Mortgage attorney says CFPB's TRID review a good first step, but bigger affordability changes are still ahead
On Thursday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published a request for information (RFI) on potential changes to the mortgage disclosure rules that govern how and when lenders provide loan estimates and closing disclosures, among other items.
The RFI, tied to Executive Order 14393 signed by President Trump in March, covers the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures (TRID), the right of rescission, and reverse mortgage disclosures, with 22 questions and multiple sub-questions.
For brokers, the questions being asked suggest meaningful changes to closing timelines, disclosure tolerances, and potentially the theory of consumer protection that underpins the entire TRID framework.
Peter Idziak (pictured top), principal at Polunsky Beitel Green, said the RFI is a good first step of action after the executive order, but there is likely more work ahead for the CFPB.
"This is sort of the first item that's being addressed because there are other sections of that order that deal with, for example, ability to repay and the qualified mortgage rule and appraisal modernization which, you know, perhaps arguably might have a greater impact on affordability," Idziak told Mortgage Professional America. "The TRID revisions could be helpful, but probably more at the margins."
What brokers should know
The scope is broader than some expected, Idziak said. The way the RFI questions are framed makes clear the bureau is considering revisions for all lenders, not just community and smaller banks.
One of the most significant issues is whether TRID's timing standards could be replaced or supplemented by a materiality standard, and Idziak said the RFI appears to be pulling back from a wholesale shift.
"It seems like it's moved a little bit away from a wholesale change from timing to materiality towards considering just shortening the timeframe," he said. "And I think that's probably due to feedback that the bureau's received on concerns regarding how that materiality standard would work, how it affects MBS, mortgage and servicing rights, and pricing liquidity."
For brokers, the most practically significant risk is what Idziak called channel fragmentation. If a materiality standard is offered as an optional alternative to timing rather than a universal replacement, different lenders may adopt different approaches.
"If I'm a broker and I'm placing a loan somewhere that says we'll accept materiality, and then I'm placing it with another lender that does timing, where do you sit?" he said. "How is that going to work in your workflow? A second option doesn't always make things easier. In the compliance space, sometimes just one bright-line rule that the entire industry follows is simpler and just more efficient."
Another potential change involves the timing for the loan estimate and closing disclosure. If lenders must issue the loan estimate sooner, the tolerance buckets will need to shift, he said.
"If you're going to issue the loan estimate earlier, then you're going to have to allow for creditors to have more things in the 10% bucket, more things in the unlimited bucket and fewer zero tolerance items," Idziak said. "Because the lender is going to have less information at that point."
Idziak said some states also have disclosure timelines that may still be more extended, regardless of what the CFPB changes on the federal level.
Also suggested are changes to the right of rescission, although that could be more complicated. The right of rescission is set by statute, which limits what the bureau can accomplish through regulation, Idziak said. But one area where clarity could help is the bona fide personal financial emergency waiver, which currently has no workable definition.
"A lot of lenders just say no such thing because we don't know what it is and we don't want you to come back, borrower, and claim that it really wasn't a bona fide personal financial emergency," he said. "If the bureau says, ‘Hey, lender, if the borrower tells you that there's a bona fide personal financial emergency, you have a regulatory safe harbor if you agree to waive the rescission period and fund on the closing date.’ Some clarity there would be helpful."
How to leave comments
Comments are due August 10, although Idziak said while stakeholders should not expect an extension, it is possible if there is enough industry pushback. The comment period, Idziak said, is shorter than CFPB TRID reviews of the past. Typically those have stayed open for 60 days, while this one is just 32 days.
"The short period indicates that the bureau already has some idea of where they want to go," he said. "So it's not a brainstorming session kind of thing. This is a, ‘We have an idea of where we want to go, and so help us either dissuade us or reinforce our ideas.’"
Idziak said there will be more work to do for the CFPB to cover the items designated in the executive order. But that doesn’t mean these changes aren’t needed.
"The bigger lifts on affordability will come through rulemaking in other areas, especially ATR and QM reform and appraisal modernization," he said. "To the extent that you can tweak these disclosure requirements after having years and years of data on how consumers actually use them, I think that's always a good thing."
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2026-0018, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, by email at [email protected], or by mail/hand delivery/courier at this address: Comment Intake—Mortgage Disclosures and Rescission RFI, c/o Legal Division Docket Manager, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC 20024-2101.
Stay updated with the freshest mortgage news. Get exclusive interviews, breaking news, and industry events in your inbox, and always be the first to know by subscribing to our FREE daily newsletter.
