I resisted discussing the delay in the TRID deadline from August 1st to October 1st to get some industry input first. Various trade groups like ABA and NAMB were quick to support the delayed deadline. Personally, I’m not sure an extra two months will make much of a difference. The good lenders and vendors will be ready by August 1st regardless. My fear is that the laggards will use this as an excuse to put compliance with the new disclosures off further and will give other lenders and vendors that are prepared a bad name. But enough about my thoughts, here’s how various industry experts feel:
“Although the industry has been working toward the August 1st deadline for some time, there is nevertheless great significance to the delay until October,” stated Faramarz Moeen-Ziai, SVP, National Sales & Production at Commerce Home Mortgage. “In a nutshell, the industry needed more time to prepare for the demands of the TRID portion of “Know What You Owe.” Many observers haven’t truly appreciated all that goes in to producing what they think of as two simple disclosures, particularly with the accuracy they demand. It’s not the industry resisting change that will benefit consumers; it’s an issue of precision and technology.”
Another lender, Embrace Home Loans, echoed this sentiment. ““For us, the delay in implementing TRID is met with mixed feelings,” noted Kurt Noyce, President at Embrace Home Loans. “We support the “Know Before You Owe” mortgage disclosure rule, having scoped the enormity of this project as far back as 3Q14, and assigned dedicated resources that have invested themselves since then, including process change identifications, system development, staff training and vendor education. We have done much to ensure our organization was ready by August – and we are.”
There are clearly two sides to this heated debate, as explained by Rebecca Walzak, President at consulting firm rjbWalazk Consulting. She points out, “The question surrounding this announcement is whether this is a good or bad thing. On one hand, lenders, title companies and technology firms have devoted an unaccountable number of hours working on process changes, system updates and internal training requirements. It almost seems as if this delay is a letdown for these folks that have worked so hard to meet the deadline. Another thing to consider is the fact that if we had not had a delay and implemented on August 1st, we would have the chance to really identify where this worked and where it didn’t. In some ways this delay reminds me of delaying the dentist appointment time and time again hoping that somehow those cavities will magically disappear over time. Instead it would be much better to just get it over with.
“However, we have to recognize that there really were problems,” she continues. “One industry executive commented that the changes actually meant that there were over 2500 calculation changes in their LOS system that had to be programmed and tested. This seemed like an impossible task to complete when the programming wasn’t going to be completed until the middle of July. Furthermore the regulations contained many ambiguous directives and this delay may provide the CFPB with time to issue some clarifications that are needed.”
About The Author
Tony Garritano is chairman and founder at PROGRESS in Lending Association. As a speaker Tony has worked hard to inform executives about how technology should be a tool used to further business objectives. For over 10 years he has worked as a journalist, researcher and speaker in the mortgage technology space. Starting this association was the next step for someone like Tony, who has dedicated his career to providing mortgage executives with the information needed to make informed technology decisions. He can be reached via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.