Hi Everyone,

I hope your submissions are going well.

I was wondering: we have been planning to provide our Public LAR in .pdf format to anyone who requests it. If they don't want the electronic file, we will provide paper copies.

Our .pdf file will not be able to be manipulated to perform calculations, etc. Do you think requestors will complain about this?

We've received our first request for March 31 delivery, which is why I am pondering the issue.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Julie

This is for your 2004 or 2003 file? I'm guessing 2003. You wouldn't provide the data prior to the fed's getting it out would you?

We're strong believers of providing the data we need to, (that Public info). We provide either a printed copy, or the PDF, or direct folks to the website, but other than that, we don't export to excel or any other type of program.

We've never had a complaint, as there isn't another bank in town providing anything different.

I'm talking about the 2004 data. In the "HMDA Reporting: Getting it Right" guidebook, the following is stated: "A modified register must be available no later than March 31 for requests made on or before March 1 following the year to which the data related, and within 30 days for requests made after March 1."

I believe this is the first year we are required to provide the information prior to the Fed getting it out.

I believe we are required to be able to provide a LAR, w/o acct. numbers, within 30 days after submission. I have been hearing a lot of talk that some consumer groups putting in requests last November for 2004 data!

As for the pdf, I like the idea and that is how I would do it. Why give them something that they could manipulate and use against you?

Good gravy reading that made my head spin And thanks...because our HMDA folks hadn't pointed that little issue out to me yet

I'd still provide it in PDF form verses an excel or otherwise manipulatable format. I'm strongly against folks playing with my data (even with examiners playing with it, but I can't stop them) You just don't know how they'll manipulate it.

This is not a change under HMDA, but this year might be a busier year for requests for the Modified LAR due to the new HMDA fields (rate spread, HOEPA flag, lien status, and ethnicity).

I have our Modified LAR ready to go (after the IRS is confirmed) if anyone asks for it. We spent most of the day analyzing our results to be prepared for any inquiries.

I love the baby hippo with the turtle picture, Julia. That is the cutest story coming out of the tsunami!

PDF data can be manipulated, you just have to be smart enough to be able to cut and past the information into an Excel spreadsheet.

Yes true, but it's obvious that the bank didn't provide it in that manner so it clears me when all goes to heckfire

So our community organization friends have requested that we provide the Public LAR to them in FFIEC HMDA software readable format.

I am boggled as to how to do this. If I delete the application number from the file, the FFIEC HMDA software won't accept it. I'm using CRA Wiz 6.5 and am wondering if anyone knows how to replace the application number with consecutive numbers...

Or is there a way to delete the application numbers in the FFIEC software in a way that will be accepted?

Stumped. Confounded. Gnashing my teeth.

Oh - and on the PDF issue - if you lock the doc for editing, can people still cut and paste into Excel?

I don't recall a format requirement at all. So the steps you are going through is only to assist those (or the one group) requesting the data. (I admit I am surprised that there are even requests.)

PCi could help you out with an export if you can't save it in an XL format and delete the confidential fields. I thought there was a way to save it to XL, but it has been a long time since I worked with it.

Honestly, unless I wanted to be very courteous (i.e. suck up) to this group I'd give them what is required and let them input it into what they want, or they wait for the FRB released data files. If you do it this year, plan on it for the next and the next... if they actually do anything with it. And if you spend hours doing this extra work, what do you expect out of it? That is what I would ask and the answer would indicate how much I'd put into it.

PCi just talked me through it. It was a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. There is a button right there. Duh...

So many numbers, so little brain.

I have no desire to antagonize this organization. They are smart, capable, legitimate consumer advocates at the national level. I have a lot of respect for them. Regardless of how we provide the data, we know they will make every effort to find a story to tell.

Thanks so much for your response.

I spoke too soon. I am still confounded. I can't get this import/export to work.

I am calm and peaceful. Problem is resolved.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

Now I can leave for vacation!

Just a note concerning these requests, we service about 1,300 HMDA LAR submitters and I have personally talked to about 10 of the larger lenders that indicate they have already received requests for public LAR's. I would not be surprized if some groups take the public file that you can get for $50 from the fed for 2003 and just send blanket requests to everyone with certain loan volumes and higher. I don't want to scare anyone but it certainly is not out of the range of possibilities.

Leonard Ryan, QuestSoft

I'm a bit confused. I just printed the 'public release' LAR that you can get off the HMDA software. If anyone asks for it, they'll get a copy of that.

Is there somewhere that says we have to give it to them in the any way THEY want?

No bjp, and I personally wouldn't go over and beyond what is required. They can't say anything bad about you complying with the letter of the reg. Going overboard for one entity means you'd best do it for all.

We received a request from a consumer group with offices in Washington this past Friday. We are barely a large bank, around $310 million in assets and 200 even entries on our LAR.

I would like to mention that in their letter they ask "Please send an electronic file of your Loan Application Register (LAR) as submitted to your federal regulator as of March 1, 2005 for all loan applications...." Then further in the letter they state "The data should be in the same electronic file format that was submitted to your federal regulatory agency which would include the fields specified by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve for all HMDA reporters." No where do they mention anything about a Public and/or Modified LAR.

Sounds to me like they are trying to trip us up, trick us into sending the actual HMDA LAR, rather than the Public Modified LAR. I am sure they would have a field day with anyone who accidentally did that.

We currently have a hard copy of the Public LAR, that is all they gave me from our loan department. However, I do not wish to irritate the consumer group so I am going to import the HMDA LAR into PCi and figure out how to send an electronic copy of the Public LAR to them.

Rie, do you have something to be concerned about at the bank? Some reason to let these folks scare you? Remember, if all is well, even if they're big, they aren't likely to attack you if you have nothing to attack

They're asking for more work then is required, probably to analyze it. They can work backwards and import an excel file into Wiz. The fact that they're already asking for too much would lead me to provide the required data, but not to go anywhere near overboard. It's one thing to cooperate, and we all want to do that, but it's another to do their job, including explain they can't have what they've asked for...ie some of those fields.

We are a community bank where all turn downs are reviewed by two other loan officers. Our numbers, distribution, etc are all good. However, numbers and facts can be twisted and misconstrued.

While I have no intention of supplying them with any of the fields that are not included in the modified public LAR, I also have no intention of telling them why. I am confident that they know what information they are allowed to receive and are just fishing for the rest.

I am considering sending them the information in the electronic format as I simply have no desire to bring us to their attention in any way.

You all probably know this, but I haven't seen it stated in this thread. The reason for the heightened interest in HMDA information this year is the new reporting requirement for which you must disclose the spread between the APR and the yield on a comparable Treasury security if it is equal to or greater than 300 basis points on a 1st lien, and 500 on a junior lien. Depending on what this information shows, there is a good possibility that it will bring fair lending to one of the front burners again regarding bank pricing policies.

We strongly encourage banks to review this data prior to public disclosure, to detect disparities in lending and to develop a response should the bank be queried about this. The pricing information, while not new to examiners, will be publicly disclosed for the first time this year. Community groups, investigative reporters and others will be looking at this information in an attempt to judge an individual bank’s or the banking industry’s performance in fair lending.

The problem with HMDA information, of course, is that it isn't complete information, which allows outside groups to make unsupported claims about what it means. With all the lending programs out there now that reach higher risk customers, it's entirely possible the new HMDA data will make it appear as though banks arbitrarily charge minorities more interest than whites. Simply saying you have a risk-based pricing policy may not satisfy whatever group is questioning you, which is why we suggest developing an explanation for that policy. And we're not suggesting that you have a rigid pricing policy, or rigidly adhere to a scoring system, but that you have some guidance for your lenders. If you have a pricing system that allows wide, unmonitored discretion, then you may find it difficult to defend yourself. AR.

ABA has published "HMDA Communications:Telling Your Story Effectively". It is available to ABA members on their web site. It's a pretty good document and may help you to prepare for whatever questions may be coming.

We just received a call from a regulatory source that ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has been requesting complete LARs, not public LARs. We were reminded that releasing more than what is included in the public LAR is a breach of customer confidentiality.

For those of you interested in the electronic v. hard copy issue related to the release of the public LAR, please see www.innercitypress.org - the 4/4 CRA entry mocks a couple of banks who allegedly submitted .pdfs or were unable to figure out how to create a public LAR.

The letter I received states they are requesting the information "pursuant to the U.S. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (12 USC 2803(j)(1)) and enumerated in federal banking regulations know as Regulation C (12 CFR 203.5(c))."

203.5(c) refers to the public disclosure of the modified LAR and removing certain information. I sent them the modified public LAR.

Starky, did you send it electronically or did you send a hard copy?

Could someone do a survey to see how many banks received a request from ACORN?

You can if you register.

I think I'd want to send these certified mail. I'd like to be sure that they receive it within the time frame, for both their sake and mine

As to the response of the larger banks....sheesh if you are asked for the information, why start up a fuss by not complying? You just leave yourself open to this sort of article. That being said, it's also wrong for them to complain when the banks complied as required by the reg. Oh well Live and learn.

I'm reviving this thread because I just received a request from ACORN for a copy of our HMDA LAR, in the "same electronic file format that was submitted to (the bank's) federal regulatory agency". Of course, I won't do that; however, do we have to give it to them in an electronic format? We are approx. $250 million and don't use CRA Wiz or any other program at this time. Should I go out of my way to produce an electronic version or can I just send paper?

If you don't have it in e-form you certainly don't have to make it that way for them. If you do, it is often easier on everyone. But you are right to be cautious in that they cannot have the full data. They get the sanitized version and you are free to give them it on paper if you don't want to or can't do this in a PC program.

Let me throw my 2 cents worth in here... my institution also received a letter from ACORN. My advice to the powers that be was to give them no more than we are required. In my former life doing actual civil litigation I learned that when your adversary asks for discovery items you NEVER give them more than the bare minimum and ONLY give them exactly what they ask for. So I'm telling ACORN they can pay for the cost of copying and they will receive a paper copy of the public file.

As a consultant to many community banks I have been advised by most of them that they have received requests from ACORN. I am somewhat perplexed as to why ACORN is doing this at this time in light of the fact that the data will be available in "raw" format very soon (the Fed advised me earlier this week that the release of the HMDA LAR raw data will be delayed until September). Once the data is released in raw format any organization with relational database experts and with knowledge of banking can develop a comprehensive market analysis anywhere in the US. My company routinely does this every year and sells the market reports to bankers and non-bankers alike. Any reporting lender can be compared to the market and any, or all other, reporting lenders. Not only can market rank and market share analysis easily be done, but Fair Lending comparisons can be made - and all this is extracted from the HMDA LAR raw data. So it is puzzling why ACORN is making thousands of requests at this time. Maybe they just can't wait to see the new rate spread information (if you want to read about the rate spread data that already has been collected independently and analyzed visit Inner City Press' web site). But, since your data will be electronically available in the next 6 weeks or so, I don't see any problem with giving them the data electronically now unless you have some performance element that would make you look bad. And, if you don't know what your data says about your performance, you should.

One difference between what they are asking for and what they'll get is confidential data. They seem to want the LAR with more individual LAR data data than they'll get in the aggregate analysis. Part of me worries that they'll scream privacy violation if they get it.

I didn't realize the FFIEC program does have an export feature for the public LAR. I used 3rd party programs. This is good to know.

Litig8tr, the only thing I'd say about your approach is that I would not charge the entity if I didn't routinely charge other requests for the data. While I'm with the "give what you're required" theory, I also try to do so with some level of grace as to not end up on folks bad list

The latest versions of HMDA RELIEF also have the Public LAR option for electronic transmission of Year 2004 data without requiring any FFIEC software export.

In addition, we added a feature to limit full reports (including the confidential information) of LAR records within a State to only those records under the regulator's (i.e. attorney general, AKA Elliott Spitzer) jurisdiction thus supporting Andy's opinion that you only give the requestor exactly what they are legally entitled to.

Leonard Ryan
President
QuestSoft