From: Paul C. Adamski [mailto:pineries@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:57 AM
To: Comments
Subject: EGRPRA Review of Consumer Protection Lending Related Rules
Paul C. Adamski
3601 Main St.
Stevens Point, WI 54481
April 20, 2004
Dear FDIC:
Thank you for
this opportunity to comment on ways the FDIC can reduce
regulatory burden by identifying oudated, unnecessary or unduly burdensome
regulations. I applaud the FDIC's outreach in this area, especially as it
relates to community banks that know their customers and markets far
better than any mega bank that has offices in many markets.
I have been a
mortgage lender for over 30 years. Never, I repeat never,
have I had a customer exercise the right to cancel on the refinance of a
mortgage loan on their residence. Many of my colleques that have been in
the business for a similar period of time have had the same experience.
This is a classic example of an outdated regulation that never did what it
was intented to do.
The whole concept
of a privacy notice for a community bank is a
contradiction in terms. We know our customers because it is in the banks
best interest to know our customers. We spent many an hour working on the
first privacy notice, we delivered to customers, and then were told by
regulators it was to confusing. We just complied with the content of the
regulation when we prepared it for the purpose of trying to comply with
the law. Even now new customers just shrug their shoulders when we hand
out the privacy notice because they have become callus to the concept.
Now,that even dentists have to distribute them customers, all feel it is
just a waste of time and money. Less than one year after the law was in
effect a few brave regulators suggested, from their experience, that the
notice and regulation should not apply to banks under $250 million. We
believe it is obvious that this exception should be granted as soon as
possible
Truth in lending
regulations and the infamous APR have done nothing to
stop the mortgage bankers and other unethical lenders from continuing to
rip of customers. Every month I or my staff interview customers who are
not financially savy, who have been taken advantage by lenders who openly
defy the law by lying about their fees, or conveniently forgetting to
disclose the specifics of the closing costs they have wrapped into the
refinance. This regulation needs to be simplified, not made more complex
like the last draft submitted by regulators.
Finally after
all these months and years of talk about reducing regulatory
burden we are slapped, effective April 1 this year, with yet another
rediculous addendum to the uniform residential loan application which
requires a signature from applicants and Co-applicants identifying their
intention to apply for joint credit. The application already does this.
It is difficult
to beleive the agencies will actually make significant
changes that will reduce regulatory burden when a regulation of this sort
is mandated during the comment period for regulatory burden reduction.
Having said that I would not have taken the time to write this letter and
site these concerns ( which are just a few of many others that have been
promulgated over the last 30 years) unless I felt this might be a time
when the FDIC and other agencies have determined our banks resources are
better spent on making loans and educating customers about their financial
needs.
As always I am
available for questions or clarifications at your
convenience.
Yours very truly,
Paul C. Adamski
|
