Quantcast

Safe Harbor or Sinking Ship?

MAY 8, 2012 4:32pm ET
Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (4)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is charting the course for new regulation on qualified mortgages, the new QM rule. 

Their goal is to dissuade lenders from partaking of mortgage loan programs that involve undo risk taking by imposing more stringent underwriting principals to potential loan applicants, including requiring that borrowers show they have the ability to repay a loan.  

Lenders that adhere to the guidelines may gain a higher degree of legal protection, known as “safe harbor,” against potential law suits that result from borrower default. 

Though this may seem like common sense to most of us, making sure that the borrower has the ability to repay a loan should always have been a top consideration. 

However, like most regulatory changes of late, there are two schools of thought on this issue. There are those that want a guarantee of ultimate protection, that there would be no permissible cause of action with regulation adherence, versus those that would like a more broad definition of “qualified mortgages” in exchange for weaker legal protection. 

The cost of defense of any law suit always creates an issue for smaller lenders who would like to see a version that would protect them entirely from being sued. These smaller lenders are also taking the position that loans would be harder to obtain and more costly to consumers if they were allowed to be the victims of what many times could be unsubstantiated law suits. 

The new QM rule would of course eliminate the most predatory of lending practices from the menu, including loans that permit interest-only payments and loans that include fees and points totaling more than 3 percent of the loan amount. This still leaves many questionable loan practices on the table that we hope would be vetted out as this regulation takes form.

The final rule on the qualified mortgages standards is expected this summer and will go into effect the first of next year. Lenders that choose to ignore or stretch the bounds of these new regulations will find it very difficult to securitize their portfolios.

We doubt very much that the CFPB would ever impose regulations that would completely eliminate a consumer’s cause of action or legal recourse on a defaulted mortgage. 

While there may indeed be certain consumers who will not qualify under these more stringent loan requirements, the requirement of showing that you have the ability to repay a debt is really just a sound business practice.

 

Diane Gozza, EVP Business Development Integrated Mortgage Solutions - Houston, TX

Comments (4)
WTF? It's about TITLE fraud, NOT Mortgage Fraud. Stop investment banks from stripping Main Street equity of 20% when they convert ONLY the 1TD loan value to Wall Street risks in Bond Securities... Ten "chosen" Banksters/Sericers have NO SKIN in the right to MY TITLE for their investment games witrhout MY written approval! Repeal CFMA2000. See SamsNation.com
Posted by Charles K | Tuesday, May 08 2012 at 7:50PM ET
Did you ever feel like you were on a merry-go-round with all these supposedly new regulations? We for years have had a funtioning mortgage industry. The rules when enforced worked. Then we politicized the whole process and did not comply to rules that worked for years. This process still appears to be part of the Civil War Reconstruction. Listen the original rules worked, eliminate all the additional government agencies. Go back to the old rules and enforce them. Case sovled, no more wasted time with Congressional hearings, waste of time.
Posted by | Wednesday, May 09 2012 at 9:02AM ET
Nobody wants borrowers hurt, and i say this as an originaotr of close to 30 years. That said, we are in an area of Fl with low values and 3% (if outside fees are factored in) are way too low. one more reason small loans will be impossbile to do. How does THAT help consumers and especially those of modest means???
Posted by | Wednesday, May 09 2012 at 11:23AM ET
Nobody wants borrowers hurt, and i say this as an originaotr of close to 30 years. That said, we are in an area of Fl with low values and 3% (if outside fees are factored in) are way too low. one more reason small loans will be impossbile to do. How does THAT help consumers and especially those of modest means???
Posted by | Wednesday, May 09 2012 at 11:23AM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.