…example the agency gives is a request that a diligent servicer would need more than 45 days to answer.

Is there a specific type of information you are worried might be excluded by these rules and that you think is important for consumers to have? How would you modify these rules to achieve the results you might seek? « less

…statement and eliminate entire categories of crime and eliminate the need to beg for additional information by the borrower. Versability is an insider, bank person that understands banking software and what they are capable of doing. Why is the ultimate goal here, not to reduce as many phone calls as possible, for the borrower to make and the servicer to receive, by providing all monthly activity, in a transparent monthly loan statement, by maximizing the “Transaction Activity” category. (common sense) Everybody is emailing Regulation Room their information problems. It is time to make a list and determine what is “reasonable” information and what is not with specific questions or this is useless. Until we do this we are not even addressing the problem. Should the government tell the Banks, if we are going to give you money to lend, then all activity between banks,servicers and third party vendors in relation to a loan directly and indirectly, has to be transparent to the borrower in “Transaction Activity” monthly? The government needs to say, this has to be a requirement, due to the uncontrollable level of fraud, money laundering, deception and irresponsibility that the ordinary people are being put through unnecessarily. The current system is not working and there are no other alternatives that will solve this problem. Why will our government not step up their game and say, we are not going to allow the banking system any longer, to hide their over priced expenses, behind four interchangeable standard responses that include: “that is proprietary information” or “that is non-recovery” or we are not going to answer your question in relation to expenses, that your account was billed etc… We already know what the servicer is going to determine is “unreasonable” and they will apply the same 4 lousy excuses over and over that I have addressed above, that happened to me. Although it was not the largest monetary crime committed in my account, my following example demonstrates the lack of quality response that is the standard servicer response and manipulation of excuses that the current system allows and the proposed generic changes will let continue. Sadly, this will continue based on the leave it up to the banker to decide if it is an “unreasonable” question, as the solution. Do you think this is unreasonable? I asked who did the drive by inspections of my home, that my account was being billed for, AFTER my home sold. The bank informed me this information was proprietary. I received a check for the over billing with no description on the check. When I asked JPMC why they mailed me a check dated… for the amount of…. and the check cover page even had a bar code and a check a number. Chase responded with: “Chase does not have a record of the letter you are referring to in regards to refund of fees” (Sorry our computer is stupid game). The current system allows banks to be reactive and return only money on an “as busted system” ( HUGE PROBLEM NO SOLUTION) (reactive instead of proactive) When a servicer receives a letter questioning something just refund it. If a borrower is given little information on expenses in their account and you do not get a letter then you keep your ill gotten gains. It really is a simple system based on limited information. With the current system, the servicer just needs to set up a “got caught expense fund” and consider it the cost of committing fraud instead of cost of goods sold. The government is responsible for this current broken system by not requiring transparent monthly statements with strict guidelines on the use of “Transaction Activity”. Versatility as a insider and me having uncovered fraud in almost every categories of my loan payoff statement will both tell you this current disclosure plan does nothing to address the worst problems. (Problem:Banking fraud and secretive activity involving your loan account that increase your payoff and over states your expenses. Solution: eliminate the secrets with 30 day all inclusive, loan activity statements and there are no questions or secrets allowed). The problems are massive and the solutions are so simple. So Servicers don’t have to provide “confidential” (AKA that is proprietary) or “general corporate” (this is soooo generic and generally covers anything servicer related and my “that is non-recovery” would even fit here it is so generic and useless) and if the request for information can not be rejected with one of these generic categories jump to “for information it does not have” (AKA Sorry our computer is stupid game) I could go down this whole list but I think the point is made that this solution is not helpful and is actually counter productive by legitimizing the response that I received above.
« less

…are they only allowing an attorney to get? Splitting the disclosure up between different companies without a simple monthly transparent statement is ignoring the real problem. Where is your question about what rights you are in the process of taking away from the public? I am the poster child for mortgage abuse, having found crime in almost every category, in reference to my home loan. I can tell you, the only thing that would have prevented this from happening, to me, would be if the “Transaction Activity” category, in your new sample Periodic Statement (or monthly loan statement) include all activity related to my loan. Keep in mind this is not a regular bank statement with lots of entries. This a 1 simple loan statement and there should only be a few entries under “Transaction Activity” each month with transparency. For example, if JP Morgan gives Assurant money for a force placed insurance policy and Assurant cuts a check back to JP Morgan or a subsidiary of JP Morgan for 75% of the policy and both activities are related to my loan then the servicer needs to record both under “Transaction Activity”. I can see why the banks would say this is being “unduly burdensome” when they have to document what they are really doing to people. What did you think they would say, we want to put all our crimes on paper and be held accountable, let’s do it? If the servicer charges for a drive by inspections after your house sold then the company name and phone number need to be in Transaction Activity showing the payout. If your servicer and the closing agent both collect your current years property taxes at closing, the day it was paid out should show up in your “Transaction Activity” so you can find it. If the bank is going to keep your account open for 6 months, after your closing, charging you additional interest, to use up some of the over stated closing money, then the bank should send you monthly statements, for 6 months, showing what they are doing behind your back. Limited disclosure like you are proposing is bad but you should see what happens, after the closing, when no disclosure statement is mailed out and your account is left open. You don’t know the half of it. Do you really think it’s better to have a 4 year investigation, into force placed insurance, with lots of hearings, to finally get a company, to admit they are cutting back, up to 75% for force placed insurance policies, back to JP Morgan Chase, when they initiate a policy? Because this entry was not required, on the monthly statement, is the reason so many people, have been so badly abused and why this went unnoticed for so long. You say the banks claim it is “unduly burdensome” to tell me what they are doing to me. Let’s dissect the banks objections and make some real progress. “Transaction Activity” transparency is the category where the problems and solutions rest and it is being swept under the rug, with your plan, with very little disclosure and you are not hearing the “ORDINARY” people. Moderator, please get a list from the CFPB of all the “unduly burdensome” issues the bank claims is beyond the roll of “servicing” a loan, that they are afraid to disclose. Unless someone is being over paid or generating some third party fraud that requires information to be hid, the banks should be happy to put everything on the monthly statement, to relieve the servicer, of the burden of all the phone calls. The truth is the Banksters know, that they have to put up with, unduly burdensome phone calls because the only other alternative is to expose their crimes, under “Transaction Activity” and people will no longer need to call. With full disclosure, the banks and the CFPB’s phone should hardly ring, in reference to mortgage loans. How many entries could there possible be in one loan in 30 days? If you leave this category, the way it is now, you have just enabled the circus to continue. Bottom line, it is not up to the banks and servicers to determine how responsible they are going to be, it is up to the government to set the standards high not low, with transparency. Why will Obama not tell Richard Cordray to demand full disclosure, from the banks, for the “ORDINARY” people, if a bank wants to be able to continue to lend money, end of story! If I understand you correctly, you are going to limit even further the information available to the public, making some of it only available to attorney’s, “which would allow servicers not to respond to certain types of information requests” according to you. I get real nervous, when you talk about a “new disclosure system by attorneys, rather than ORDINARY people”. What is even more scary is your solution for the question that we are currently discussing that addresses not being able to get information from your lender. Your solution talks about the CFPB’s worry about “the risk of overloading consumers with too much information”. I have been alive for 50 years and nobody in any conversation has ever complained that their lender has given them too much information. I realize that Adam Levitin, that just joined the CFPB, as an advisor, is an attorney and could benefit from this rule but after reading some of his amazing papers I would love to know what he has to say about this. Would he leave a comment? My opinion is, you don’t limit borrowers information further to reduce crime and increase transparency. The ordinary people should not have to pay out any money to get information on your loan it should be provided monthly. Look at the earnings of the largest servicers even with all the lawsuits and you should agree they need to start offering service for their earnings. A couple of entries a month is hardly a burden for this amount of wealth the banks are generating from the ordinary and the banks probably cannot even believe they are getting away with providing such little detail.
(Borrower Problem: borrowers not given information Solution: borrowers get all relevant information monthly, timely).
(Servicer Problem: unduly burdensome phone calls where answers are few Solution: Borrower gets all relevant information monthly eliminating unduly burdensome phone calls) « less

…you think should be included in the sample periodic statement?

You also mentioned that advanced software and technology is available to servicers that would simplify the disclosure process. What do you think of the proposed exception servicers would have that would allow them not to respond to “unduly burdensome” information requests? « less