August 2015

Leveraging technology to 

empower mortgage 

consumers at closing

Learnings from the eClosing pilot
1 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

Message from 

Richard Cordray

Director of the CFPB

Since our inception, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been committed to 

improving the mortgage process for consumers. With almost 10 million mortgages closed each 

year, the American mortgage market is the largest consumer financial market in the world. For 

most consumers, buying a home constitutes the largest financial transaction of their lives, and 

the financial crisis revealed the deep connections between the mortgage market and our broader 

economy. Yet, as we explained in our April 2014 report, Mortgage Closings Today, too often the 

process of obtaining a mortgage is fraught with considerable anxiety and overwhelming 

amounts of paperwork.1 This process is currently not working as well as it could for consumers 

or industry.

The Bureau is committed to empowering mortgage consumers and fostering a more efficient, 

consumer-friendly process. While our initial efforts focused on establishing mortgage processing 

guard rails to protect consumers, our focus this year has been on empowering mortgage 

consumers through our Know Before You Owe initiative. Beyond rulemaking, this initiative also 

includes our work to provide tools and information that consumers can use to have more control 

over the mortgage process and to make better financial choices to meet their own life goals. We 

intend to be a catalyst for change in areas where we see great promise.

 

1 Available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201404_cfpb_report_mortgage-closings-today.pdf
2 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

To that end, we are ardent believers in the promise of technology, including electronic closing 

technologies, referred to in this study and commonly known as eClosing. Using the power of 

technology has shown the potential to simplify the closing process and empower consumers 

with better organized information, more time to review that information, and the ability to 

embed educational resources. When the Bureau started exploring the process and use of

eClosings in 2013, we participated in extensive conversations with consumers, industry 

stakeholders, consumer advocates, and partners across government. We heard anecdotal 

evidence about the potential benefits and risks of these technologies and about the challenges 

associated with eClosing adoption. However, we had not come across a consumer-focused study 

to evaluate any of these positive or negative impacts. For that reason, we set out to conduct a 

pilot project that would take a closer look at how the eClosing process might influence the 

mortgage closing experience for consumers. 

Today, we are proud to share the results of that pilot, which reveal some important initial 

insights about how eClosing can influence a consumer’s home-buying experience and can offer a 

promising option for consumers. Notably, eClosing borrowers in our pilot scored higher than 

paper borrowers on our measures of empowerment at closing, perceived understanding, and 

efficiency.

We were pleased, but not surprised, to see another critical finding in our pilot analysis: often, 

the consumers who showed the best results according to our metrics were those who received 

and reviewed their closing documents before the closing meeting. Early document delivery and 

review was associated with better measured outcomes in both paper and eClosing transactions, 

but the early delivery of documents occurred much more consistently in the eClosings we 

analyzed during the study. Similarly, those who accessed CFPB educational materials saw gains 

in the outcomes that we measured. 

While we cannot determine any direct link here, I would intuit that both early document review 

and educational materials can play a role in helping consumers to better understand their 

closing documents and the process. Both of these results were well aligned with the research 

that was the basis of our Know Before You Owe initiatives to get more information into the 

hands of consumers earlier in the mortgage process. The timing requirements of the Know 

Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule will help accomplish that goal. While the information

that this pilot yielded is not sufficient to allow us to draw definitive conclusions, we were 

encouraged by what we saw within the scope of our pilot. Additional research is needed to 

gather more information, further validate some of these initial findings, and expand on how to 
3 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

serve consumers better. The overall story of this pilot on eClosing is positive, and the CFPB will 

continue to explore eClosing and further discuss how these technologies can enhance consumer 

outcomes. We are excited to continue to encourage other tools and processes that foster greater 

understanding, empowerment, and efficiency for consumers.

Central to the success of the pilot was our close work with participating lenders, technology 

vendors, and settlement agents. We are grateful to our pilot participants who contributed so 

much time and effort to produce this initial research, and we are eager to build on this work with 

other stakeholders across government and industry. We are pleased to see that more companies 

are adopting eClosing solutions and that our embedded educational materials will appear frontand-center in some of these closing platforms. Some companies have told us that they are 

utilizing eClosing technologies to improve the consumer experience, deliver and sign documents 

electronically and leveraging our Owning a Home website and content to educate consumers.

Industry also tells us that they see eClosing as likely to improve efficiency and accuracy and to 

lead to lower costs. That could be a win-win outcome on both sides of the closing table. 

Closing on a mortgage remains one of the most significant, yet stressful, times in the lives of 

consumers. However, this report offers promise that technology could be an important tool to 

break down a complex process into one that is easier to understand. We know that much work 

and further study lies ahead. We envision a world where most of the mortgage transaction is 

facilitated by technology, and where consumers have adequate time to review documents and 

access tools to help them break down the complexity of the process. The new Closing Disclosure,

a consumer-tested summary of the transaction that gives consumers the final loan terms in one 

place before they sign, will serve as the key document that should be the front and center to 

guide the closing meeting. 

We remain committed and excited to continue to learn and to work with all stakeholders –

serving as a catalyst for consumer-friendly innovations, as a convener of cross-sector 

collaboration, and as an advocate – to ensure that consumers understand the commitment they 

are making and are empowered to make better informed financial choices.

Sincerely, 

Richard Cordray
4 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

Table of contents

Message from Richard Cordray .................................................................................1

Table of contents.........................................................................................................4

1. Executive summary..............................................................................................6

1.1 Key findings ...............................................................................................9

1.2 Additional lessons learned.......................................................................11

1.3 Potential implications ............................................................................. 14

2. Context & background .......................................................................................17

3. Methodology .......................................................................................................20

3.1 Pilot participants.....................................................................................20

3.2 Data sources............................................................................................ 21

3.3 Segments.................................................................................................23

3.4 Outcomes ................................................................................................ 27

3.5 Key caveats..............................................................................................30

4. Key findings ........................................................................................................33

4.1 Summary analysis of eClosing versus paper closing ..............................34

4.2 Components of eClosing.........................................................................36

4.3 Detailed analysis of eClosing versus paper ............................................42
5 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

4.4 Demographic analysis ............................................................................50

4.5 Important considerations for implementing eClosing .......................... 61

5. Additional lessons learned ................................................................................64

5.1 Key success factors ..................................................................................65

5.2 eClosing implementation challenges...................................................... 67

6. Potential implications.........................................................................................75

6.1 Industry should continue to explore eClosing as a viable option for 

consumers............................................................................................... 76

6.2 We encourage stakeholders to conduct further research ...................... 78

6.3 Those exploring implementation of eClosing should consider the 

lessons learned from this pilot to inform their implementation plans . 81

6.4 CFPB and others should leverage this pilot to help guide next steps....82

6.5 The CFPB remains interested in looking at further evaluations of 

eClosing together with an analysis of upcoming market changes.........83

7. Conclusion ..........................................................................................................84

Appendix A: ...............................................................................................................85

Loan data overview..........................................................................................85

Appendix B:...............................................................................................................86

Survey respondent overview ...........................................................................86

Appendix C:...............................................................................................................87

Contents of composite scores in survey data ..................................................87

Appendix D:...............................................................................................................89

“Net positive score” calculation methodology ................................................89
6 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

1. Executive summary

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act)2 directed 

the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to develop and implement initiatives 

intended to educate and empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions.3 The 

financial crisis was a prime example of what happens when consumers operate in a world of 

little transparency. As part of the CFPB's broader efforts to improve the mortgage process for 

consumers, the Bureau took a look with a microscopic lens at one important part of a mortgage 

transaction: the closing process - the last step before a consumer is contractually obligated to 

their loan. Following this study, the Bureau became interested in how technology-enabled 

closings (eClosings) could facilitate embedding educational materials to closing platforms in 

addition to early review of closing documents. We conducted a pilot research program, with 

lenders and technology vendors, to evaluate eClosing processes and their role in influencing the 

consumer experience. It is important to note that when we talk about eClosing, we refer to 

mortgage closings that rely on technology that allows consumers and those involved with the 

mortgage transaction to view and sign documents electronically. Our definition also includes 

hybrid eClosing, in which a portion of the closing documents are viewed or signed electronically 

 

2 Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376-2223 (2010).)

3 An important financial literacy mandate is set forth in Section 1013(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which directs the

Bureau, through its Office of Financial Education, to develop and implement initiatives intended to “educate and

empower consumers to make better informed financial decisions” and to “develop and implement a strategy to

improve the financial literacy of consumers.” (12 U.S.C. § 5493(d)(1)&(2)). The Dodd-Frank Act also mandated the

creation of other offices within the Bureau that are responsible for, among other things, developing financial

education and policy initiatives to support the financial well-being of particular segments of the consumer population

(12 U.S.C. § 5493(b),(e),(g)).
7 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

while others are signed with ink on paper.4 The purpose of our pilot was to explore whether the 

use of eClosing technology combined with more time to review closing documents with

embedded educational tools can help consumers navigate the closing process. In addition, we 

wanted to see how these changes might improve efficiencies in the lending process.

Seven lenders participated in this pilot; some had prior experience conducting eClosings and 

others instituted the necessary process changes for this pilot. In addition to gathering data from 

lenders and settlement agents, we also surveyed consumers who closed loans with these lenders. 

Building upon consumer research in the report Mortgage Closings Today, we decided to 

evaluate the eClosing solutions of the pilot on three dimensions of the consumer experience: 

empowerment, understanding, and process efficiencies during the closing process.56 For the 

purposes of this pilot, we measured empowerment in several ways, including the consumer's 

ability to feel like they are playing a more active role in the closing process – for example, by 

having sufficient time to review documents and ask questions. Similarly, we measure consumer 

understanding as knowledge of the most important loan information, such as: terms and fees, 

justifications for any difference between quoted and final costs, and awareness of the borrower's 

rights, responsibilities, and relevant consequences. We captured several indicators of process 

efficiency, including the timing for important steps of the process, delays, and errors in 

documents. Where possible, we collected data on both actual and perceived understanding and 

efficiency – in some instances, we relied on data as self-reported by consumers or other closing 

participants (e.g., settlement agents).7 As described further in the Methodology section, our core 

 4 Note that eClosings are fundamentally different from eMortgages. In the past, some mortgage closing parties have 

viewed eClosing as an “all or nothing” proposal with large focus on the eNote. It is clear that lenders have increasingly 

embraced “hybrid” approaches to eClosing, with pieces of the closing process moved to electronic format and others 

remaining on paper and/or in person. This “hybrid” approach is significantly more common across industry than a 

fully electronic closing; most often, when we are referring to an “eClosing”, we are referring to a hybrid process. See 

Methodology (in Chapter 3) for more information.

5 See Methodology (in Chapter 3) for full definitions of each outcome and how they were tested and measured.

6 Note that this pilot was not intended to measure outcomes regarding the loan itself but rather the focus is on 

measuring improvements in the closing process. 

7 See Methodology (in Chapter 3) for clarification on the differences between perceived and actual outcomes. The 

Implications section (in Chapter 6) outlines our recommendations for further research to address this limitation.
8 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

experimental design revolved around dividing consumers among test groups who experienced a 

paper closing, a base eClosing, or advanced eClosing, where closing platforms included 

embedded educational materials and consumers had more time to review closing documents. 8 9

The CFPB asked consumers questions about their actual knowledge and understanding of the 

process, and how they felt about the process. On the perception questions, scores were 

calculated based on borrowers' rating their responses from “strongly agree” to “strongly 

disagree” to various statements. Data from these questions were presented as “net positive 

scores,” which were calculated as the difference between the percentage of those who responded 

positively and the percentage of those who responded negatively.

It is worth noting that the pilot resulted in two important sources of learning: one was borrowerspecific data on the consumer experience, of which the majority of borrowers in the study came 

from the pilot participants with prior experience with eClosings. At the same time, several pilot 

lenders who were using eClosing for the first time provided critical feedback regarding what it 

takes to implement and execute eClosing in the marketplace. This report outlines the key 

findings of this pilot program, summarizes lessons learned regarding the implementation of 

eClosing platforms and processes, and articulates potential implications and next steps for 

industry and the Bureau. In the years ahead, we believe that eClosing can provide an 

opportunity to deliver an improved experience for this important step in the mortgage 

transaction and benefit both industry and consumers.

 

8 See Methodology (in Chapter 3) for a more detailed description of our experimental design. The key difference 

between “base” eClosing and “advanced” eClosing was that with advanced eClosings, consumers received their 

closing documents three days prior to their closing meeting and had access to CFPB educational materials.

9 We use terms “empowerment at closing,” and “feeling empowered” interchangeably. The definition of 

empowerment in closing used in this report refers to a set of measures defined solely for the purposes of the CFPB 

eClosing pilot and is not to be confused with the term “financial empowerment” or with the CFPB’s work through its 

Office of Financial Empowerment. The CFPB’s Office of Financial Empowerment works to empower low-income 

and economically vulnerable consumers to make informed financial decisions by providing them with tools and 

information and by promoting a more inclusive and fair financial marketplace. For more information about the

Office of Financial Empowerment: http://www.consumerfinance.gov/empowerment/
9 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

1.1 Key findings 

Evidence from the data, surveys, and interviews collected during this pilot indicates that 

eClosing solutions enhanced certain aspects of the overall consumer experience with the 

mortgage closing process, based on the three key outcomes described above. As summarized in 

Chapter 4, the most notable findings are as follows:

On average, eClosing borrowers in the pilot had higher scores than paper 

borrowers on our measured outcomes, including perceived empowerment, 

understanding (perceived and actual), and efficiency.

 The largest differences between borrowers who participated in an eClosing and a paper 

closing were in our measures of perceived empowerment and efficiency.

Consumers who received and reviewed documents before the closing meeting 

reported feeling more empowered in the closing process, with higher levels of 

perceived understanding and efficiency. Additionally, these consumers had higher 

scores on the actual understanding quiz relative to those who did not review 

documents before the meeting.

 Differences across these key outcomes were particularly pronounced in purchase 

transactions.10

 In the pilot, early document review was more prevalent in eClosing than in paper 

closings.11

Most pilot borrowers with access to CFPB educational materials stated that they 

used these materials and reported that they were useful.

 

10 For purchase eClosings, the total loan sample size was 138 and survey sample size was 47. For refinance eClosings, 

the total loan sample size was 985 and survey sample size was 490. 

11 Delivery of closing documents 3 business days prior to closing will be required by the Know Before You Owe 

mortgage disclosure rule as of October 3, 2015.
10 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

 Borrowers in the pilot who used educational materials reported higher empowerment in 

the closing process, less confusion, and clearer understanding than those who did not 

use them.

Detailed analysis revealed important nuances among transaction types on 

eClosings relative to paper closings in the pilot.

 For purchase transactions in the pilot, borrowers experiencing an eClosing scored higher 

than consumers in the paper closing group on perceived understanding and actual 

knowledge, and the relationship was even more pronounced in measures of perceived 

empowerment.

 For refinance transactions in the pilot, results were mixed on the measured outcomes 

among paper closings, base eClosings, and advanced eClosings. 

eClosing transactions in the pilot exhibited shorter closing meetings and earlier 

document delivery, which matched higher scores on consumer perceptions of 

efficiency.

 On average, consumers experiencing an eClosing in the pilot received the documents 

more quickly after the documents were cleared to close and consumers had longer 

periods of time to review documents than consumers who did a paper closing.

 eClosing meetings in the pilot, on average, were reported to be much shorter than paper 

closings, particularly for purchases.12

 Borrower perceptions of efficiency were higher for eClosing borrowers than for 

borrowers in the paper closing group, particularly in reference to purchase transactions.

First-time homebuyers, low/moderate income borrowers and borrowers with the 

most years of formal education all had the largest positive gains between paper 

and eClosing, yet all scored relatively low on our measures of understanding and 

perceived empowerment.

 

12 This could be due largely to consumers having the opportunity to review documents in advance and ask questions 

before closing.
11 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

Readers of this report should note that our conclusions are based on the limited scope of loans 

in our pilot (3,292 loans and 1,254 survey respondents from seven lenders) and limitations of 

the experimental design (e.g. inability to run a fully randomized trial). Given the small sample 

size and demographic limitations, we did not test for statistical significance in our findings; 

rather, we report differences in average borrower outcomes to offer directional views of the 

consumer experience. In many cases, we include actual and percentage differences to provide 

transparency for readers seeking to interpret the findings. Because of the barriers to full 

randomization, the data could have selection bias, both within lenders and across lenders. Our 

findings of this report do not necessarily indicate causation, but rather a relationship between 

the variables. Nevertheless, the data we collected has given us valuable insights that can be used 

as a launching pad for further eClosing exploration and research and reinforced our perceptions 

that eClosing can improve the experience for consumers. 13

1.2 Additional lessons learned

Chapter 5 provides lessons learned and insights from the companies that participated in the 

pilot, collected from interviews and conversations during and after the pilot. Several lessons 

learned relate to practices that contributed to successful implementation of eClosing solutions, 

while others are common challenges that a number of the participants faced. 

Several common practices contributed to successful implementation of eClosing solutions 

among pilot participants. These factors played a role in differentiating the lenders who were able 

to conduct eClosings more easily from those who faced more challenges in implementation. 

Those key success factors included:

 Clear expectations and consistent communication between all players involved (e.g. 

lenders, vendors, and their associated partners) was necessary for a successful pilot 

collaboration. 

 

13 See Methodology (in Chapter 3) for a fuller explanation of the limitations of these data
12 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

 Commitment from company leadership was vital to driving the change and ensuring 

buy-in across the organization for the efforts involved in implementing eClosings.

 Allowing sufficient time for preparation and/or rollout, including robust user testing, 

minimized technology issues that consumers and settlement agents faced during the 

closing process.

 Upfront and continuous training of all stakeholders.

While the pilot highlighted the potential benefits of eClosing, it also underscored that the 

challenges lenders face in adoption and implementation are greater than previously understood. 

We categorized the common challenges as operational or coordination-related challenges. It is 

important to note that each participant was able to overcome these challenges to successfully 

close mortgages through eClosing solutions, and their observations on challenges provided 

valuable insight.

Operational challenges included processes and internal roadblocks that had to be

overcome for successful implementation of new eClosing technology solutions.

 In some cases, pilot participants had consumers sign more documents with paper and

ink than expected for a number of reasons, including limitations of technology platforms, 

a perception of risk regarding eSignatures,14 and delays in pursuing implementation of

electronic notarization (eNotarization).15

 Some lenders were not clear if using a hybrid eClosing process was acceptable when 

selling loans to secondary market investors. All resolved the concerns with their 

investors and were able to implement hybrid eClosing processes. .

 

14 eSignature is a process in which the borrower, settlement agent, or other actor signs a document electronically, as 

compared to an “ink signature” or “wet signature” in which the actor signs on paper. An electronic signature could 

involve a signature pad similar to retail stores, a tablet computer, or another platform. 

15 eNotarization is an electronic notarization process in which the notary signs with an electronic signature and places 

a “seal” or “stamp” on the electronic document.
13 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

 Some participants reiterated that additional guidance from investors on how to address 

hybrid solutions would be particularly helpful, particularly before broad-based industry 

use.

 Large-scale workflow and process changes were required to implement eClosing 

solutions, particularly early document delivery for advanced eClosing.

 Lenders’ pilot experiences shed light on the specific actions each lender took to 

comply with three-day early document delivery during the period prior to 

implementation of the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule, including 

carefully managing a pipeline of loans for early delivery.

 Lenders who pursued electronically signed Promissory Notes (eNotes) 

found process changes to be more complex to manage.16 Lenders taking 

incremental steps by implementing hybrid solutions faced less 

implementation difficulties.

 Though lenders may be incentivized to focus on electronically signed Promissory 

Notes immediately, it may be more feasible to start by having some documents be 

signed electronically while more complex documents signed with ink. When the focus 

is on providing consumers with a more empowering experience that is easier to 

navigate, 100% electronically signed documents is not always necessary. 

The large number of separate stakeholders that participate in a mortgage closing 

transaction and the unique incentives of each party resulted in coordination 

challenges.

 Given the lack of immediate incentives, and the challenges (including investment of time 

and resources) associated with implementing a new system or process, many external 

stakeholders who did business with the pilot participants (e.g. settlement agents, real 

estate agents, closing attorneys) were resistant to the process changes required to 

implement eClosing.

 

16 An “eNote” is a promissory note that is signed electronically. This is not the same as an eMortgage, which generally 

requires the electronic creation, execution, transfer, and storage of the promissory note.
14 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

 The low number of eNotarization capabilities remains a sizable challenge. Several pilot 

participants faced obstacles in obtaining an eNotary for the purposes of the pilot.

 In some instances, technology vendors were unable to adapt to lender expectations and 

needs specific to implementing eClosing.

 Though technology capabilities exist, platforms were sometimes not flexible or 

adaptive enough to address issues quickly.

 The biggest challenge cited by participants related to the mapping of closing 

document packages.17

 Effective eClosing solutions also required live support for technical and process 

issues during the closing process.

 We have perceived a learning curve for settlement agents and other industry 

stakeholders when first executing an eClosing transaction.

 User feedback is critical to learning and developing a more refined process.

 In the early stages of an eClosing rollout, there is a risk that some eClosing 

consumers may have a less favorable experience than a regular paper closing – this 

was particularly true with those implementing eClosing for the first time. We learned 

that borrower feedback, user testing, and training are critical to mitigating this risk, 

as described in the Implications chapter (Chapter 6).

1.3 Potential implications

We have outlined five proposed implications of this data, taken from the key findings and 

lessons learned from the pilot, which are described further in Chapter 6. As mentioned 

previously, while our analysis showed positive results on many of the outcomes we measured, 

 

17 A key element of many eClosing solutions is the ability of the electronic platform to build a complete set of all 

possible combinations of documents in a closing package. Doing so ensures that an accurate package of closing 

documents can be provided to each borrower. We refer to this process as “document mapping.”
15 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

we gave careful consideration to the nuances and limitations of the data in evaluating potential 

implications and next steps. 

Industry should continue to explore eClosing as a promising option for 

consumers.

 On average, eClosing borrowers in the pilot scored higher on the key outcomes we 

measured (empowerment, understanding, and efficiency at closing) than borrowers 

experiencing paper closings.

 Early document delivery and review appeared to be associated with better consumer 

outcomes in the pilot findings.

Opportunities for further research exist and we encourage mortgage stakeholders 

to focus on the following areas:

 Addressing specific gaps in the pilot loan dataset (e.g. diversity of geography and 

institution type, sample size, borrower profiles, and lender cost data) to gain a more 

complete understanding of how eClosings affect a broader range of lenders and 

consumers.

 Leveraging and building on the CFPB’s focus on empowerment, understanding, and 

efficiency as a foundation for further analysis and probing further on several questions 

the pilot was unable to answer. 

 Focusing on feelings of empowerment, understanding and efficiency, in addition to 

borrower satisfaction. The CFPB believes strongly that consumer satisfaction is not 

the sole measure of consumer outcomes, and that at times, it could even be 

misleading.

 Further evaluating whether certain consumer segments (e.g. first-time borrowers, 

low- income borrowers, and well-educated borrowers) may benefit more from 

eClosing than others.

Though there may be additional research needed, industry participants exploring 

eClosing should consider implications from this pilot (both common challenges 

and key success factors) to inform their implementation plans.
16 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

 Feedback from pilot participants underscored that barriers to eClosing adoption are real, 

and more prominent than was initially thought. The participants, however, 

demonstrated that eClosing adoption was feasible even with a short implementation 

period. 

 While not a definitive roadmap, lessons learned from participants emphasize several 

essential steps for successful and timely implementation of eClosing solutions.

The CFPB and other government partners should leverage this pilot to determine 

next steps, such as:

 Using the experiences of pilot participants to better inform eClosing implementation 

efforts and to dispel common myths around eClosing; and.

 Continuing to examine the consumer experience in the context of eClosing and be 

thoughtful about how we use data to do so.

Overall, the CFPB is encouraged by the results of this pilot and remains interested 

in further evaluating and encouraging more consumer-friendly closing processes, 

particularly after the marketplace has implemented the Closing Disclosure as part 

of the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule. 18

 

18 78 Fr 79730 (Dec. 31, 2013), 80 FR 8767 (Feb. 19, 2015), and 80 FR 43911 (July 24, 2015).
17 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

2. Context & background

The CFPB’s Know Before You Owe efforts focused on mortgages go beyond rulemaking. The 

Bureau has invested in understanding key functions in financial markets in order to understand 

the consumer experience in these markets and to serve as a catalyst for change. We do this by 

convening cross-market participants to discuss and drive consumer-centric improvements. The 

Bureau is consistently seeking to work with and learn from stakeholders in order to inform 

current and future initiatives. Where possible, the CFPB aims to be an active participant in 

dialogues around innovation, consumer behavior, and education, among other areas. 

To most consumers (and to the CFPB), mortgages are much more than individual financial 

transactions; they are the gateway to a home, which is closely tied to a borrower’s financial wellbeing, and the building of safe strong communities. Mortgages play a similarly fundamental role 

in our nation’s economy, which we saw falter during the most recent financial crisis. Given the 

clear implications of a healthy mortgage market for the well-being of borrowers and the broader 

economy, the CFPB has led multiple initiatives to empower consumers during the home loan

process. Mortgage closings, in particular, are lengthy and often stressful. Due to the significance 

of mortgage closings and the amount of information conveyed to consumers during closing, the 

Bureau has focused on the closing process as one piece of our broader efforts surrounding 

mortgage simplification, which have included the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure 

rule, Your Home Loan Toolkit, educational online tools such as Owning a Home, and related 

reports on the home mortgage shopping experience. 

The CFPB’s Mortgage Closings Today report published in April 2014 laid out the Bureau’s 

research into consumer “pain points” with the mortgage closing process. As outlined in that 

report, consumer concerns include little time to review closing documents, the overwhelming 

volume of paperwork involved in the closing process, and the complexity of the closing 

documents. Based on this research, we articulated a vision for the mortgage closing process – an 

empowered, knowledgeable homebuyer experiencing a more efficient, consumer-friendly 

process, and we began evaluating options to achieve this vision.
18 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

Among potential solutions to improve the consumer experience, the CFPB chose to explore two 

in depth: (1) use of technology in closings (eClosings) and (2) reduction and simplification of the 

closing package. The Bureau’s research found that other stakeholders own or regulate most 

closing documents, limiting opportunities for the CFPB to reduce the size of the closing package. 

Given the CFPB’s limited jurisdiction with respect to closing documents, we have focused our 

efforts over the past year on studying eClosing as a possible solution to some of the pain points 

identified. Additional consumer-friendly features could offer the potential to reduce the 

complexity of the closing process, increase overall efficiencies, and reduce costs. 

There are various ways that lenders offer eClosing to their consumers, ranging from electronic 

documents to fully-integrated mortgage closing portals and beyond. For some time, the 

conversations regarding eClosing adoption centered on “all or nothing” approaches with a large 

focus on the electronically signed Promissory Notes or “eNotes.” Over the past few years, 

however, conversations have evolved toward increasingly embracing “hybrid” approaches to 

eClosing, with pieces of the closing process moved to electronic format and others remaining on 

paper. To be clear that when we talk about eClosing we do not refer to an electronically signed 

mortgage or “eNote;” we are simply talking about the increasing use of technology in the 

mortgage closing transaction. Hybrid eClosings are definitely within our vision of eClosing. 

In 2014, the CFPB initiated an eClosing pilot program to source new information in order to 

evaluate the role of current solutions and potentially help spur innovations in the mortgage 

closing process. This pilot was not constructed to create additional mortgage rules but rather to 

learn and evaluate eClosings as an option for improving the closing process and to share our 

experience with stakeholders interested in implementing such process changes. To begin, the 

CFPB analyzed the market for eClosing solutions, evaluated the features and functionalities 

available in the marketplace, and used that research as a foundation for the pilot requirements, 

including potential functionalities for “advanced” solutions such as those that embed 

educational materials and tools into their electronic closing platforms.

The CFPB established and designed this eClosing pilot with several goals in mind. With respect 

to the consumer experience, the Bureau launched the pilot to explore if and how eClosing 

technologies can educate and begin to empower consumers and can simplify the closing process. 

The CFPB’s Mortgage Closings Today report laid out the roadmap for engaging a subset of 

relevant stakeholders during this pilot. As stated at that time, by working with lenders and 

technology providers, the CFPB sought to encourage consumer-friendly features within existing 

eClosing platforms and to explore how lenders and vendors are currently overcoming barriers to 
19 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

eClosing implementation. Within the context of the larger mortgage market, the Bureau hopes 

that the pilot and its findings will spur action and innovation around mortgage closing solutions 

and further dialogue on the benefits, opportunities, and risks of eClosing.

This pilot would not have been possible without the 12 pilot participants, as well as the 

participation of other key participants (e.g. settlement agents, borrowers) in the closing process. 

We recognize the immense amount of dedication that the pilot required from each participant. 

Their preparation prior to and during the pilot, the data collected from their closing operations, 

and their comments and feedback after the pilot have allowed us to better understand the 

consumer experience and industry practices within mortgage closings. The CFPB would like to 

acknowledge and express our appreciation for the efforts of each participant throughout the 

pilot process.

Technology Vendors:

 Accenture Mortgage Cadence

 DocMagic, Inc.

 eLynx

 Pavaso, Inc.

 PeirsonPatterson, LLP

Lenders:

 Blanco National Bank

 Boeing Employees Credit Union

 Franklin First Financial, Ltd.

 Flagstar Bank

 Mountain America Credit Union

 Sierra Pacific Mortgage

 Universal American Mortgage Company
20 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

3. Methodology

3.1 Pilot participants

Following the release of Mortgage Closings Today, the CFPB issued a set of pilot guidelines and 

called for proposals from potential participants.19 In this pilot, we defined a “participant” as a 

partnership between a technology vendor providing an eClosing platform20 and a lender that has 

contracted with the vendor to use that platform in its closings.21 We received applications from 

multiple lender-vendor partners, reviewed the proposals to ensure they aligned with our pilot 

expectations, and selected a subset of the applicants to participate in the pilot. We could only 

select a subset of applicants because we needed to limit the scope of the project. The pilot 

guidelines requested that each participant have capacity to collect the data needed to help the 

CFPB evaluate the use of eClosing features. The document also outlined the minimum technical 

functionality expected of participants. Beyond the required functionalities, we included a list of 

 

19 Available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201404_cfpb_guidelines_eclosing-pilot.pdf

20 In last year’s Mortgage Closings Today report, we broadly defined eClosing as a mortgage closing that relies on 

technology for stakeholders to view and/or sign documents electronically. These technologies could include 

eDocuments and eDelivery (e.g. emailing a PDF or utilizing an electronic document portal), eSignatures, 

eNotarization, and eStorage (e.g. an eVault for document storage).

21 Lenders with similar in-house eClosing solutions were also eligible for this pilot.
21 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

advanced features that could potentially further the Bureau’s vision for mortgage closings.22 We 

encouraged participants to develop and test a subset of these advanced features during the pilot. 

3.2 Data sources

During the pilot, the CFPB collected information from four sources to support the analyses and 

findings described in this report. These sources include loan and process data from participants 

(both administrative data and settlement agent-reported data), survey data from consumers

post-closing, follow-up interviews with consumers post-closing, and feedback interviews with 

lenders and technology providers.

3.2.1 Direct loan data

Pilot participants provided loan, demographic, and process data at the individual loan level for 

each reported transaction. The process data that we asked the companies to collect related to the 

key outcomes described above: understanding, efficiency and empowerment at closing. Some 

data points were direct administrative data, while others were reported by settlement agents 

after the closing meeting. These included, for example, whether the borrower accessed closing 

documents or educational materials online, the length of the closing meeting, and the number of 

questions asked by the borrower. In many cases, the ideal data points were not feasible due to 

the impracticality of manual collection or the resources needed to implement an automatic 

collection mechanism before pilot launch. In these instances, we worked with pilot participants 

to identify the closest proxy for certain data points. Due to operational challenges, the most 

difficult data points for consistent, accurate collection were related to cost, dates/times that 

events in the closing process occurred, and indicators of closing document review (both actual 

closing documents and CFPB educational materials). The final dataset included 3,292 loans, but 

some loans had specific data points missing due to challenges in collecting those data points.

 

22 These included but were not limited to educational materials, customized document sequencing, expanded 

communication tools, acknowledgement of document receipt, and error detection functionality.
22 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

3.2.2 Consumer survey data

Borrowers who completed mortgage transactions during the pilot were invited to complete a 

follow-up survey. We achieved a survey response rate of 38% (1,254 total surveys completed, 

either online or by mail). The questions received by each borrower varied based on the closing 

that they experienced (e.g., paper vs. eClosing). In some cases, the survey questions mirrored a 

data point collected in the direct loan data, such as number of questions asked by the borrower. 

We asked for these data (1) to use as a primary measure if the data points provided by

participants were inconsistent and (2) to test the difference between borrower and participant 

perceptions. 

3.2.3 Consumer follow-up interviews

We invited a subset of borrowers who completed the survey to participate in an in-depth phone 

interview, which generally lasted 30 to 45 minutes. Interviewers asked the borrowers a series of 

questions about their mortgage closing experience, the format of their closing process, and, 

when applicable, how their most recent closing compared with prior closing experiences. While 

the discussions were open-ended, the interviewers asked the questions in a systematic and 

structured manner. In total, 60 interviews were conducted. Due to the limited sample size, we 

relied on these interviews to provide additional qualitative insight and support to the 

quantitative analysis in this report.

3.2.4 Pilot Participant follow-up interviews

At the conclusion of the pilot, we requested feedback from each lender and technology vendor. 

Participants each provided written feedback via email and joined a phone or in-person interview 

with CFPB staff. During these open discussions, we focused on soliciting key learnings from the 

participants about barriers and success factors for implementing eClosing, which we summarize 

in Chapter 5 of this report.
23 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

3.3 Segments

3.3.1 eClosings versus paper closings

We set out to conduct a randomized controlled trial to rigorously test the influence of technology 

and eClosing on the consumer experience. However, during the course of the pilot we realized 

that full randomization would be difficult for a variety of operational and institutional reasons; 

as a result, we were unable to fully randomize the treatment and control groups. The 

implications of these methodological issues are discussed more in the results section and 

throughout this report, and they contribute to the number of caveats we must use when 

interpreting the results of the pilot. 

The core control and treatment groups used during the pilot focused on whether the closing was 

electronic or paper. Borrowers experienced one of three closing scenarios: paper closings, base 

eClosings, or advanced eClosings. Paper Closings were our control group of borrowers 

experiencing the traditional paper closing process practiced in the market today without the use 

of any electronic functionality during the closing meeting to sign closing documents.23 One 

important caveat for the research design, however, is that consumers were not randomly 

assigned to the paper group, as consumers had to have the ability to “opt out” of eClosing. This 

means that there could be bias in the assignment of paper closings to consumers, and results 

should be interpreted accordingly. Base eClosings were the first core treatment group, which 

included eClosings similar to those performed prior to the pilot, without any of the additional 

features. The second core treatment group, advanced eClosings, had two requirements in 

addition to the base eClosing functionality: the borrower had to electronically receive the full 

closing document package at least three business days prior to closing, and the borrower had to 

have access to electronic educational resources directly in the lender’s online closing portal for 

consumers to access while reviewing their documents. All of the pilot participants agreed to use 

educational materials prepared by the CFPB, thereby standardizing some of the materials 

presented to borrowers in the pilot. In both base and advanced eClosings, some of the 

documents may have been signed with paper and ink given challenges around eSignature and 

 

23 Some paper borrowers did receive a HUD-1 in PDF format via email prior to their closing
24 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

eNotarization, which is further discussed in Chapter 5. While we hoped to conduct true 

randomization of base and advanced eClosings to consumers at the individual level, this was 

sometimes difficult in practice.24 As a result, some pilot participants randomized the assignment 

of base and advanced eClosing in different ways.

For many analyses, we were required to combine the base eClosing and advanced eClosing 

segments to ensure a sufficient sample size; comparisons of paper closings relative to combined 

eClosing segments formed the foundation for our analysis. In these cases, we refer to this

segment as “eClosing borrowers.” For any segments in this report with a sample size of fewer

than 50 borrowers, the exact sample size is listed in a footnote. For other analyses, we consider 

the segments separately to isolate a more accurate comparison of eClosing versus paper closings 

(e.g. borrower experience). We separated the pilot groups into purchase and refinance segments 

(e.g., paper refinance vs. base eClosing refinance) or lender-specific segments (e.g., paper 

refinance at Lender A vs. base eClosing refinance at Lender A) when the differences between 

eClosing and paper varied noticeably across these segments. The specific segments that we 

compared for each piece of analysis are clearly articulated with the results in the Key Findings 

chapter of this report (Chapter 4).

3.3.2 Early document review and educational materials

Though our analysis focused on the core comparison of eClosing relative to paper, we also 

analyzed other scenarios to understand nuances in the data. For example, we created two 

comparison groups that isolated each of the additional components of the advanced eClosing: 

early document review and educational materials.

To analyze early document review in isolation, we divided borrowers into two categories without 

reference to whether they closed their loans electronically: “early review” and “no early review.” 

Borrowers in the “no early review” segment included anyone who answered “no” to the survey 

question asking if they received the closing documents prior to the closing meeting. Even if the 

 

24 Randomization is the process of randomly assigning individuals to either the treatment group, which receives the 

intervention being tested, or the control condition, which does not. In this case, randomization would have been 

achieved if individuals (or broader entities, like settlement agents or bank branches) were randomly assigned to 

receive a paper closing, a base eClosing or an advanced eClosing.
25 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

lender indicated that the borrower received the documents in advance, we excluded them from 

this group because not remembering receipt strongly implies that they did not review them. 

Note, however, that by design, all borrowers in the advanced eClosing group should have 

received all of their documents at least three days before the closing meeting. Borrowers in the 

“early review” segment met two separate criteria. First, they answered “yes” to the two survey 

questions asking if they received the closing documents and reviewed them before they arrived 

at the closing meeting. We required a positive response to both questions because we wanted to 

isolate the borrowers that actually read the documents before the closing meeting.25 Second, the 

lender-provided system data for the borrowers stated that they received the HUD-1 at least one 

calendar day before their closing.26 Lenders provided data only on the HUD-1 delivery date, so 

borrowers may not have received other closing documents on that date. The exception is the 

group of advanced eClosing borrowers, who – by pilot definition – were required to receive the 

full closing package three days in advance. If survey and/or HUD-1 receipt data were not 

available for a particular borrower, he or she was excluded from both segments (n=228).

Unlike early review of documents, which lenders technically could have afforded to borrowers in 

any of the three pilot groups (paper, base eClosing, and advanced eClosing), the use of 

educational materials was available only to borrowers in the advanced eClosing group. Access to 

the materials was directly available via link in the closing platform for advanced eClosing 

borrowers.27 The pilot offered three types of educational materials to these borrowers: (1) a 

closing checklist; (2) document summaries; and (3) AskCFPB questions. 28 The closing 

 

25 Note: we focus on “early review” rather than “early delivery” because 93% of borrowers who said they received 

documents before the closing meeting also said that they reviewed the documents, and this statistic is consistent 

across pilot groups.

26 Lenders were instructed to use the date that a document or link was emailed to the borrower. If the HUD-1 was 

mailed, they were instructed to provide the estimated date that the borrower received the document – not when it 

was mailed. 

27 It was also possible for base eClosing or paper borrowers to access the CFPB educational materials on their own 

since they are available on consumerfinance.gov, but we didn’t ask them about whether they had done so?

28 Borrowers at two lenders also had access to online chat, which provided a timely communication link to a lender 

representative. Because this chat feature was only available at two lenders, which resulted in a very small number of 

users, we excluded it from the analysis in this report.
26 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

checklist29 provided borrowers with a bullet list of actions to complete before and during 

closing, including common errors to look out for and questions to ask. The document 

summaries provided a breakdown and concise explanation of six key mortgage documents 

(HUD-1, Promissory Note, Right to Cancel, TIL Disclosure, Initial Escrow Disclosure, and 

Security Instrument). The AskCFPB questions linked to the Bureau’s database of frequently 

asked questions related to mortgage closings.30 To analyze whether these educational materials 

influenced the consumer experience during the pilot, we compared two segments: borrowers 

who used any of the three types of CFPB materials, and borrowers who had access, but used 

none. This approach ensured that the sample size was large enough for analysis. Because the list 

of borrowers who used each individual tool largely overlapped with each other, we do not believe 

the results are less reliable than individual analyses of each type of educational material. 

3.3.3 Borrower demographics 

The final set of segments in the pilot analysis consists of demographic segments based on 

specific characteristics of the borrower. We analyzed three types of demographic groups: 

borrower experience, income, and education level. Pilot participants provided some of these 

data points (the rest were provided by borrowers on the survey). For borrower experience, we 

compared three segments: first-time homebuyers, experienced homebuyers, and refinancers. 

The transaction type (purchase vs. refinance) was reported by the financial institution, but the 

borrower reported whether he or she had completed a previous purchase transaction. For 

income, we collected the dollar amount from the financial institution that it used in the 

underwriting process. We then segmented the borrowers into four groups – low, moderate, 

middle, upper – based on the Census definitions of income classes, which compare the 

 

29 CFPB materials (checklist and document summaries) available at http://www.consumerfinance.gov/owning-ahome/

30 CFPB questions available at 

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb/search/?selected_facets=category_exact:mortgages&selected_facets=ta

g_exact:mortgage%20closing
27 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

individual's income to the median income in his or her county of residence.31 For the data 

analysis, we combined low and moderate income borrowers to ensure a sufficient sample size 

for evaluation. For education, the borrower self-reported his or her highest level of education as 

one of five segments: graduate degree, four-year college degree, some college / other college 

degree, high school diploma, those with less than high school diploma. Similarly, we combined 

those borrowers with a high school diploma and less than a high school diploma to ensure a 

sufficient sample size for evaluation.

3.4 Outcomes

In this analysis of the closing process, we compared the relevant segments on three categories of 

measurement: empowerment, understanding, and efficiency. We chose these outcomes as 

markers of a successful closing process because they align with our mission to create an 

empowered, knowledgeable borrower experiencing a more efficient, consumerfriendly process.

We measured these outcomes based on a mix of the participant-provided data and borrowerreported survey data. From the survey data, we frequently utilized a set of statements with fivepoint response scales on which borrowers rated aspects of their closing experience from 

“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” We presented data from these questions as a “net 

positive score”, which was calculated as the difference between the percentage of those who 

responded positively and the percentage of those who responded negatively to a statement. Note 

that depending on the wording of the question, a “positive” response to some questions would 

be to agree (e.g., “I had a clear understanding of my rights as a homeowner”), while for other 

questions a “positive” response would be to disagree (e.g., “The closing process was confusing to 

me”). Regardless, a higher net positive score always corresponds with a more desirable 

borrower outcome. We also utilized “composite scores” in our analysis, which were averages 

of the net positive scores for four-six survey statements relating to the same outcome metric 

 

31 Low income = less than 50% of county median; moderate income = 50-80% of county median; middle income = 

80-120% of county median; upper income = greater than 120% of county median. County median income was based 

on 2013 Census data. The benchmark income per county was for a family of four. 
28 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

specific to this closing pilot –empowerment, understanding, or efficiency.32 As an average of 

several net positive scores, these composite scores were also represented as net positive scores. 

The specific participant-provided and borrower-reported data points that we used for each 

outcome are outlined below.

3.4.1 Perception versus actual experience

For each of the three outcomes identified above, we collected data points that measured 

borrower perceptions and actual experiences. For example, we asked borrowers if they perceived 

unnecessary delays in the closing process and we collected data on how many days occurred 

between the original and actual closing dates. Given the difficulty of collecting some of the direct 

system data points, some analyses in this final report rely solely on borrower perceptions. 

Therefore, it is important to discuss the implications of judging outputs based on perceptions.

We recognized two concerns with relying on perceptions as outcome measures. First, 

perceptions naturally vary by individual; each borrower may have a different frame of reference 

for what is “efficient” or a “clear understanding.” Second, it is possible that perceptions can 

influence the outcomes themselves. For example, if a borrower believes that she understands 

everything about her mortgage when she actually does not, she could be more likely to skim over 

details that a less-confident borrower would be more likely to read thoroughly, or she may be 

less likely to ask questions. This behavior could lead to less favorable outcomes in terms of the 

actual mortgage she signs. 

For efficiency, a positive perception that is not based on actual efficiency improvements could 

still reduce stress and anxiety for the borrower, but it may not translate into actual time savings 

for the borrower or industry stakeholders. A consumer who feels empowered may be more likely 

be play a more active in their closings such as read documents before signing and ask more 

questions. These outcomes are estimates given that this study did not provide the CFPB with 

sufficient data to fully compare perception and reality. Our findings on consumer perceptions, 

however, have provided us with valuable insights into the consumer experiences under these 

various scenarios. In Chapter 6, we explored how these findings impact implications and next 

 

32 A complete list of the questions used for each composite score can be found in the Appendix.
29 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

steps for both the CFPB and stakeholders, in addition to highlighting how future research efforts 

can improve on this gap. In the rest of this section, we will outline the definition of each 

outcome and the perceived or actual data points utilized to evaluate them.

3.4.2 Empowerment

For this pilot, we examined empowerment through the borrower's ability and willingness to play 

an active role in the closing process. An empowered borrower should feel a level of control over 

the process and understand both his or her role, and the role of others involved in the process. 

We view this as a crucial outcome because an empowered consumer may be more likely to flag 

concerns or errors. In our analysis, we used a composite score for empowerment specific to this 

pilot based on statements from the borrower survey regarding feelings of control over the 

closing process, ability to play an active role, confidence in understanding documents, and 

comfort asking questions. We also relied on data for two specific actions that may signify an 

empowered, active borrower: asking questions and identifying errors, both before and during 

the closing meeting.33

3.4.3 Understanding

For the purposes of this pilot, the CFPB defined understanding as the borrower's level of 

comprehension about both mortgages in general and the details of his or her specific mortgage. 

This understanding includes four key topics: terms of the loan, HUD-1 costs, homeowner rights, 

and consequences of not fulfilling homeowner responsibilities. The CFPB believes that 

understanding is a key outcome because a more knowledgeable borrower is in a better position 

to make more informed financial decisions. In our analysis, we used composite scores for both 

perceived understanding and actual knowledge. We used the synonyms “understanding” and 

“knowledge” for these two scores to help the reader distinguish between them, but they both 

capture aspects of the same outcome. The perceived knowledge composite score was based on 

six statements from the borrower survey. One statement asked whether the closing process was 

 

33 As noted and explained supra note 8, the definition of empowerment in closing used in this report refers to a set of 

measures defined solely for the purposes of the CFPB eClosing pilot and is not to be confused with the term 

“Financial Empowerment” or with the CFPB’s work through its Office of Financial Empowerment. 
30 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

confusing, and the others asked whether the customer had a clear understanding of five specific 

topics (e.g., homeowner rights). The actual knowledge composite score was based on an eightquestion quiz administered as part of the borrower survey. Three questions on this quiz asked 

about the borrower’s specific mortgage; the remaining five questions were general facts about 

mortgages. Unlike the other composite scores, the actual knowledge score is presented in this 

report as a percentage out of 100 – not a net positive score. Because of this distinction, we did 

not directly compare the perceived understanding and actual knowledge scores to each other, 

either in absolute change or percentage change. We looked only at whether they moved in the 

same direction to evaluate if perceived understanding and actual knowledge were aligned.

3.4.4 Efficiency

The CFPB believes that efficiency is an important aspect of a successful mortgage closing for 

both the borrower and for industry. For the borrower, a mortgage closing can be a timeconsuming and painful process. For various industry stakeholders, inefficiencies, such as delays 

and errors, can directly increase labor hours and, therefore, costs, which can be passed on to 

consumers. But it is important to note that “faster” does not always mean “better” in a closing 

process. We relied on participant-reported data for five aspects of actual efficiency: closing 

meeting delays, errors, document redraws, closing meeting length, and time when loan is 

cleared for closing (CTC), to actual closing. Due to time constraints and participant operational 

challenges, the CFPB was unable to collect consistent data on labor hours or cost savings from 

the participants. Therefore, we are unable to estimate the influence of eClosing on costs. With 

the significant overhead costs for any process change like eClosing implementation, it is difficult 

to accurately capture cost or labor information without a true longitudinal study. However, we 

were able to learn insights about perceived efficiency from the borrowers’ perspective. We 

measured this perceived efficiency with a composite score that we created based on an average 

of four survey questions. We also asked borrowers a series of questions about feeling rushed in 

order to examine whether that could be a potential byproduct of increased efficiency on the 

industry side. 

3.5 Key caveats

Several factors in our methodology and pilot design limit our ability to state causal relationships 

in our conclusions outlined in this report. 
31 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

First, the timing of the pilot overlapped with a market refinance boom that limited the number 

of purchase transactions in the sample. Second, because we worked with real consumers closing 

real loans, and there are many players involved in a mortgage transaction, there were 

constraints in our ability to create a truly randomized controlled trial (as noted earlier). Third, a 

disproportionate share of pilot data came from a small number of lenders, with some unique 

characteristics that do not represent the broader population of borrowers in the U.S.34

Accordingly; the key findings outlined below represent the population from this pilot and may 

not be statistically significant or generalizable to the broader population. We discuss these 

challenges in more detail below.

Given the requirements of the ESIGN Act35, borrowers must agree (or opt-in) to an electronic 

process; therefore we could not randomly assign consumers into either an eClosing or paper 

closing. Some participants used what is called an “encouragement design,” in which borrowers 

were randomly suggested to participate in a paper or electronic closing, but borrowers were 

always able to decide whether they actually wanted to choose the eClosing format. Furthermore, 

randomizing borrowers into base or advance eClosings even after they had opted-in to eClosings 

broadly was also challenging. For example, some participants did not have the functionality to 

operate base and advanced eClosing platforms simultaneously. These participant teams divided 

the pilot months to offer base eClosings for half of the pilot duration and advanced for the 

second half; this design was not randomized either, given potential different market trends in 

different months. The final related methodological impediment was that borrowers had 

different eClosing experiences at different lenders. Though there were only three distinct closing 

platforms, each pilot team utilized different supplemental technologies, user interfaces, support 

mechanisms, and processes to complete eClosings. Without sufficient sample sizes to allow us to 

account for variations between lenders providing different experiences, we are unable to 

determine the source of differences between base and advanced eClosing across lenders.

Second, the borrowers in the pilot sample were not representative of the national population 

completing mortgage closings. The majority – 70% – of loans in our pilot --was issued by two 

participants, and advanced eClosings are even more concentrated among those two participants. 

 

35 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001-7031.
32 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

At the beginning of the eClosing pilot, we conducted extensive demographic analysis to ensure 

the expected pilot population would mirror the broader mortgage market population in terms of 

loan type, race, ethnicity, gender, income, and geography. Due to the relative volume of 

mortgages being completed by participant lenders during the pilot period, some of these 

demographic indicators are slightly skewed compared to the overall mortgage market. The 

concentration among two participants most notably contributes to less racial/ethnic and 

geographic diversity among our borrower sample. 

Third, the overall sample size of the study was too small for us to be able to detect statistical 

significance between groups for nearly all variables included in the pilot. As explained above, the 

pilot had ~3,300 loans and ~1,250 surveys. Since most of our outcomes were measured based 

on survey data, the latter number more accurately represents the sample size for most analysis. 

At the aggregate level of eClosings versus paper closings, this sample size was sufficient to show 

valuable comparisons. But the sample size per group in many cases was too small when we 

segmented the data by transaction type, lender, or demographic group. Additionally, we 

acknowledge the timing of the pilot was not ideal for obtaining a sample that would be required 

for us to detect statistically significant differences between groups. Though we knew market 

dynamics could impact our pilot, we did not anticipate the refinance boom at the onset of our 

pilot, which combined with increased resistance from settlement agents in purchase 

transactions and the seasonally low levels of purchase transactions in January and February, 

contributed to a smaller set of purchase data than expected.36 Furthermore, some of the lenders 

included only refinance transactions for eClosings in the pilot. We avoided using any segment 

with fewer than 30 transactions in this report, and clearly labeled any segment containing fewer 

than 50 transactions with a footnote. Given these considerations and others, the analyses in this 

report communicate the results of this specific pilot, and we caution readers to utilize this report 

accordingly. In Chapter 6, we outline implications and next steps given these constraints, 

including specific recommendations for how future studies can supplement this pilot. 

 

36 Mortgage markets experienced a surge of refinance transactions starting in January 2015. According to Mortgage 

Bankers Association data, refinance applications increased 84% in the final three weeks of January from their 2014 

average due to lower mortgage rates. This “refinance boom” contributed to additional transaction volume at all of 

the lenders in our pilot.
33 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

4. Key findings

This chapter will focus on the analysis of the pilot data, including loan data gathered from 

participating banks and technology vendors and data collected through surveys of borrowers 

and settlement agents. This chapter will present facts from the data analysis, but will avoid 

drawing conclusions about impact or implications. Potential implications of these observations 

for next steps by the CFPB and stakeholders will be further explored in the subsequent two 

chapters. 

This chapter is organized into five sections: Section 4.1 summarizes the high-level findings for 

key comparisons between eClosings and paper closings. In this section, we focus on three main 

measures for consumers outlined in the Methodology chapter: empowerment, understanding, 

and efficiency during the closing process. Section 4.2 evaluates how two specific components of 

eClosing, early document review and the use of educational materials, may influence these 

outcomes. In this section, we isolate these two components to determine whether they relate to 

differences in our pilot measures of empowerment, understanding, and efficiency. Section 4.3 

provides a deeper analysis into how the differences between eClosing and paper vary across 

transaction types and lenders within our pilot. Section 4.4 provides a similar analysis of how 

these differences vary across different demographic segments of borrowers. Finally, Section 4.5 

flags potential risks to eClosing that surfaced during the data analysis; these risks will be 

important for stakeholders to consider as the use of electronic solutions expands. While we have 

summarized what we believe to be the key findings of these data, it is important to note the 

caveats behind the data. We present directional differences between pilot groups and 

demographic segments, but we are unable to comment on the relative size of the differences 

between scores and percentages because we did not conduct statistical significance testing. This 

study captured a number of data points across many borrower segments, so there is 
34 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

considerable detail that should be evaluated carefully before drawing any conclusions or next 

steps.37

4.1 Summary analysis of eClosing versus

paper closing

On average, eClosing borrowers in the pilot had higher scores than paper 

borrowers on the key outcomes that we measured, with the largest differences 

seen in our measures of empowerment and efficiency at closing.

At the highest level of analysis, we compared outcome data for all pilot participants that 

completed a paper closing against those who completed an eClosing (base or advanced). As 

Figure 1 shows below, the data indicated higher scores on our measures of empowerment, 

efficiency, understanding, and actual knowledge for the eClosing borrowers.

 

37 Of the transactions included in our pilot, we have a robust body of data for refinance transactions and paper 

transactions, though the data for purchase transactions and purchase eClosings in particular is less robust.
35 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 1: ECLOSING VS. PAPER SUMMARY ANALYSIS38,39

For empowerment in the closing process, eClosing

borrowers had an average net positive score of 55 

versus 48 for paper borrowers, a 15% difference. Two 

key survey questions provided for most of the 

variation in pilot composite scores: “I felt that I had 

control over the process” and “I felt empowered to 

play an active role in my closing process.” On average, 

 

38 As described in Methodology Section 3.4, “net positive” score is calculated by subtracting the percentage of 

respondents in the top “positive” boxes with the percentage of respondents in the “negative” two boxes. In some 

cases, “strongly agree” was the most positive response, but in others, “strongly disagree” was positive, depending on 

how the statement was worded. A higher net positive score always indicates a more positive borrower perception.

39 Composite scores are also represented as net positive scores. We created these composites by averaging the net 

positive scores of 4-6 survey statements that related to the same outcome. See Methodology Section 3.4.

“I'm submerged by paper. It's a 

great benefit to have the 

possibility to have electronic 

documents. It's less paper to 

deal with and to store.”
36 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

eClosing borrowers scored 11 points higher on both questions versus paper borrowers – a 35% 

and 21% difference, respectively. For efficiency, eClosing borrowers received an average 

composite score of 63 versus 54 for paper borrowers (17% change), with the question “There 

were delays in the closing process that could have been avoided” showing the largest difference, 

with a 52% higher net positive score for eClosing borrowers (42 vs. 28). For perceived 

understanding, the comparison between eClosing and paper was directionally similar, but not as 

pronounced. eClosing borrowers had an average composite score of 79 versus 74 for paper, 

which accounted for a 7% change. A larger difference existed on the specific question regarding 

level of confusion, which showed a 10-point higher average score for eClosing versus paper (a 

19% difference). Finally, actual knowledge – showed the smallest, yet positive, difference 

between eClosing and paper. On the eight question quiz, eClosing borrowers averaged 47% 

correct versus 44% correct for paper borrowers.

During the interviews, different borrowers expressed support for both paper closings and 

eClosings, showing that personal preference was an important factor. For example, one eClosing 

borrower expressed her enthusiasm by saying, “I love electronic documents. I'm submerged by 

paper. It's a great benefit to have the possibility to have electronic documents. It's less paper to 

deal with and to store.” In contrast, a paper borrower was clear that he, “preferred to get them 

by mail, I'm old fashioned.”

4.2 Components of eClosing

4.2.1 Early document review

Consumers who received and reviewed documents before the closing meeting 

reported feeling more empowered in the closing process, with higher levels of 

perceived understanding and efficiency, and had higher scores on the actual 

knowledge quiz relative to those who did not review documents before the 

meeting. In the pilot, early document review was more prevalent in eClosings 

relative to paper closings, perhaps due to documents being delivered early more 

consistently in eClosings than in paper closings. 
37 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

As explained in the Methodology chapter (Chapter 

3), we created two sub-segments within the pilot 

population to evaluate this topic: “early review” and 

“no early review.” Borrowers who reviewed closing 

documents early had higher scores on the pilot’s

measure of empowerment for both purchase and 

refinance transactions as compared to those who 

did not review their documents early; this difference was more pronounced for purchases than 

for refinance transactions. In this pilot, refinance borrowers who reviewed their documents 

early had an average eClosing pilot empowerment composite score of 60 versus 49 for those

with no early review (a 21% change). For purchases, the early review group scored 69% higher 

than the no early review group (33 vs. 56), bringing the average score for purchase transactions 

close to the average score for refinances. As shown in Figure 2 below, the differences on specific 

questions that measured the borrowers’ feelings of being empowered between early review and 

no early review borrowers were some of the largest of any segments that we analyzed in the pilot 

data, with some differences as great as 100% or 200%. One early review borrower noted during 

the interview that, “In previous times, I didn't have time to read everything, and I felt rushed. 

This time I could look at everything ahead of time.”

“In previous times, I didn't have 

time to read everything, and I 

felt rushed. This time I could 

look at everything ahead of 

time.”
38 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 2: EARLY DOCUMENT REVIEW AND BORROWER EMPOWERMENT: PURCHASES.40

The data on actual knowledge and perceived understanding were consistent with the eClosing 

pilot empowerment composite score. On the actual knowledge questions, early review borrowers 

scored higher on average than those in the no early review segment. The difference was largest 

for purchases, in which the score for early review was 48% versus 41% for no early review, 

compared to 47% versus 44% for refinances. There were multiple questions that contributed to 

 

40 See Methodology Section 3.4 for “net positive score” and “composite score” calculation methodology.
39 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

this variation, but the largest difference in the percentage of correct answers was on “What is the 

document that you sign during the closing process that gives the bank the right to take away 

your house if you do not meet your responsibilities as a mortgage-holder and homeowner?” For 

purchases, the percentage of correct answers was 57% for early review borrowers and 40% for 

no early review. Similarly, early review borrowers who completed refinances got the question 

correct 55% of the time, compared to 41% for no early review refinancers. These absolute 

differences (17 points and 14 points, respectively), were larger than the results from any other 

segments we analyzed. In addition to actual knowledge, the trend for perceived understanding 

was also positive for early review, with larger differences observed in purchase transactions. On 

the central question about whether the closing process was confusing, early review purchasers 

reported an average net positive score of 58 versus 32 for no early review, an 82% difference. 

For refinances, the early review segment had an average score of 72 versus 61 for no early review 

borrowers (18% higher). The rest of the perceived understanding questions, which ask whether 

the borrower had a clear understanding of five specific topics,41 all showed higher net positive 

scores on average for early review versus no early review in purchases and refinances. One early 

review borrower explained, “English is not my husband’s first language ...he got his copy [of the 

closing documents], and there were technical terms he didn’t understand. So it was great to have 

that time to go through them with him online and help him understand. This way he and I could 

basically go over it twice. That was a big help.”

In addition to our measures of understanding and empowerment during the closing process, 

transactions with early document review showed higher indicators of efficiency. The data 

indicated differences in two core metrics of efficiency. First, the closing meeting was on average 

shorter for the early review borrowers. The percentage of refinance meetings that took less than 

30 minutes was 56% for early review and 31% for no early review. Similarly, the percentage of 

purchase closing meetings that took less than 30 minutes was 36% for early review and 11% for 

no early review. Second, errors were more likely to be identified before the closing versus during 

the closing for loans where the borrowers received and reviewed the documents early.42 For 

 

41Those were: The terms of my loan and how my payments are determined; my rights as a homeowner; what the 

consequences were if I failed to fulfill the responsibilities of my mortgage; the final closing costs on my HUD-1 

Settlement Statement; and why the costs outlined in my initial GFE were different than my final closing costs.

42 Note that this data point relies on errors reported by the borrowers.
40 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

early review loans in which the borrower indicated that an error was identified, 79% of the 

borrowers reported identifying errors before closing and 49% reported identifying errors during 

closing.43 In contrast, of the borrowers who identified errors and did not review documents 

early, only 58% identified an error before closing, but 66% identified during closing. These 

measures of actual efficiency largely aligned with borrower perceptions of efficiency, which were 

also higher for eClosing borrowers than paper borrowers in the pilot. In the purchase 

transactions we analyzed, the segments had a 54% difference in perceived efficiency composite 

score (57 vs. 37), compared to a 16% difference for refinances (65 vs. 57). It is important to note 

that despite this decrease in average time, early review borrowers were less likely to say that 

they felt rushed in both purchases and refinances. 

Since these borrowers had the documents early, the 

“closing” effectively started days before the “closing 

meeting.” Furthermore, by receiving and reviewing 

documents early, borrowers have more of an 

opportunity to identify errors before the closing 

meeting, which could reduce delays in the 

transaction. As one borrower noted, “I can’t think of 

any better way [to prepare for closing] than giving 

people a chance to read through [closing documents] before ...so there are no surprises.”

After identifying the potential benefits of early document review, we assessed the likelihood of

early review in eClosings versus paper closings. We found that in the pilot, early document 

review was more prevalent in eClosings than in paper closings, due to the fact that documents 

were delivered early more consistently in eClosings than in paper closings.44 Specifically, we 

compared the incidence of early document review in both the base eClosing and paper closing

groups. 45 For base eClosings, the pilot set no requirement for early document delivery, but 81% 

 

43 Percentages add up to more than 100% because some loans had errors identified before and during closing.

44 Note that the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule effective October 3, 2015 mandates that the Closing 

Disclosure be delivered three days in advanced, not the complete set of closing documents. 

45 Only 85% of the advanced eClosing group was actually in the early review segment, indicating that the remaining 

15% of the borrowers did not recall receiving the documents and/or did not review them. The analysis in this 

“I can’t think of any better way 

[to prepare for closing] than 

giving people a chance to read 

through [closing documents] 

before ...so there are no 

surprises.”
41 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

of those borrowers were still in the early review segment. In comparison, only 24% of paper 

borrowers were in the early review segment.46

4.2.2 Use of educational materials

Most pilot borrowers with access to educational materials reported that they used 

these materials and reported higher feelings of empowerment and perceived 

understanding and lower actual knowledge scores. Borrowers who used 

educational materials also had fewer years of formal of education. 

As outlined in the Methodology chapter (Chapter 3), advanced eClosing borrowers in the pilot 

had access to three sets of CFPB educational materials. Many borrowers self-reported using one 

or more of these materials during the pilot survey. Among all borrowers who had access to the 

educational materials, the closing checklist had the highest use rate, with 71% of borrowers who 

had access to it reporting that they used it; borrowers who had access to document summaries 

and AskCFPB questions reported using them at rates of 69% and 47%, respectively. We also 

asked borrowers to rate the usefulness of each piece of educational material on a scale from 1 

(not useful at all) to 5 (extremely useful). The document summaries received the highest 

percentage of 4s and 5s at 74%, followed by 69% for the closing checklist and 53% for AskCFPB 

questions. One advance eClosing borrower who used the summary said that “it was very clear 

and broken down and well explained. It was very helpful.” 

To analyze whether these education materials in the pilot influenced borrowers’ experiences, we 

compared two segments: borrowers who used any of the three materials and borrowers who had 

access, but used none. When we compared these two segments on the pilot measures of

empowerment, the data indicated that borrowers who used the materials scored higher, with an 

average composite score of 55 compared to 45 for borrowers who did not use materials. It 

appeared that the statement most relevant to borrowers’ perceptions of empowerment was “I 

felt empowered to play an active role in my closing process,” which had a 48% higher net

 

paragraph excludes the 280 loans in which the borrowers stated that they did receive and review documents, but 

the HUD-1 data was available. 

46 The comparison with the advanced eClosing group is not included because the pilot guidelines required that 

lenders provide the full closing package to advanced eClosing borrowers at least three days in advance.
42 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

positive score for borrowers who used materials than for those who didn’t. The data indicated 

similar trends for perceived understanding. The average composite score for the pilot group that 

used the educational materials was 80, versus 67 for those who chose not to use the materials. 

The specific statement that showed the largest difference between the groups was “I had a clear 

understanding of why the costs outlined in my initial GFE were different than my final closing 

costs.” For that statement, the borrowers who used the materials had a 50% higher net positive 

score than those who did not use the materials.

Unlike empowerment and perceived understanding, scores on the quiz assessing actual 

knowledge were lower on average for borrowers who chose to use the materials. Those 

borrowers averaged a 46% on the actual knowledge quiz versus a 50% for the borrowers who did 

not use the materials. The data showed that borrowers with lower education levels (some college 

or less versus four-year degree or graduate degree) were also the borrowers who were more 

likely to use each of the educational materials. This further underscores the importance of the 

Bureau's commitment to providing educational materials that are more accessible and 

understandable for a greater percentage of the population.

4.3 Detailed analysis of eClosing versus

paper

4.3.1 Empowerment, understanding & actual knowledge

during the closing process

In pilot purchase transactions, eClosing borrowers scored higher on the pilot 

measures of empowerment, perceived understanding, and actual knowledge than 

paper borrowers in our pilot, but results in refinance transactions differed across 

lenders. 

Purchase transactions

As explained in the Section 4.1 summary analysis, eClosing borrowers scored higher on average 

on a number of our measures of empowerment, understanding, and efficiency at closing. But it 

is important to note the nuances within the data. The first distinction we evaluated was how the 

outcomes varied across the two transaction types, purchases and refinances.
43 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

To analyze purchase transactions, we combined base and advanced eClosings because the 

sample size for each individual group was too small for us to analyze meaningfully.47 On 

perceptions of empowerment, the pilot eClosing borrowers had a higher average composite 

score than the paper borrowers by 40% (58 vs. 42). This difference was largely driven by the fact 

that pilot eClosing borrowers reported feeling more control over the process and playing a more 

active role. Regarding feelings of control over the process, the net positive score for eClosing 

borrowers was more than 150% larger than the score for paper borrowers (51 vs. 19). On 

borrowers’ ability to play an active role, eClosing borrowers had a net positive score of 79, versus 

41 for paper borrowers, a difference of more than 90%.

On average, eClosing borrowers scored similarly to paper borrowers on both actual knowledge 

(46% eClosing vs. 44% paper) and perceived understanding (74% eClosing vs. 71% paper). 

Looking more closely at specific questions, eClosing borrowers were more likely than paper 

borrowers to state that they had a clear understanding of specific topics. But on the question 

asking whether the closing process was confusing, eClosing borrowers thought the process was 

more confusing, with a net positive score of 36, compared with 45 for paper borrowers. This 

pattern of results for borrowers with purchase transactions should be further investigated to 

understand potential sources of increased perceived confusion for eClosing borrowers.

Refinance transactions

We were able to explore more detail in the data for refinance transactions than for purchase 

transactions for two reasons. First, the sample sizes for refinance transactions were sufficient to 

separate base eClosing and advanced eClosing, and in some cases, the two groups showed 

different trends. 

Across lenders, base eClosing borrowers had slightly higher average pilot composite scores on 

empowerment than the paper borrowers (58 vs. 55), but the advanced eClosing borrowers 

scored lower (52) than borrowers in the paper closing group. While this variation is small; when 

we look more closely at the question of feeling control over the closing process, we see that base 

eClosing borrowers scored 7% higher than paper borrowers and advanced eClosing borrowers 

 

47 N=47 for base/advanced eClosing purchases; large majority of eClosing purchases come from one lender (Lender 

B) since Lender A only completed eClosings for refinance transactions
44 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

scored 16% lower than paper borrowers. When isolating the individual lenders, we identify the 

data that explains this variation. As shown in Figure 3 below, borrowers from Lender B had 

higher average scores on the empowerment composite for both base eClosing and advanced 

eClosing, while borrowers from Lender A had similar average scores for base eClosing as 

compared to paper, but advanced eClosing borrowers had lower average scores.

FIGURE 3: PAPER VS. ECLOSING FOR 2 LENDERS: BORROWER EMPOWERMENT.48

The disparate results between Lender A and Lender B on advanced eClosing also occurred on 

the perceived understanding metrics. The average composite score for base eClosing borrowers 

was the highest at 82, followed by a score of 77 for both the paper and advanced eClosing 

borrowers. This data point showed directionally different results across lenders. Borrowers from 

Lender A had the highest average composite score for base eClosing (82), followed by paper (77) 

and advanced eClosing (75). Borrowers from Lender B had the highest average composite score 

 

48 See Methodology Section 3.4 for “net positive score” and “composite score” calculation methodology.
45 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

for advanced eClosing (86), followed by base eClosing (79) and paper (75). We further explore 

the possible implications of this finding in Section 4.5.

Various factors may have influenced these results including differences between individual 

settlement agents, degree of lender experience with eClosing, how busy the office was at the 

time, the type of borrower that refinanced during that month, or potential variations in the 

borrower experience49. Advanced eClosings was also a new untested process these pilot teams 

were implementing, while they had been doing base eClosings for several years up to this point. 

Summary statistics did not identify links to explain these different results, due to data 

constraints in the pilot. Accordingly, we were unable to evaluate what factors may have driven 

borrowers in the advanced eClosing group to score lower on our measures of empowerment and 

understanding than those in the base eClosing group. Further research should be conducted to 

isolate and test these and similar factors.

4.3.2 Efficiency

eClosing transactions in the pilot exhibited shorter closing meetings and earlier 

document delivery, which matched higher consumer perceptions of efficiency.

The final outcome that we analyzed at a detailed level was process efficiency, looking at both 

process data (from both lender administrative data and settlement agent-reported surveys) and 

borrower perceptions. 

We collected process data from lenders to evaluate five different aspects of efficiency: closing 

meeting delays, errors, document redraws, closing meeting length, and time from clear-to -close 

(CTC) to actual closing.50 The first three data points – delays, errors, and redraws – did not yield 

notable variation between paper closings and eClosings, but the results showed interesting 

 

49 For example, at one lender, the borrower and settlement agent flipped through a paper copy of the documents 

while the borrower signed electronically. At other lenders, the borrowers viewed only electronic versions of the 

documents signed electronically.

50 Clear to close is the point at which the lender has approved necessary loan documentation for the borrower to 

schedule the closing. 
46 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

findings for both closing meeting length and time 

from when documents were cleared to close to the

actual closing. 

The length of the closing meeting was shorter on 

average in eClosings than in paper closings, as noted 

in Figure 4 below. This can be attributed to 

consumers having more time to review documents ahead of time and ask questions. One 

eClosing borrower explained that, “I think having the documents ahead of time and being able 

to review them sped up the physical portion of the closing. People had said it takes 2 hours and I 

was literally in and out of there in 30 minutes.” Shorter closing meetings can be beneficial to 

both consumers and industry, but they can also be detrimental if the practice leads to the 

consumer feeling rushed or if it causes the borrower to miss essential information. During the 

pilot, we also asked borrowers a survey question about whether they felt rushed during the 

closing process. Borrowers in the eClosing groups often indicated that they did not feel rushed in 

their closing meetings: eClosing borrowers had around the same average net positive score as 

those in the paper groups for both transaction types (66 for refinance, 57 for purchase). It 

appears that in many cases, pilot participants were able to create an eClosing process and 

customer experience that successfully decreased the average length of the meeting without 

having borrowers feel more rushed. One reason that borrowers may not have felt rushed was 

because they had a longer period of time to review their closing documents in eClosing 

transactions than with paper.

“I think having the documents 

ahead of time and being able to 

review them sped up the 

physical portion of the closing. 

People had said it takes 2 hours 

and I was literally in and out of 

there in 30 minutes.” 
47 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 4: CLOSING MEETING DURATION FOR PAPER VS. ECLOSING. 

We analyzed how many days it took each loan in the pilot to go from cleared to close to the 

actual closing meeting. We divided this time into two periods – the cleared to close date to the 

HUD-1 delivery and the HUD-1 delivery date to actual closing.51 We used HUD-1 delivery as a 

proxy for consumers receiving all of the closing documents, but in some cases they may have 

only received the HUD-1 on that date. The graph below (Figure 5) shows the average number of 

 

51 Note that the HUD-1 will be replaced by the Closing Disclosure as of October 3, 2015, in compliance with the Know 

Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule. 
48 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

business days for each period in paper closings and eClosings, broken out by purchase and 

refinance.52 For both purchases and refinances, eClosings took about one less business day to 

get from cleared to close to document delivery. Additionally, borrowers had the documents 

about two business days longer on average for eClosing than paper transactions. Starting on the 

effective date for the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule, consumers will be given 

three business days to review the Closing Disclosure form for all transactions. During the pilot, 

only advanced eClosings were required to send the HUD-1 (and all other documents) three

business days before closing. But as mentioned in the previous chapter, early delivery was still 

common in base eClosings during the pilot. In eClosings, borrowers had more time to review the 

documents at home if they chose to do so, and pilot lenders made up for about 50% of that time 

by moving from cleared to close to document delivery more quickly. 

 

52 Averages were calculated using full calendar days for each loan. Weekends and federal holidays were excluded.
49 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 5: TIMELINE FROM CLEAR-TO-CLOSE TO ACTUAL CLOSING.53

Consumers’ views on perceived efficiency seemed to reinforce the positive indicators of process 

efficiency described above, particularly for purchase transactions. Purchase borrowers who 

completed a base or advanced eClosing had an average perceived efficiency composite score of 

49, versus 45 for paper borrowers. On average, eClosing borrowers were more likely to agree 

that the process for signing the documents was convenient and the process did not take longer 

than expected. One eClosing borrower stated that the process seemed “more efficient [and] less 

time consuming, mostly because of electronic documents...I felt like it went a lot smoother.” But 

 

53 Time data is based on an average (mean) of full calendar days, excluding Sundays and federal holidays.
50 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

eClosing borrowers were more likely than paper borrowers to state that there were delays in the 

process that could have been avoided, such as document errors. 

4.4 Demographic analysis

First-time homebuyers, low/moderate income borrowers and borrowers with the 

most years of formal education all had the largest positive gains between paper 

and eClosing, yet all scored relatively low on our measures of understanding and 

perceived empowerment.

In addition to evaluating the differences between eClosing and paper closing for the full pilot 

population, we also assessed the variation across different demographic groups. In the 

aforementioned Methodology chapter, we outlined the three groups that yielded notable results: 

borrower experience, income, and education.

4.4.1 First-time homebuyers

The first segment we looked at was first-time homebuyers: borrowers who completed their first 

purchase transaction during the pilot. As expected, this population skewed younger (67% under 

35 vs. 16% for experienced homebuyers) and had lower average incomes than experienced 

homebuyers (29% were in the upper income vs. 61% for experienced homebuyers).
51 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 6: KEY OUTCOMES BY BORROWER EXPERIENCE.54

 

54 See Methodology Section 3.4 for “net positive score” and “composite score” calculation methodology.
52 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

On average, first-time homebuyers scored lower than experienced homebuyers on our measures 

of perceived empowerment and understanding, and actual knowledge (as shown above in Figure 

6). In some cases, such as with actual knowledge scores, there was a larger difference between 

first-time homebuyers and both groups with home buying experience, indicating that it was the 

experience that may have been the important factor. In other cases, such as with our measure of 

empowerment in the closing process, there were similar differences between all three segments, 

indicating that experience and transaction type were both factors that influenced the above 

outcome measures. After examining the pilot empowerment score, we saw that experience and 

transaction type may have influenced question responses in different ways. For example, it 

appears that experience was more of a factor in borrowers’ level of concern with regard to not 

understanding the documents (eight for first-time homebuyers, 27 for experienced homebuyers, 

30 for refinancers). On the other hand, the type of transaction – purchase or refinance – may 

have been more important with regard to borrower’s perceptions of empowerment to play an 

active role in the closing (42 for first-time homebuyers, 48 for experienced homebuyers, 62 for 

refinancers).
53 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 7: PAPER VS. ECLOSING FOR FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYERS.55

When we analyzed the difference between eClosing and paper borrowers for each of the three 

borrower experience segments, first-time homebuyers showed the largest differences across our 

key measures (see Figure 7).56 For first-time homebuyers, there was a nine-point difference in 

average actual knowledge scores between those experiencing paper closings and eClosings, while 

the average actual knowledge scores for experienced homebuyers and refinancers only differed 

by three and two point differences, respectively. Average empowerment scores also differed 

 

55 See Methodology Section 3.4 for “net positive score” and “composite score” calculation methodology.

56 For first-time homebuyers, eClosing n = 23; for experienced homebuyers, eClosing n = 24
54 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

between paper closings and eClosings for both first-time homebuyers (49%) and experienced 

homebuyers (36%), while refinancers’ scores were similar for both types of closings. 
55 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

4.4.2 Low/moderate income borrowers

FIGURE 8: KEY OUTCOMES BY BORROWER INCOME.57

 

57 See Methodology Section 3.4 for “net positive score” and “composite score” calculation methodology.
56 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

The second demographic segment we examined was low/moderate income borrowers. On 

average, these borrowers scored the lowest of the income groups on the quiz assessing actual 

knowledge compared to middle-income and upper-income borrowers, as shown in Figure 8 

above. The largest average differences were on questions specifically related to costs, such as 

“Which of the following best describes a pre-payment penalty?” (30% correct for low/moderate 

income vs. 42% for middle-income and 47% for upper-income) and “Which of the following best 

describes a fixed-rate mortgage...?” (50% correct for low/moderate income vs. 63% for middleincome and 64% for upper-income). On average, low/moderate income borrowers also reported 

higher levels of confusion than upper-income borrowers (55 vs. 65) in response to the statement 

“The closing process was confusing for me,” but slightly lower levels of confusion than middleincome borrowers (55 vs. 53). We also saw differences between income groups on questions 

dealing with their perceived understanding of costs, such as the statement “I had a clear 

understanding of why the costs outlined in my initial GFE were different than my closing costs.” 

(58 for low/moderate income, 66 for middle-income, and 72 for high-income).
57 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 9: PAPER VS. ECLOSING FOR LOW/MODERATE INCOME BORROWERS.58,59

Within refinance transactions, we also observed differences between low/moderate income 

borrowers experiencing a paper closing versus an eClosing that were not as pronounced for 

other income groups. (See Figure 9). For example, low/moderate income borrowers who

completed an eClosing scored seven points higher than paper closing borrowers on the actual 

knowledge quiz. Middle- and upper-income borrowers showed little or no variation on the same 

data point and upper income borrowers showed a smaller difference. With low/moderate 

income borrowers, the pilot data showed a 12% increase in perceived understanding with those 

 

58 To address sample size limitations and differences between transaction types, these statistics consider only 

refinance transactions.

59 See Methodology Section 3.4 for “net positive score” and “composite score” calculation methodology.
58 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

doing an eClosing going from a composite score of 66 to 74. One low income borrower noted 

that she “probably [would have read paper documents] a little less because I don’t like reading 

but if it’s on the electronic side it's more fun, more accessible....” Similarly, low/moderate 

income borrowers experiencing eClosing refinances on average scored 31% higher on our 

measure of empowerment than their counterparts experiencing paper closings; there was no 

difference on the same measure for middle or upper income borrowers. 

4.4.3 Borrowers with graduate degrees

Borrowers with the highest level of education – a graduate degree – scored the highest on the 

actual understanding quiz with an average score of 49%, as shown in Figure 10 below. Despite 

scoring higher on actual knowledge, borrowers with a graduate degree did not score the highest 

on our measures of perceived understanding or empowerment. In fact, these borrowers had the 

lowest net positive score on the statements “The closing process was confusing for me” and “I 

felt like I had control over the process.” Similarly, on average, these borrowers were most likely 

to be worried about errors in the closing documents that no one notices and least likely to feel 

empowered to play an active role in the process.
59 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 10: KEY OUTCOMES BY BORROWER EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND.60

 

60 See Methodology Section 3.4 for “net positive score” and “composite score” calculation methodology.
60 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

The data told a different story for these borrowers when we compared those in this group who 

experienced eClosings and versus paper closings (see Figure 11 below).61 On average, eClosing 

borrowers in this group had the highest absolute empowerment and perceived understanding 

composite scores compared to other education groups. Additionally, the average difference 

between the eClosing and paper scores for both of these outcomes, and actual knowledge, was 

positive. These eClosing borrowers with graduate degrees had a pilot empowerment composite 

score of 60 and perceived understanding score of 81 (increases of 27% and 15%, respectively, 

over paper borrowers). One borrower with a graduate degree noted how he appreciated having 

the flexibility to access documents in his spare time: “I liked [the documents] electronically. It 

makes it easier to keep all in one place. I can file it and access it later... I could even look at 

something on my phone.” This sentiment may represent the general comfort that some 

borrowers in this group had with using technology for financial transactions; this group had the 

highest percentage of borrowers that were extremely comfortable using technology for financial 

transactions, at 62%, versus 37% for the lowest education group.

 

61 For high school diploma or less borrowers, paper n = 36 and eClosing n = 44
61 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

FIGURE 11: PAPER VS. ECLOSING FOR BORROWERS WITH GRADUATE DEGREES.62

4.5 Important considerations for 

implementing eClosing

Though we see some results from the pilot that eClosing may help provide a 

positive experience for consumers, lenders should ensure they implement this 

technology in a consumer-friendly way. In particular, lenders should be wary of 

the potential risks created by (a) perceptions of actual knowledge, (b) variability in 

borrower comfort with technology, and (c) variability in the customer experience.

 

62 See Methodology Section 3.4 for “net positive score” and “composite score” calculation methodology.
62 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

There are many examples from the findings of the pilot that suggest eClosings may contribute to 

a positive experience for borrowers, but we identified specific data points that highlight four 

important considerations to ensure that is the case. All stakeholders should take these 

considerations into account when assessing how to implement any eClosing solutions in the 

future.

First, we asked borrowers to rate how strongly they agreed with the statement that “The process 

for signing the documents felt secure.” On this data point, pilot borrowers in the paper closing 

group had an average net positive score of 86, but eClosing borrowers had a slightly lower 

average net score of 80. The CFPB ensured that the pilot participants used technology platforms 

that met industry standards for privacy and cybersecurity, but borrower perceptions are still an 

important factor. One potential cause of security concerns in an eClosing is technology glitches, 

which may reduce consumer confidence. For example, one borrower noted during the interview 

that, “There was a problem with signing the documents...We had to re-start the process three 

times.” Additionally, another borrower noted that “There is all this PII (personal identifiable 

information) in there, it would have been nice to get some sort of double verification or 

assurance that this was encrypted and not an iPad from a hacker.” Future eClosing providers 

across the industry should ensure that platform security is easy to understand and clearly 

explained to borrowers to reduce concern. 

Second, it is important to distinguish between an increase in actual knowledge and an increase 

in the perception of knowledge. Throughout this section, we have presented data on both actual 

knowledge scores – based on an eight-question quiz – and perceived understanding based on 

borrower opinions of the process. A successful solution in the market should increase both 

actual and perceived knowledge for consumers. The former could lead to better outcomes for 

borrowers and the latter could lead to a better customer experience. But there is a potential risk 

if a solution leads to high perceived knowledge without high actual knowledge. Borrowers who 

are overconfident may be less likely to ask questions, look for errors, or push back on other 

stakeholders at the table. At the same time, borrowers should be rightfully cautious about 

financial transactions of this magnitude, and an adequate amount of caution and attention could 

also contribute to better outcomes. In this pilot, eClosings consistently had higher scores for 

both actual and perceived knowledge, but we are unable to compare the two measurements to 

each other. Further research on this subject should continue to distinguish between these 

outcomes, and industry participants should seek solutions that improve not only customer 

satisfaction but also actual borrower understanding and empowerment and process efficiency.
63 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

Third, some types of borrowers may be more likely to take advantage of the benefits of eClosing. 

For example, we did not see evidence that borrowers with low levels of formal education 

experienced differences between paper and eClosings, while some of our data suggested that 

borrowers with higher levels of education did. Stakeholders that are currently completing 

eClosing solutions or considering adding an eClosing option should ensure that technology 

platforms and resources are user friendly and provide benefits for all consumers. The next 

chapter will discuss this finding and others in greater detail as part of a larger discussion on 

“lessons learned” from the pilot.
64 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

5. Additional lessons learned

In addition to the data analysis on key outcomes, the pilot produced important learnings about 

the success factors and challenges for implementing eClosing systems in the marketplace. In 

addition to our conversations with participants during the pilot, we captured these insights 

through formal exit interviews at the conclusion of the pilot with each lender and technology 

vendor. Overall, participants relayed positive feedback from consumers and other stakeholders 

who completed the eClosing process, and they maintain a positive outlook about the future of 

eClosing in the mortgage market. 

We would like to emphasize that adoption of eClosing remains quite low across the mortgage 

market due to the barriers we describe in our Mortgage Closings Today report.63 In that report, 

we found that many barriers to implementation are associated with a few documents that 

needed to be recorded or notarized (e.g. eNote), so a hybrid process where some documents are 

signed electronically and some are signed with ink, could eliminate some of the key barriers to 

implementing an eClosing solution. In this pilot, we learned that the coordination and process 

change efforts, in particular, were much steeper than anticipated even in hybrid eClosings. 

While some participants have spent years refining their eClosing processes, other pilot 

participants were relatively inexperienced with eClosing. Those with more experience closing 

mortgages through an eClosing platform – not just implementing a single aspect of eClosing like 

eSignatures of loan documents – had a much easier time conducting the pilot due to their 

established workflows and procedures and experience that enabled them to more easily adapt to 

implementation challenges that arose. This experience factor was most evident when all relevant 

stakeholders in the pilot team (e.g. lenders, vendors, document providers, and settlement 

agents) had previously all conducted eClosings.

 

63 This includes low adoption of hybrid eClosings as well. 
65 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

5.1 Key success factors

While eClosing implementation presented obstacles that we describe later in this chapter, all 

participants were still able to successfully implement or expand their eClosing solutions during 

the pilot. These participants, who included both experienced eClosing providers and more 

recent entrants, noted key steps that they took to facilitate successful implementation and a 

positive consumer experience.

Success factor 1: Clear expectations and consistent communication between all 

players involved were necessary for a successful pilot team.

The relationship between the lender and technology provider(s) was consistently discussed as 

one of the largest determinants of success. When an 

effective collaboration existed, it was a major success 

factor; but when it faltered, the relationship was a 

major roadblock. Participants mentioned that 

aligning on clear roles and maintaining open, timely 

communication were crucial for successful 

implementation. One lender stressed, “It was so 

important to have clearly established roles and responsibilities between [us] and technology 

providers.” These expectations applied to not only the eClosing providers, but also the 

document providers, who played an important role in creating the eClosing infrastructure and 

the settlement agents who conducted the closings. Beyond forming the initial partnership 

structure, some participants highlighted the value of regular check-ins between the lender and 

the vendor. Strong participant collaboration included weekly planning meetings prior to the 

pilot and weekly status updates throughout the pilot to track progress from start to finish.

Success factor 2: Commitment from company leadership and ensuring buy-in 

across the organization are key in order to drive those involved in implementing 

eClosing.

When implementing a large platform transformation such as implementing eClosing, our 

participants described the importance of executive support. Given the extent of the process 

changes to lender and other stakeholder activities, in addition to the coordination required 

between stakeholders, some of these organizations required an internal “push” from their 

leadership teams. Due to the unique nature of this eClosing pilot, most of the participant lenders 

“It was so important to have 

clearly established roles and 

responsibilities between [us] 

and technology providers.” 
66 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

and vendors maintained strong internal support from their respective executive leadership. In a 

time of significant competing pressures, including the refinance boom and the Know Before You 

Owe mortgage disclosure rule implementation, this commitment from the top levels of the 

organizations was vital to the success of the pilot. Participants with greater levels of leadership 

support were able to exert more influence both within their organizations and within the market 

in which they operate in order to keep their eClosing implementation on track.

Success factor 3: Allowing sufficient time for preparation and/or rollout, including 

robust user testing, minimized technology issues that consumers and settlement 

agents faced during the closing process.

Most participants recognized the benefits of sufficient time and resources for implementing a 

technical eClosing solution. Unfortunately, as described above, this pilot occurred during a 

resource-intensive time period for industry, given the combination of the refinance boom and 

implementation of the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule. Several diagnosed the 

cause of their eventual challenges during the pilot as 

insufficient time to work through the details of their 

eClosing platform prior to launch. By contrast, those 

lenders and technology vendors that experienced 

fewer roadblocks during the pilot reported that a 

fully-deployed team and robust user testing were vital 

steps prior to the start of the pilot. User testing was 

particularly important to identify not only technology issues, but also consumer usability issues, 

such as unclear directions, confusing language, or distorted formatting on computer screens. 

They noted that this type of extended pilot ramp up period allowed them to handle unexpected 

technology issues that arose during the pilot and verify the data collection procedures. In the 

words of one participant, “[We] would have done much more software testing prior to [the] 

rollout [to make things easier next time]” for the consumers and other stakeholders at the 

closing table.

Success factor 4: Early and continuous training of all stakeholders facilitated 

smoother eClosing implementation.

Participants pointed out that lender staff and other stakeholders must be educated about the 

intentions of eClosing and trained to utilize the new closing platforms. According to 

participants, the number of parties involved in the process requires a large investment in 

“[We] would have done much 

more software testing prior to 

[the] rollout [to make things 

easier next time]”
67 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

education to adopt process changes and achieve consistency across actors. In addition, a change 

like the adoption of eClosing requires a large-scale cultural and process change within lenders 

and with their external partners to adapt to the new way of doing business. One commented that 

they “would have done a lot more training” and education, including with closing attorneys, if 

they were to repeat the pilot. Another said, “[We did not expect] the level of education and 

training it takes to educate all participants to change their current way of doing business.” For 

the participants that did conduct extensive training, they found that the receptiveness of the

stakeholders varied. Some reported that settlement agents were unwilling to attend the planned 

trainings or invest time to learn the new processes due to competing business priorities, such as 

additional work from the refinance boom. But another lender was able to select and train all of 

its settlement agents before the beginning of the pilot in order to ensure a successful roll-out. 

We recognize that similar wholesale training would be less feasible for larger financial 

institutions that do business with a greater number of stakeholders.

5.2 eClosing implementation challenges

5.2.1 Operational challenges

Challenge 1: In some cases, pilot participants papered out more documents for ink 

signatures than expected for a number of reasons, including limitations of 

technology platforms, a perception of risk, and delays in pursuing implementation 

of eNotarization.

During our follow-up interviews, several lenders described the factors that led them to paper out 

more documents than anticipated in their closing packages. First, some technology platforms 

were not able to adequately handle variation in documents when placing the corresponding 

signature fields in the electronic documents. We discuss this factor more extensively in 

Challenge 7 below. Second, some lenders reported that their internal legal and compliance 

operations posed challenges to implementing full eClosing platforms. Though the Electronic 

Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) and the Uniform Electronic 

Transaction Act (UETA) establish clear legal authority and procedures for electronic signatures, 
68 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

many players in the mortgage industry were still concerned about a lack of legal clarity and the 

perceived associated risk potential, particularly with respect to eSignature.64 One participant 

highlighted the large amount of time required for the lender’s compliance operation to approve 

the final document packages when these packages were assembled with custom documents. 

Third, one participant described the challenge in implementing an eNotarization platform due 

to not beginning the process of eNotary registration early enough. As a result of these concerns, 

lenders that intended to have fully electronic processes (or nearly so) still required ink 

signatures on a range of documents during the pilot. For reasons explained below in Challenge 

3, almost all participants required borrowers to sign the promissory note with paper and ink. At 

one lender, three documents were signed with paper and ink: the Appraisal Report Disclosure, 

an automatic payment agreement, and a Notice of Right to Cancel. Across pilot participants, the 

number of documents signed with paper and ink during the pilot ranged from two to more than 

a dozen.

Challenge 2: Some lenders pursuing eClosing believed that they faced additional 

obstacles to gain approval to sell loans to secondary investors.

Like many mortgage lenders, most of the lenders in our pilot sell some, if not most, of their 

mortgages to secondary market investors. Several lenders reported confusion surrounding the 

approval process of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the government sponsored enterprises or 

“GSEs”) and other investors for hybrid eClosings that used both paper and ink as well as

electronic signatures. Even though the GSEs have both been publicly supportive of hybrid 

eClosing, some pilot lenders reported extensive approval processes with them and some other 

secondary investors that took up to several months to complete. Lenders typically have to go 

through an approval process with the GSEs for electronically signed Promissory Notes. 

However, there was confusion with lenders regarding potential approval processes for other 

closing documents signed electronically. For example, multiple participants described a series of 

meetings with investors to explain the composition of the hybrid closing packages and to reach 

an agreement on an acceptable closing package. One lender explained, “[The investor] had 

obviously heard of [eClosing] and gone through it, but it was not commonplace enough to be 

 

64 UETA was issued in 1999 by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) and was adopted in some form by 47 states. 

ESIGN is a federal law enacted in 2000 and codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001-7031. Both UETA and ESIGN provide for 

creating an electronic record with the equivalent enforceability of a mortgage note. 
69 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

handled right away...They wanted to know what we were doing and how exactly the provider 

platform was going to work. Once they understood it, everything fell into place.” Some

participants reiterated that additional guidance from investors on how to address hybrid 

solutions would be particularly helpful as hybrid eClosings grow in number.

Challenge 3: Large-scale workflow and process changes were often required to 

implement eClosing solutions, particularly early document delivery for advanced 

eClosing.

All pilot participants agreed that eClosing adoption required large-scale process or workflow 

changes in the early stages of implementation. Lenders with multiple years of eClosing 

experience had fewer large-scale changes to implement specifically for the pilot. However, for 

many others, the implementation operational challenges were significant. It is also important to 

note that the two lenders with the largest number of eClosings in the pilot were mid-sized 

lenders with several years of eClosing experience. These institutions could take a more nimble, 

adaptive, and hands-on approach to eClosing, which might be difficult in the same time frame 

for larger financial institutions or for those who are new to the process.

Pilot participants detailed procedural changes that eClosings required, with additional 

coordination challenges involved with advanced eClosing’s three-day early delivery component. 

Any single process change could touch multiple parties within the lender, including compliance, 

mortgage production, retail operations, IT, etc., in addition to other stakeholders outside the 

lender. With so many parties actively involved in every implementation task, pilot lenders 

reported difficulty in adjusting workflows to a new way of doing business. For example, in order 

to deliver documents to borrowers early, 

participants described managing the closing timeline 

more closely to create space to send the documents 

before the closing meeting. Some lenders described 

the extra work required to manage the pipeline of 

loans. One participant explained, “The key...is 

agreeing to a closing date early in the origination 

cycle, then managing processes to ensure it takes 

place when originally scheduled.” Lenders’ pilot 

experiences shed light on the actions they took to comply with three-day early document 

delivery in the period prior to the effective date of implementation. Executing eClosings – both 

base and advanced – at other lenders was similarly difficult in part due to the extensive 

“The key...is agreeing to a 

closing date early in the 

origination cycle, then managing 

processes to ensure it takes 

place when originally 

scheduled.”
70 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

coordination, education, and iteration required across internal parties to change workflows. 

These challenges were augmented for lenders who were simultaneously in the process of 

switching platforms or document solution vendors at the beginning of the pilot.

Some participants also described the challenges of data collection in their back-end processes. 

Much of the data collected for the pilot, particularly for advanced eClosing, was either newly 

collected by the participants or had never previously been utilized. As discussed in the 

methodology chapter, this led to specific challenges in collecting cost and time data for some 

lenders.

Challenge 4: Lenders taking incremental steps toward hybrid solutions faced less 

implementation complexity than those that were hoping to fully adopt an 

electronic mortgage process that included an electronic Promissory Note. 

Through much of the pilot, several lenders placed a strong emphasis on creating a fully 

electronic closing package or utilizing electronic notes (eNotes) as part of their eClosing 

solutions. Mortgage origination using an eNote is generally the primary criterion for an 

“eMortgage,” which in and of itself may create efficiencies and potential cost savings on the 

lender side when completing the mortgage transaction and reselling the mortgage in secondary 

markets. For two reasons, some participants stressed the implications of implementing 

incremental eClosing solutions (i.e., hybrid eClosing solutions), particularly without eNotes 

functionality. First, according to multiple participants, the use of eNotes can drive a more 

complex approval process with secondary market investors. Second, implementation of eNotes 

within an eClosing solution requires further coordination with internal and external 

stakeholders. Based on these challenges, one technology vendor suggested that lenders view 

eNotes as the final step in an eClosing solution rather than the first.65

 

65 As of 2014, there were over 330,000 eNotes in the MERS eRegistry, compared to tens of millions of mortgages sold 

on the secondary market during the same time period. MERS is a public company that operates a national 

electronic registry system that tracks the changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests in mortgage 

loans that are registered on the registry. Additionally, it operates a national database that provides free public access 

to servicer information for registered home mortgages.
71 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

5.2.2 Coordination challenges

Challenge 5: Given their lack of immediate incentives and the challenges 

(including investment of time and resources) associated with implementing a new 

system or process, many other external stakeholders (e.g. settlement agents, real 

estate agents, closing attorneys) found it difficult to implement the process 

changes required to implement the changes effectively.

A mortgage closing involves a complex “ecosystem” of stakeholders who must work together to 

allow a consumer to successfully close a mortgage, including settlement agents and title 

companies, closing attorneys, and real estate agents. From the beginning of the pilot, 

participants recognized the need to achieve buy-in from these other stakeholders in the closing 

process. Given the numerous actors involved in the closing process, concerns from parties other 

than the lenders also hindered participants’ ability to carry out eClosings. The participants noted 

several concerns; one participant discussed the apprehensions of closing attorneys regarding 

electronic delivery of documents. Closing attorneys were not comfortable since the attorney 

would not be present to acknowledge receipt and walk-through the documents with the 

borrowers.

Some stakeholders in the closing process faced different incentives and implementation 

challenges than lenders; these incentives led to varying degrees of willingness to comply with the 

eClosing process changes. In some cases, the seller is the customer of the closing attorney and 

real estate agent; thus, their business interests may not directly align with those of lenders. 

Where lenders had less market share, participants similarly reported that some settlement 

agents and title companies had little incentive to adapt to a new closing format and way of doing 

business. This was reported to be especially true in purchase transactions, where the realtor 

drives much of the closing process rather than the borrower or the lender. By contrast, other 

lenders with more market share were able to exert more influence over their respective 

“ecosystems.” 

Pilot participants often found other closing parties to be hesitant or stretched too thin to make 

the changes necessary to implement eClosing. According to several participants, this challenge 

was greater than expected in part due to the refinance boom; the considerably higher volume of 

refinance transactions caused a strain on settlement agents, title companies, and lender 

resources. Some stakeholders were described as too busy to focus on new processes that could 

detract their attention from closing additional transactions. One participant partly attributed the 
72 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

success of its pilot experience to an early decision to establish a trusted network of settlement 

agents and title companies before the start of the pilot. The lender created a list of preferred 

settlement agents who agreed to the eClosing process and received relevant training. By limiting 

the number of stakeholders in the eClosing pilot to a select group, the lender avoided having to

convince and teach each settlement agent and title company along the way.

Challenge 6: The low number of eNotarization capabilities remains a sizable 

challenge. Several pilot participants faced obstacles in obtaining an eNotary for 

the purposes of the pilot.

As participants navigated the legal framework to sign documents electronically, several noted 

electronic notarization for a more paperless process as one of the largest barriers. We found that 

the adoption of eNotarization capabilities was still relatively low in our pilot. In particular, some 

notaries refused to participate in an eClosing because of a perception that the electronic 

notarization process would not be legally permissible. According to one lender, its eNotary 

platform sought and received formal authorization for an eNotary platform by the Secretary of 

State’s office. The notaries in question were instructed by the Secretary of State’s office that the 

eNotary platform had been authorized, but the notaries were still concerned about the state’s 

notary governance rules. The lender told us, “While eNotary is allowed, they had the perception 

that their livelihood was jeopardized...We were running against this with every single notary we 

were using, so we made the decision to add anything to be notarized into the wet sign stack.” To 

bypass similar concerns, several lenders took similar action to use paper versions of all forms 

requiring notarization, growing the package of wet sign documents.

Challenge 7: In some instances, technology vendors were unable to adapt to lender 

expectations and requirements specific to implementing eClosing.

In addition to the extensive process changes mentioned above, several lenders also required 

significant IT changes to vendor platforms to implement their eClosing solutions. However, 

given the short time period to implement the pilot, some of the technology platforms had 

restricted capacity to adapt to unexpected needs and nuances required of eClosing transactions. 

Lenders and borrowers both reported technical issues with their eClosing experiences during the 

pilot. At the outset of the pilot, we described the desired eClosing functionality for pilot 

participants’ eClosing platforms; some participants faced large obstacles in implementing these 

functionalities, while others faced challenges primarily with more advanced eClosing features. 
73 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

The most common challenge repeated by multiple lenders was the ability of the eClosing 

solution to handle all potential variations of closing document packages.66 Because the packages 

vary in content and length, document providers needed to map the potential documents in the 

package to specific characteristics of the loan to ensure all required documents are included in 

each package. According to some participants, external document management platforms were 

unable to complete the mapping of closing document packages on an adequate timeline. As a 

result, one lender took over the process and completed it internally and manually. Companies 

also needed to match each document with relevant eSignature functionalities to place an 

eSignature field on the corresponding pages. Some participants reported that the eClosing 

solutions were not able to adapt to the different documents for this purpose. 

Participants and borrowers also noted three other challenges with the eClosing solutions that 

underscore the need for agile and adaptive technology. First, some platforms had difficulty

addressing multiple borrower loans or non-borrowing spouses. In one platform, each borrower 

was required to create a separate account during the closing process, and the closing process 

was effectively carried out once for each borrower on the loan. Second, another participant 

experienced challenges with Wi-Fi connectivity on its eClosing platform. Third, in consumer 

interviews, some borrowers reported problems with electronically signing the documents. 

Though the technologies are present in the marketplace, effective implementation of eClosing 

features often requires a degree of customization that was more difficult for some participants.

Challenge 8: There's a learning curve for settlement agents and other players 

executing Closing transactions to understand how to manage the new process.

As discussed in the previous chapters, there was variability in the types of eClosings provided by 

participants during this pilot. Some of that variability is attributable to eClosing experience on 

the part of the lender and other closing participants, particularly title companies and settlement 

agents. There is a learning curve for settlement agents and other players executing eClosing 

transactions to understand how to manage the new processes, which for some participants were 

essentially rolled out in “beta” form. Several borrowers described their frustrations with closing 

meetings in which the closing agents had not yet adjusted to the new system. In the words of one 

 

66 For some lenders, this process was handled by a document provider.
74 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

consumer, “[the settlement agent] had nothing prepared, nothing ready...She had to call some 

folks to learn how to do it. I had to sit there while she went through a course, and she said that 

she had never done this before.” Comments from pilot participants indicate that user feedback is 

critical to internal learning and the development of a more refined process. During this learning 

process in the early stages of eClosing rollout, there is a risk that some eClosing consumers 

could actually have a worse experience. Closing meetings could take more time, there may be 

operational issues with document delivery and review, or electronic signatures may not be 

accurately recorded, among other potential issues. Feedback from participants indicated that

borrower feedback, user testing, and training are critical to mitigating this risk, which is 

discussed further in the next chapter. 

As stated previously, while many challenges remain with eClosing implementation, all 

participants were still able to successfully implement or expand their eClosing solutions during 

the pilot. The challenges were to be expected. It was valuable to capture their lessons learned, 

both positive and negative, that provide insights to others considering implementation of 

eClosing solutions in order to plan accordingly.
75 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

6. Potential implications

This pilot substantially advances available research on eClosing solutions. To our knowledge, 

this pilot is the first broad public study on eClosing solutions that relies on consumer data. 

Public data to this point have focused more on implementation guidelines or industry 

perspectives. Direct data from borrowers has been anecdotal or from small studies of less than 

100 borrowers.67 Despite its data limitations,68 this pilot provides a broader view of how 

eClosing may affect borrower perceptions and outcomes. The pilot yielded both a better 

understanding of eClosing and a strong platform for further research and discussion.

In this chapter, we will discuss implications of the key findings and lessons learned from this 

pilot. First, we will outline how this study has provided a basis for industry to continue exploring

eClosing as a promising option for consumers. Second, we will discuss how further research can 

supplement this study by addressing experimental gaps. Third, we will highlight how the lessons 

learned through this pilot can help industry successfully implement consumer-friendly eClosing

by addressing barriers ahead of time. Fourth, we will look internally at what the CFPB learned 

from this pilot and how we can use those learnings to better serve consumers and work with 

others to join us in those efforts.

 

67 For example, Xerox Mortgage Services publishes an annual study on paperless mortgages in a series called “The 

Path to Paperless,” available for purchase at http://www.xerox-xms.com/resource-library/.

68 See explanation of data limitations in Methodology, Chapter 3.
76 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

6.1 Industry should continue to explore 

eClosing as a viable option for 

consumers

With positive results for all of our key outcomes, we continue to believe in the 

potential that eClosings have to benefit consumers. The findings of this pilot provide 

some evidence that borrowers may be receptive to eClosing solutions and could benefit from 

having the option to choose between eClosing and paper closing. As noted in our summary 

findings, eClosing borrowers had higher scores than paper borrowers on what we measured for 

this pilot, including perceived empowerment, perceived understanding, and efficiency, as well as 

actual knowledge. We found it particularly compelling that the largest positive differences 

between eClosing and paper closing borrowers in our pilot were seen on consumer perceptions 

of empowerment; particularly because pilot data reinforced that empowerment remains overall 

low in the mortgage closing experience for borrowers.69 Furthermore, over 90% of borrowers 

indicated that they were comfortable using technology for financial transactions, and consumer 

satisfaction with the closing process was slightly higher for eClosings than paper closings. In 

follow-up interviews, most borrowers who had completed an eClosing said that they appreciated 

the electronic features, particularly electronic document delivery. The findings from our pilot 

reinforced our hypothesis that eClosings have the potential not only to benefit consumers, but 

also represent a good business opportunity for industry, a true win-win for all involved.

Based on this pilot's findings, the CFPB believes that industry should continue to explore 

implementation of consumer-friendly eClosing solutions as an option for consumers. Because of 

the many players involved in the closing transaction, a lender interested in implementing 

eClosing solutions needs to coordinate effectively with many other participants in the process, 

including technology vendors, settlement agents, and closing attorneys, among others. 

Additionally, lenders may need to gain buy-in from internal groups, such as legal or compliance 

departments, which may have concerns about perceived risks of eClosing. We hope that this 

 

69 When comparing the absolute net positive scores of borrowers on empowerment, perceived understanding, and 

efficiency, empowerment consistently had the lowest scores of the three across the same borrower segments. 
77 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

report, combined with the CFPB's support, will be a resource to help convince hesitant 

stakeholders to further explore eClosing options.

The findings from this pilot are also consistent with our research that informed 

the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule regarding giving consumers 

more time with the Closing Disclosure. As outlined in the Key Findings chapter, the 

strongest correlation with high outcomes in this pilot was where borrowers received and 

reviewed documents prior to arriving at the closing table. This finding supports the Bureau's 

policy objectives related to the timing component of the Know Before You Owe mortgage 

disclosure rule issued in November 2013 and effective October 3, 2015. Under this rule, 

borrowers must receive the new Closing Disclosure at least three business days prior to closing. 

The CFPB firmly believes that this time period, in addition to the easy-to-read content of the 

Closing Disclosure form, will help borrowers engage with the most important financial 

information early in the process and walk into the closing more empowered and knowledgeable. 

We therefore encourage lenders to deliver all of the closing documents ahead of time whenever 

possible, as was required for advanced eClosing participants in the pilot, in addition to 

delivering the Closing Disclosure, as the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule 

requires. As one lender described to us, the closing meeting largely becomes a formality because 

the borrower has been engaging with the lender and the closing documents for several days 

before the meeting – effectively extending the closing period to begin several days leading up to 

the closing meeting. 

Additionally, pilot data indicates that there are certain groups of consumers who 

can potentially benefit more from eClosing than others (e.g. first-time borrowers 

and low-income borrowers.) As described in our key findings, we conducted demographic 

analysis to examine how various types of consumers react to eClosing differently. According to 

this analysis, the borrower segments that scored relatively low on key outcomes were the same 

with the largest positive differences between eClosing and paper – including first-time 

homebuyers, low-income homebuyers. We know the closing process can be particularly 

daunting for first-time homebuyers, and we have continued to look for ways to aid low-income 

borrowers through the process. 

The consumer experience is important when implementing eClosing solutions and 

process needs to be well tested to ensure that consumers feel empowered with 

tools to simplify the complex mortgage transaction. Each participant in the pilot 

offered a different eClosing experience to its borrowers during the pilot. As discussed above, the 
78 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

eClosing technology solution, training of involved closing stakeholders (e.g. settlement agents), 

and individual interactions with the lender and partnering organizations each play a role in 

creating a positive (or negative) closing experience. Consumer interviews indicate explicitly that 

non-process aspects of the eClosing experience (i.e. responsiveness, communication, personal 

connection with the settlement agent) can have an impact on consumer satisfaction with the 

process and on our three key metrics – empowerment, understanding, and efficiency at closing. 

With this pilot experience, lenders had the opportunity to debug their technology platform, seek 

user feedback from borrowers, train other involved closing stakeholders, and resolve 

communication and other operational gaps, albeit in a very compressed timeframe. 

Without adequate testing, training, and communication, there is a potential risk that consumers 

face a less satisfying closing experience – more confusing, more stressful, or less efficient. This 

further reflects the need to getting the process right before introducing to consumers or 

managing consumer expectations during the transitional phase.

6.2 We encourage stakeholders to conduct 

further research

Despite its valuable findings, this pilot is just a start to studying and understanding the potential 

benefits of eClosing. Accordingly, we encourage further inquiry into how consumers can be 

better served during the mortgage process through the use of technology. As described in the 

Methodology chapter, we acknowledge that this pilot has important data limitations and 

caveats. Even though the results are positive, we believe further research on eClosing would be 

beneficial in order to best serve consumers. The CFPB believes that there is still a lot to learn 

about consumer interaction with eClosing. Last year, we spoke to multiple lenders who 

expressed interest in joining the pilot, but were unable to meet the implementation deadlines. 

They discussed the potential of running their own pilots. We encouraged that at the time and 

reiterate that position today. Additional research will help all stakeholders collect both 

quantitative and qualitative insights regarding the impact of eClosing and ways to address 

implementation barriers. We have included below some suggestions for topics and structure of 

future research. But we also encourage those running studies to reach out to the CFPB for 

questions and assistance; we could provide supportive consultation in such research going 

forward.
79 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

Stakeholders who consider conducting future research should look to address the 

specific gaps in our loan dataset. We identified three particular gaps in the information 

from this pilot that the CFPB would be interested in addressing in future research studies. First, 

future studies should test a broader set of geographies and institutions to better capture the 

diversity of mortgage transactions today. As noted earlier, this pilot was limited to seven 

lenders. The two lenders that provided the majority of the eClosings for our pilot were both 

lenders with strong footprints in the Western half of the United States. We would be interested 

to see whether, and how, results might vary when tested in different geographies. This may 

include variation with borrowers and loan packages. In addition, different institutions may have 

varying technology infrastructures, processes, and barriers to implementation. 

Second, future studies should aim to capture a larger sample size of purchase eClosing 

transactions. When the pilot started, we knew that the purchase eClosing sample size would be 

low because eClosings are used less frequently for purchase transactions than for refinances. 

This is primarily because lenders have less control over purchase transactions and cannot 

require all stakeholders to use an electronic platform. But the purchase sample size was even 

lower than expected because there was an increase in refinance volume in early 2015. Since the 

data showed that the variation between eClosing and paper closing was larger for purchase 

transactions, the CFPB would be particularly interested in seeing more data for this type of 

transaction, particularly for first-time homebuyers experiencing an advanced eClosing. 

Third, future studies should attempt to capture cost data to determine if eClosings reduce the 

burden on industry stakeholders. In Mortgage Closings Today, we noted as a hypothesis that 

eClosings could reduce lender costs by limiting delays, reducing errors/redraws, and lessening 

process time through automation. Unfortunately, we were not able to test that hypothesis in the 

pilot given the difficultly of collecting cost data, as outlined in the Methodology chapter above. 

We remain highly interested in further exploration of this topic and recommend further studies 

to determine the net financial impact of eClosing on lenders.

Additional future research studies should leverage and build on the CFPB’s focus 

on key outcomes that we outlined in this report. In an ideal study, the CFPB would be 

interested in observing how eClosings impact the actual financial outcomes of mortgage 

borrowers (i.e., more borrowers making better mortgage decisions that lead to better financial 

outcomes over time) compared with paper closings. But given the constraints of conducting a 
80 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

longitudinal study, we have opted to focus instead on outcomes that are more easily measured in 

the short term. We therefore decided to focus on measures of perceived empowerment, 

understanding, and efficiency, which directly address the most common reported consumer 

pain points associated with the closing process: (1) not enough time to review documents, (2) 

overwhelming stack of paperwork, (3) documents too hard to understand, and (4) unexpected 

errors at closing. We suggest that stakeholders who plan to conduct future studies test similar 

outcomes. In particular, we would like to flag three considerations.

First, the CFPB encourages future researchers to avoid focusing solely on borrower 

“satisfaction,” which may not be aligned with good outcomes. We recommend avoiding reliance 

on measurements of “happiness” or “ease” in completing the mortgage process. As we've noted 

previously, in some instances, an easier transaction with higher consumer satisfaction could 

actually undermine consumer outcomes.70

Second, we tested actual knowledge of the borrower’s transaction based on an 8 question quiz. 

The CFPB would be interested to see how future studies can expand on the measurement of 

actual knowledge we used in our pilot. It would be interesting to see the results of a study that 

successfully tests both actual and perceived understanding in a comparable format. For 

example, the test could ask if borrowers believe they have a clear understanding of a topic, such 

as pre-payment penalties, and then also ask a content question on that same topic. Then, 

whether borrowers answered each question correctly could be compared across the question 

pair to identify any areas of false confidence. This type of study would require more questions 

pairs and a higher sample size than this pilot.

Third, we want to stress the importance of separating the analysis of purchase and refinance 

transactions. In this pilot, the data showed that the consumer outcomes at closing–

empowerment, understanding, and efficiency – vary based on transaction type. Future studies 

should separate purchases and refinances when comparing any segments that have unequal 

weighting of each type. It is important to note that other factors may need to be controlled in the 

analysis, such as lender or borrower demographics, so researchers should check the data early 

for these concerns.

 

70 See explanation in Section 4.5. 
81 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

Fourth, future studies should continue to investigate how specific consumer segments may react 

differently to eClosing. Further research should explore further how the impact of eClosing

differs broadly across demographics, including but not limited to borrower experience, income, 

and education. 

6.3 Those exploring implementation of 

eClosing should consider the lessons 

learned from this pilot to inform their 

implementation plans

We hope that the success factors identified by our participants will help future 

lenders and eClosing providers plan for the implementation process. The key 

challenges discussed in the previous chapter can also help interested industry 

participants anticipate barriers to implementation of eClosing and plan 

accordingly. 

The success factors that we describe are not a comprehensive list of the conditions required for 

implementing eClosing solutions. We also acknowledge the implementation process will vary 

greatly according to lender characteristics. However, pilot participants highlighted these steps as 

key to their pilot experience, and we believe these success factors would be beneficial to all 

lenders considering eClosing as an option.

The CFPB’s view of the barriers for lenders to adopt eClosings has evolved from the release of 

last year's report. Through this pilot, we learned that operational and coordination-related 

barriers were often larger than originally understood. Each mortgage closing involves many 

different parties, so it can be challenging for a lender to ensure that each party is willing and

able to conduct an eClosing. This large-scale change requires persistence – or as one 

participating lender called it, “both determination and heart.” To address this barrier, we 

specifically call on trade associations, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders to work 

together to find ways to address barriers, dispel myths, and spur implementation. As lenders 

continue to pursue electronic closings, we also call on secondary investors, including the GSEs, 

to continue to provide additional guidance to lenders on how to address hybrid solutions. To 

resolve coordination barriers, industry participants, government entities, and other stakeholders 
82 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

will need to work together and think about how to implement change on a large scale, rather 

than one lender or one settlement agent at a time.

6.4 CFPB and others should leverage this 

pilot to help guide next steps

This pilot may help dispel common myths held by those hesitant to embrace 

technology-driven solutions. Though this report primarily concerns eClosing as a channel 

for improving the consumer experience, eClosing also plays an important role as a case study for 

implementing technology-driven solutions in the consumer financial marketplace. In Mortgage 

Closings Today, we discussed in depth the myths surrounding the legality and practicality of 

eClosing. We believe that this report can serve as further evidence to help dispel two prominent 

myths. First, we learned in interviews during our prior background research phase and during 

this pilot that some industry participants do not believe that the eClosing process is legal. 

Concerns generally relate to whether eSignatures and eNotarization create legally binding, 

authoritative copies of the mortgage contract and related documents. Despite the passage of 

ESIGN and UETA, the misunderstanding persists. We hope that this report, in addition to the 

CFPB's public support of eClosing as a potential option for consumers, will help dispel this 

myth. This confusion surrounding the legality of eClosing and what we mean by eClosing serves 

as just one example of the skepticism around technology-driven solutions for consumer 

financial products.

Second, some industry participants believe that eClosing requires a fully paperless process and, 

therefore, they must be “all in” to implement eClosing. As described earlier in this report, none 

of our pilot participants completed a 100% paperless closing; they all had borrowers wet sign at 

least one document for various reasons. This “hybrid” approach is significantly more common 

across industry than a fully electronic closing. In fact, the distinction between a “fully electronic” 

and “hybrid” process may be an irrelevant distinction. As these pilot data show, this approach is 

feasible. We encourage industry participants interested in technology-driven solutions, but wary 

of implementation barriers, to consider whether hybrid solutions might fit their business needs.
83 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

6.5 The CFPB remains interested in looking 

at further evaluations of eClosing

together with an analysis of upcoming 

market changes. 

The CFPB plans to combine learnings of this pilot with observations of market 

changes associated with the implementation of the mortgage disclosure rule to 

determine next steps. Based on the promising results of this pilot, the CFPB has a strong 

interest in staying engaged with stakeholders in the conversations about eClosing. We want to 

be a part of future research efforts and discussions to understand the potential of eClosing, 

address barriers to adoption, and expand implementation. We plan to wait to observe market 

changes associated with the Know Before You Owe mortgage disclosure rule and the role of 

eClosing in it. As this report outlined, a key advantage of eClosing is the ability to facilitate early 

document delivery, which is also the core of the Know Before You Owe initiative and the 

mortgage disclosure rule. Additionally, we know that some industry stakeholders are 

incorporating electronic signatures into their process to help comply with the Know Before You 

Owe guidelines, and we intend to observe how stakeholders react to these changes. We are 

convinced that eClosing can be a promising option for consumers, and we are committed to 

helping implement consumer-friendly solutions.

Moving forward, we see our role as a catalyst and facilitator of change, as a 

convener of cross-sector collaboration, and as an advocate for enhanced consumer 

outcomes during mortgage closings. We have invested in understanding the consumer 

experience during the home loan and closing process and will continue to place high importance 

on protecting consumers in mortgage markets. We will continue to be a participant in public 

dialogue surrounding eClosing and are committed to serving as a resource to others conducting 

internal pilots on this topic, and will help bring industry and government stakeholders together 

for further discussion on improving the consumer experience. 
84 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

7. Conclusion

The CFPB finds the results of this study encouraging for industry participants that are currently 

completing eClosings, working toward eClosing implementation, or are still in early discussions 

on eClosing. Borrowers experiencing eClosing scored higher on average than those experiencing 

paper closings on many of our measures of perceptions of empowerment, understanding, and 

efficiency, which suggests that eClosing can be a valuable option for consumers. In particular, 

eClosing seem to serve as a vehicle to help facilitate two other drivers of empowerment, 

understanding, and efficiency at closing: early document review and easy integration of 

educational materials.

This pilot should not be treated as the final verdict on the potential of eClosing, for two reasons. 

First, this study had important data-related and methodological constraints that prevented us 

from executing a fully randomized study with a sample size sufficient enough to detect 

statistically significant differences between groups, and we were not able to achieve a sample 

that was representative of the full U.S. borrower population geographically or demographically. 

Second, the results from these data are still mixed or unclear in some areas. For example, the 

comparison between eClosings and paper closings on refinances told a mixed story across 

lenders, while our findings were promising and less nuanced with regard to eClosing in purchase 

transactions. Given these constraints and results, we instead view this study as confirmation of 

growing interest in eClosing as an option for consumers and as a platform to spur further 

research. We hope that stakeholders conduct future research on eClosing to increase 

understanding of their impact on consumers and on expanding industry adoption.

The CFPB plans to stay closely involved in the eClosing efforts going forward as a champion of 

consumer-friendly solutions. As we observe the impact of the Know Before You Owe mortgage 

disclosure rule implementation, we will assess specific next steps for the Bureau's research. The 

CFPB remains committed to fulfilling our vision for empowered, knowledgeable homebuyers 

experiencing a more efficient, consumer-friendly process.
85 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

APPENDIX A:

Loan data overview

TABLE 1: LOAN DATA FOR PURCHASE LOANS

Pilot group n % of homes

Paper 1156 89.3% of purchase

Base eClosing 79 6.1% of purchase

Advanced eClosing 59 4.6% of purchase

Total 1294 39.3% of total

TABLE 2: LOAN DATA FOR REFINANCE LOANS

Pilot group n % of homes

Paper 1013 50.7% of purchase

Base eClosing 512 25.6% of purchase

Advanced 

eClosing71 473 23.7% of purchase

Total 1998 60.7% of total

 

71 See Methodology (in Chapter 3) for a more detailed description of our experimental design. The key difference 

between “base” eClosing and “advanced” eClosing was that with advanced eClosings, consumers received their 

closing documents three days prior to their closing meeting and had access to CFPB educational materials.
86 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

APPENDIX B:

Survey respondent overview

TABLE 3: SURVEY RESPONSES FOR PURCHASE LOANS

Pilot group n % of homes

Paper 357 88.4% of purchase

Base eClosing 2572 6.2% of purchase

Advanced eClosing 2273 5.4% of purchase

Total 404 32.2% of total

TABLE 4: SURVEY RESPONSES FOR REFINANCE LOANS

Pilot group n % of homes

Paper 355 41.8% of purchase

Base eClosing 263 30.9% of purchase

Advanced eClosing 23274 27.3% of purchase

Total 850 67.8% of total

 

72 Lender 2 comprises 22 of 25 total base eClosing purchase respondents 

73 Lender 2 comprises 16 of 22 total advanced eClosing purchase respondents

74 Lender 1 comprises 180 of 232 total advanced eClosing refinance respondents
87 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

APPENDIX C:

Contents of composite scores 

in survey data

Actual knowledge score (correct vs. incorrect)

 How did the total closing costs on your HUD-1 Settlement Statement compare to the 

costs in your original Good Faith Estimate (GFE)?

 Can your interest rate increase during the life of your loan?

 Can the total amount that you pay each month increase during the life of your loan?

 Which of the following best describes how the final costs on the HUD-1 Settlement 

Statement can change from the original estimates on the Good Faith Estimate (GFE)?

 Which of the following best describes your rights as a consumer to negotiate the costs on 

the HUD-1 at the closing meeting?

 Which of the following best describes a pre-payment penalty?

 Which of the following best describes a fixed-rate mortgage with monthly payments for 

principal, interest, taxes, and insurance?

 What is the document that you sign during the closing process that gives the bank the 

right to take away your house if you do not meet your responsibilities as a mortgageholder and homeowner?

Understanding score (strong agree to strongly disagree)

 I had a clear understanding of the terms of my loan and how my payments are 

determined.

 I had a clear understanding of my rights as a homeowner.
88 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

 The closing process was confusing for me. 

 I had a clear understanding of what the consequences were if I failed to fulfill the 

responsibilities of my mortgage. 

 I had a clear understanding of the final closing costs on my HUD-1 Settlement 

Statement. 

 I had a clear understanding of why the costs outlined in my initial Good Faith Estimate 

(GFE) were different than my final closing costs. 

Efficiency score (strong agree to strongly disagree)

 The closing process took longer than I expected.

 The process for signing the documents was convenient. 

 The closing process was efficient

 I felt comfortable asking questions during the closing process. 
89 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

APPENDIX D:

“Net positive score” calculation 

methodology

All survey questions that ask for a 5-point answer (strongly agree to strongly disagree) are 

represented with a "net positive score."

TABLE 5: EXAMPLE DATA

Answer choice % of respondents

Strongly agree 10%

Agree 5%

Neither agree nor disagree 10%

Disagree 25%

Strongly disagree 50%
90 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

TABLE 6: EXAMPLE CALCULATION

Step Calculation

1. Identify which answer choices represent a 

“positive” consumer outcome75

"Disagree" represents a positive consumer 

outcome in this statement

2. Add strongly agree and agree responses 

("negative" responses) 10% + 5% = 15%

3. Add strongly disagree and disagree 

responses ("positive" responses) 50% + 25% = 75%

4. Subtract "negative" responses from 

"positive" responses 75% - 15% = 60%

A higher net positive score always corresponds with a more desirable borrower outcome.

 

75 Note that depending on the wording of the question, a “positive” response to some questions would be to agree (e.g.,

“I had a clear understanding of my rights as a homeowner”), while for other questions a “positive” response would 

be to disagree (e.g., “The closing process was confusing to me”). Note: example does not use actual survey data