In the 1000 series (Reserves Deposited With Lender) of the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, amounts are calculated to be held by the lender for future payment of taxes, insurance and other items. The last line in the section is an accounting adjustment based on the difference between line item and aggregate accounting. It seems that there is a small difference between the results if the items are separately calculated rather than as a group. This adjustment will usually be a negative number. Here’s the language from the HUD document setting forth the calculation:
“(d) Methods of escrow account analysis. Paragraph (c) of this section prescribes acceptable accounting methods. The following sets forth the steps servicers shall use to determine whether their use of an acceptable accounting method conforms with the limitations in Sec. 3500.17(c)(1). The steps set forth in this section derive maximum limits. Servicers may use accounting procedures that result in lower target balances. In particular, servicers may use a cushion less than the permissible cushion or no cushion at all. This section does not require the use of a cushion.
(1) Aggregate analysis. (i) When a servicer uses aggregate analysis in conducting the escrow account analysis, the target balances may not exceed the balances computed according to the following arithmetic operations:
(A) The servicer first projects a trial balance for the account as a whole over the next computation year (a trial running balance). In doing so the servicer assumes that it will make estimated disbursements on or before the earlier of the deadline to take advantage of discounts, if available, or the deadline to avoid a penalty. The servicer does not use pre-accrual on these disbursement dates. The servicer also assumes that the borrower will make monthly payments equal to one-twelfth of the estimated total annual escrow account disbursements.
(B) The servicer then examines the monthly trial balances and adds to the first monthly balance an amount just sufficient to bring the lowest monthly trial balance to zero, and adjusts all other monthly balances accordingly.
(C) The servicer then adds to the monthly balances the permissible cushion. The cushion is two months of the borrower’s escrow payments to the servicer or a lesser amount specified by State law or the mortgage document (net of any increases or decreases because of prior year shortages or surpluses, respectively).
(ii) Lowest monthly balance. Under aggregate analysis, the lowest monthly target balance for the account shall be less than or equal to one-sixth of the estimated total annual escrow account disbursements or a lesser amount specified by State law or the mortgage document. The target balances that the servicer derives using these steps yield the maximum limit for the escrow account. Appendix E to this part illustrates these steps.
(2) Single-item or other non-aggregate analysis method. (i) When a servicer uses single-item analysis or any hybrid accounting method in conducting an escrow account analysis during the phase-in period, the target balances may not exceed the balances computed according to the following arithmetic operations:
(A) The servicer first projects a trial balance for each item over the next computation year (a trial running balance). In doing so the servicer assumes that it will make estimated disbursements on or before the earlier of the deadline to take advantage of discounts, if available, or the deadline to avoid a penalty. The servicer does not use pre-accrual on these disbursement dates. The servicer also assumes that the borrower will make periodic payments equal to one-twelfth of the estimated total annual escrow account disbursements.
(B) The servicer then examines the monthly trial balance for each escrow account item and adds to the first monthly balance for each separate item an amount just sufficient to bring the lowest monthly trial balance for that item to zero, and then adjusts all other monthly balances accordingly.
(C) The servicer then adds the permissible cushion, if any, to the monthly balance for the separate escrow account item. The permissible cushion is two months of escrow payments for the escrow account item (net of any increases or decreases because of prior year shortages or surpluses, respectively) or a lesser amount specified by State law or the mortgage document.
(D) The servicer then examines the balances for each item to make certain that the lowest monthly balance for that item is less than or equal to one-sixth of the estimated total annual escrow account disbursements for that item or a lesser amount specified by State law or the mortgage document.
(ii) In performing an escrow account analysis using single-item analysis, servicers may account for each escrow account item separately, but servicers shall not further divide accounts into sub-accounts, even if the payee of a disbursement requires installment payments. The target balances that the servicer derives using these steps yield the maximum limit for the escrow account. Appendix F to this part illustrates these steps.”
Ok – this is the language from HUD. Can anybody explain “Aggregate Adjustment” in 25 words or less?
Posted via email from Title Insurance Plain and Simple: if you weren’t already aware, the CFPB is looking to combine TIL and RESPA disclosures into one document. Home loan disclosures are being redesigned, again! READ MORE Interesting timing for such a major change isn’t it. A necessary evil, but still interesting timing. These updates are moving forward regardless of the fact that no real clarity has been offered on the future of the housing finance mechanism (GSEs). And even more closely related to the disclosure updates themselves, the industry is attempting to reform its entire compensation model right now. How can we expect lenders to interpret and implement new originator compensation models without knowing how the new consumer disclosure package will look? How can we expect lenders to keep the mortgage market competitive if we don’t have a clear indication of how loans will be securitized. I can go on and on here…HOW ABOUT THE RISK RETENTION REGS? WHAT IS CONSIDERED A QUALIFIED LOAN? I don’t have a problem with the abundance of reforms that have been outlined for the mortgage industry, but maybe we should approach one major reform at a time to ensure we get the job done right. Compliance folks can only be spread out so far before their oversight wears thin. The final compensation rules are effective April 1, Posted via email from Title Insurance To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that is assigned to the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or for which MERS is the mortgagee of record. –> H.R. 6460–111th Congress: To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that…. (2010). In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved December 8, 2010, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-6460 “H.R. 6460–111th Congress: To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that….” GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). 2010. December 8, 2010 The interesting part of this bill for us is section 3: (a) Study- The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States, shall conduct a study to analyze and determine– (1) the impacts of the lack of electronic records and uniform standards found in local land title recordation systems currently used in the various States; (2) any progress States have made in developing electronic land title recordation systems for their localities that contain uniform standards, and any findings and conclusions and best practices resulting from such development; (3) the current oversight role of the Federal Government in the transfer and recordation of land titles; (4) opportunities, and the feasibility of such opportunities, that may be present to leverage progress made by some States and localities to create an electronic land title recordation system, including through– (A) a system that would maintain all previous records of the land-property without invalidating, interfering with, or preempting State real property law governing the transfer and perfection of land title; and (B) further actions by the States or by the Federal Government, or coordinated actions of both; and (5) the feasibility of creating a Federal land title recordation system for property transfers that would maintain all previous records of the land-property without invalidating, interfering with, or preempting State real property law governing the transfer and perfection of land title. (b) Report- Not later than the expiration of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Comptroller General of the United States, shall submit to the Congress a report on the results and findings of the study conducted under this section. If the Bill gets out of committee, it will be one to watch. Posted via email from Title Insurance
Continuing Ed for Title Agents
Mortgage Industry Gong Show: Hasty Rule-Making Creates More Confusion
Continuing Ed for Title Agents
H.R. 6460: To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that… (GovTrack.us)
Overview
Full Text
Introduced
Nov 30, 2010
Referred to Committee
View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee
…
House Vote
…
Senate Vote
…
Signed by President
…
Nov 30, 2010: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
{{cite web |url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-6460 |title=H.R. 6460 |accessdate=December 8, 2010 |author=111th Congress (2010) |date=Nov 30, 2010 |work=Legislation |publisher=GovTrack.us |quote=To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that... }}
SEC. 3. HUD STUDY.
Continuing Ed for Title Agents
Posts navigation
Online – All the time