Written by Walter Boomsma, instructor. See his blog.
Let’s think about this.
Since I’m not actively engaged in brokerage on a daily basis, I take some extra steps to make certain I’m keeping current with “what’s going on in the business.” I know all too well the hazards created when class content and delivery aren’t in tune with the current environment.
One of those steps is to scan the media regularly and consistently. Recently there have been some headlines regarding action taken by the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) that are at best misleading. One I saw this morning claimed “CFPB makes clear lenders’ ability to share closing disclosure.” Actually, the CFPB has proposed some changes to TRID (TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule). Until those changes are adopted, nothing has changed. The original rules remain in place.
In layman’s terms, the current rules adopted last fall created a reluctance on the part of lenders to share Closing Disclosures (a detailed statement of the buyer/borrower’s costs) with third parties–including real estate licensees. I suspect this stemmed in part from a desire to protect borrowers’ privacy. That would seem to be noble goal. But it was a change that did not sit well with some licensees who had become accustomed to the lender sending the previous disclosure (called “the HUD”) to the licensees involved in the transaction.
Under the new rule, lenders were given strong confidentiality guidelines that actually go far beyond the issue of who gets the closing disclosure. Those guidelines increased the borrowers’ confidence that information about them and their transaction would remain confidential. Nothing, however, took away the borrower’s right to share that information with others.
Personally, I never understood why this created a problem for licensees. Under the new rule, the lender would send the closing disclosure to the borrower. The borrower would, if he or she wished, contact his real estate licensee and provide a copy for review and discussion. I informally polled some of my students and, while many admitted it felt like an extra step, no one reported a serious problem with the process. In exchange for what might be seen as an extra step, the buyer/borrower received additional protections and maintained responsibility for the the process. So the campaign to change this rule feels a bit like a solution in search of a problem.
Perhaps someone can help me understand why this change is necessary. The lines of communication between a real estate licensee and his or her client should be open and frequent. We say it often, “The agent (licensee) advises, the client decides.” Why would that not apply here? The information contained in a closing disclosure belongs to the client, not the licensee. This change might actually be seen as a power grab, taking away a borrower’s right.
We sometimes hear licensees “complain” that buyers and sellers do not accept enough responsibility for what happens in a transaction and are quick to blame the licensee when things go wrong. If that’s true, does it really make sense to take this step?
I haven’t looked at the specific language of the proposed rule changes, but a summary indicates the change will include (among other things) “guidance on sharing the disclosures with various parties involved in the mortgage origination process.” It seems to me that we already have that and we might think about what we’re doing and saying if we change that guidance.