Home > Mortgages > Mixed Reviews on CFPB’s New Mortgage Rules

Comments 1 Comment

CFPB Mortgage RegulationsIn an effort to forestall a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today announced it would issue new mortgage rules designed to ensure that borrowers have the ability to pay back loans before the lender issues them credit.

The new lending standards are a requirement of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which also called for the creation of the CFPB to craft and enforce them. The rules will compel lenders to verify consumers’ ability to repay loans in a variety of ways, and in return, the lenders will enjoy what is being referred to as a “safe harbor” from punitive measures should the loan ever fall into foreclosure.  This particular provision has drawn the ire of some consumer advocates.

“The safe harbor the Bureau has afforded for prime loans provides absolute shelter to lenders who knowingly make unaffordable loans, in direct violation of Congressional intent,” said Alys Cohen, a staff attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.

According to the new rules, lenders must demonstrate an “ability to repay” by considering eight criteria: income or assets; employment status; the anticipated monthly mortgage payment; other monthly loan payments; monthly mortgage-related expenses such as property taxes and insurance; other debt and payment obligations such as alimony and child support; the monthly debt-to-income ratio; and credit history.  Ultimately, borrowers must have a debt-to-income ratio of no more than 43 percent (though there will be some exceptions to this cutoff for the next seven years in an effort to allow the mortgage market to adjust to the change).

[Related Article: 3 Loans That Are Tough to Refinance]

Loans that meet these criteria will be considered Qualified Mortgages (QMs), and as a result lenders will generally be protected from fines or litigation in the event of foreclosure. Non-compliance with the standards, however, will result in significant liability for lenders. According to Cohen, the “safe harbor” provision, along with the debt-to-income ratio standard, are flawed.

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Qualified Mortgage rule invites abusive lending and erodes the progress made by Dodd-Frank,” Cohen said, going on to criticize the implications of the 43% debt-to-income ratio for low-income families. “The 43 percent debt-to-income ratio in the rule may be a reasonable standard for a homeowner earning $10,000 per month, but for a homeowner earning only $1,000 per month, 43 percent does not leave enough to pay the utility bills or other essentials.”

Free Credit Check & MonitoringOther consumer advocates were more measured in their critique. Barry Zigas, director of housing policy with the Consumer Federation of America, was generally pleased with many of the new protections, though he would have preferred that the new rule allow “rebuttable presumption,” which would have generally permitted foreclosed borrowers of Qualified Mortgages to file suit against lenders.

In select situations, however, a borrower who meets the 43 percent criteria may have recourse in the form of rebuttable presumption if, according to the CFPB’s summary of the new rules, “at the time the loan was originated, the consumer’s income and debt obligations left insufficient residual income or assets to meet living expenses.” However, the longer that a borrower is able to make timely payments, the less likely it is that he or she will be able to make a claim like this stick.

“Sadly, the Bureau today took a step back from the highest level of consumer protection by offering lenders a legal safe harbor from any challenges to prime loans meeting the standard, rather than the ‘rebuttable presumption’ that the statute authorized and we strongly advocated in comments on the proposed rule,” Zigas said. He noted, however, that under the final rule, non-prime, higher priced loans would be covered by the rebuttable presumption. “While we would have preferred that the rebuttable presumption applied to all QM loans, we applaud the Bureau’s decision to extend this higher level of protection to those consumers who are at the most risk.”

[Related Article: How a Mortgage Can Help (or Hurt) Your Credit]

Prior to the financial crisis, banks and non-bank lenders issued a variety of mortgages targeting sub-prime borrowers, including interest-only loans, no-doc loans that required no proof of income or employment, and negative amortizing loans, in which the principal actually grew over a period of time.

“In the run-up to the financial crisis, we had a housing market that was reckless about lending money,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray in a prepared statement. “It had dysfunctional incentives, with lenders being able to off-load virtually any mortgage into the secondary market regardless of the quality of the underwriting.  There was broad indifference to the ability of many consumers to repay loans.”

None of the aforementioned exotic loans can be considered a Qualifying Mortgage under the new rules. As a result, with the creation of the Qualified Mortgage category, the CFPB has effectively codified what is to be considered a prime mortgage. Some contend that ultimately these rules will create a kind of line in the sand within the mortgage market.

“What banks have said to us is that they won’t lend outside of Qualified Mortgages. They don’t want face the liability. And it’s reputational,” says Rod Alba, vice president and senior counsel with the American Bankers Association.  “The ability to repay standard essentially delineates the market in which they will lend. Every non-QM loan becomes a subprime loan… Independent mortgage lenders might go there, [these are] guys that depend entirely on secondary market financing.”

[Related Article: CFPB Releases Study on Credit Reporting Agencies]

The issue of QM non-compliance could have other implications, particularly in the area of mortgage-backed securities, the process by which lenders bundle and sell off shares of mortgages to investors. Alba points out that the QM requirements, and the associated liability for non-compliance, transfers to the buyers of mortgage-backed securities.

“It used to be that a lot of the liability did not transfer up to the loan purchaser. [Now] the liabilities transfer up, ” Alba noted.  ”So the secondary market players are threatened with liability and they will go down a more cautionary road when analyzing these rules. We expect additional contract provisions to protect the purchasers of the securities.”

It remains to be seen what impact, if any, the new rules will have on the current housing market. While it is true that the new rule will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for some borrowers to get a mortgage, many feel that these borrowers are already shut out of the mortgage market for all practical purposes.

“To the extent that we limit the availability of credit, then you limit the opportunity for purchases. But today’s credit market is already very conservative,” says the ABA’s Alba.  ”I think this rule what it attempts to do is to lock down today’s conservative underwriting standards and say, this is safe. Let’s avoid the excesses of the past. It’s not trying to constrain credit more, but to avoid slipping back to the excesses of the past.”

Image: rpongsaj, via Flickr

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team