From: Jerry Gosse [mailto:jgosse@efsbank.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:07 PM
To: 'regs.comments@federalreserve.gov'; Comments; 'regs.comments@occ.treas.gov';
'regs.comments@ots.treas.gov'
Subject: EGRPRA
It is my beief that many of the regulations are written so specifically
that
even if a bank does more than required or in a better manner, the
bank could
be cited by examiners for not following the regulation precisely.
An example
follows:
Section 226.18(m) requires disclosure of the fact that a creditor
has or will acquire an interest in property purchased as part of
the
transaction, or in other property
identified by item or type.
Our bank was cited for violating this regulation on two auto loans
primarily because we did not check the box (which states this) within
the
"
fed box".
However, directly
above the "fed box" we show the autos
securing the
loans by Year, VIN Number, Make, Model etc. and identified as security
for
the loan.
The examiners are not being faulted here as Section 226.17(a)(2)
does say
that the disclosures must be segragated or "grouped together" and
provides
several acceptable ways of segregating or grouping.
However, my is that our way of disclosing the security interest
in the
property being purchased was far superior and much clearer for the
borrower
to see, read, and understand than checking a box which possibly might
not
even be read by the customer. We now check the box to comply with
the
regulations.
It is regulations such as those cited above that result in unwarrented
and
unecessary citations by examiners who have no discretion to accept
an
alternative manner of compliance that meets (or even exceeds) the
intent and
spirit of the regulation.
I suggest that the regulators take a second look at these and other
such
regulations, and consider providing some examiner discretion to allow
for
compliance when it is clear that the spirit and intent of the regulation
is
being met (or even exceeded) by a bank.
Jerry Gosse
|
