House approves changes to SAFE Act, TRID

by Ryan Smith16 Feb 2018

The House of Representatives has approved a bill that modifies TRID and would ease requirements on loan originators moving from a bank to a non-bank.

The bill, HR 3978, includes changes to the Secure and Fair Enforcement of Mortgage Licensing (SAFE) Act. Under the SAFE Act as it now stands, originators who move from a bank to a nonbank or move between states must wait to be licensed before they can start originating loans again.

The amendment proposed in HR 3978 would allow originators to move from a bank to a nonbank, or across state lines, and keep originating mortgages while they’re completing their new licensing.

Industry groups cheered the bill’s passage.

“I want to comment the House of Representatives for passing this package … which will maintain the important consumer protections established under the federal SAFE Act, while offering enhanced workforce mobility for mortgage loan officers,” Mortgage Bankers Association President David H. Stevens said in a statement. “…MBA now urges the Senate to take up these provisions as part of its bipartisan regulatory relief efforts.”

The act also included proposed changes to TRID – specifically a change in the way title insurance rates are calculated. According to Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), who originally introduced the TRID Improvement Act – which was eventually rolled into HR 3978 – the changes will provide borrowers with a more accurate disclosure of their title fees.

The consumer advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform disagreed with that assessment. In a letter to Congress urging the defeat of the bill, AFR claimed that the bill would change TRID disclosures “in a manner that would increase confusion and potentially misinform consumers as to the final cost of these important fees.”

Industry groups, however, overwhelmingly supported the bill. In an October letter to Congress, a coalition of more than 20 industry groups called the TRID change “a straightforward fix” that would benefit consumers across the country.”

Related stories:
Regulators to pump the brakes in 2018?
Industry groups throw weight behind bill to change TRID


  • by Rich | 2/16/2018 12:21:02 PM

    I am all for the ease up on TRID from a mortgage officer point of view, but i don't need to hear how good TRID is when mortgage originators are required to disclose taxes, insurance, any seller's concession or buyer paid transfer fees, and if they are wrong or miss a clause in a purchase contract or send an application out without the fully executed contract that we cannot do a change of circumstance for those fees. It is a disgrace! We have the FBI informed about a potential shooter at a school and they do nothing, but if we under disclose a tax or recording fee (maybe it two lots), the broker or lender need to cure it. We have our priorities straight....not.

  • by Steve | 2/16/2018 4:24:59 PM

    Rich couldn't have said it any better myself! Ridiculous! To your point, when TRID first rolled out I disclosed the actual title policy fee instead of the disclosed list rate (since that is what the buyer will actually pay at the end) and was cured the discount amount, which basically covered the full amount of the actual rate of the policy!?!? I ended up paying for their title policy, which ended up being the same amount as what I had disclosed originally. So now I disclose everything on the high end so as not to get cured for anything, then have to spend 30 minutes explaining to buyers how what I disclosed to them isn't actually what it will end up being and going through each item to explain. Yea, makes a lot of sense, that makes it much less confusing for the consumer.......


Should CFPB have more supervision over credit agencies?

на сайте