focus on housing as an essential segment of the economy and how to eliminate the monopoly that the federal government has on the secondary market. We need to stablize housing prices, reduce foreclosures and get people back to work. Working with my Congressman to help people in real distress is an eye-opener as to what a mess we have created. There is not one servicer that has control over these modification programs; calling borrowers for modification that they have already rejected and are in the final stages of foreclosure for example. Or these modification scam companies who for example told me that a modification was the same thing as a forbearance or a deed-in-lieu. If we want our industry back we have to make some fundamental changes in what we do, how we measure risk, how we price for that risk, and how the secondary market works. Re-creating the same old program is suicide, not just for lenders but for this country as a whole. Yet we collectively refuse to recognize and act on that. Agencies like GNMA, FNMA, FHLMC and FHFA are stuck in a antiquated, ineffective methodology. It has to change so that we can give investors confidence in what they are buying. Only then will I have the time and patience to listen to a bunch of whiners discuss a few changes in a RESPA doc.

Add a Comment

(required)  
(required)  
Remember Me?