Dealbook had an item about the qualified mortgage rule and the bid by mortgage lenders to acquire a “safe harbor,” essentially a shield against consumer lawsuits, in the process. I’ve already gone over this topic and continue to oppose giving banks a safe harbor of any kind on the merits. But just to shift gears away from the precise details for a moment, consider why you would want to give any entity that does something like this protection from legal exposure:
|By: David Dayen Thursday December 20, 2012 5:54 am|
|By: David Dayen Tuesday October 16, 2012 6:40 am|
CFPB’s credibility is on the line with this rule.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday August 29, 2012 9:40 am|
The housing plank comes in the “Restoring the American Dream – Economy and Jobs” section of the document. It’s five paragraphs long, and much of it is explanatory and flowery. Most of the first paragraph goes on and on about the importance of homeownership. It concludes, “Homeownership is best fostered by a growing economy with low interest rates, as well as prudent regulation, financial education, and targeted assistance to responsible borrowers.” Beyond that, there’s not much here; they blame government for the housing market collapse, citicize Obama for not fixing it even though it happened in 2006-07, and have no discussion of the current foreclosure and servicing crisis except to say that the government shouldn’t help homeowners with principal writedowns.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday July 18, 2012 1:10 pm|
A group of House Republicans and Democrats, 108 strong, have expressed in a letter that the new rules on “qualified residential mortgages,” among the first on the industry for CFPB, should include a “safe harbor” provision that would shield mortgage brokers and originators from borrower lawsuits. If expressed broadly, this would give borrowers no legal recourse on new loans to contest the terms of their mortgages.