Federal Reserve Proposing Mortgage Rule to Eliminate Key Foreclosure Protections

In the early 2000s the subprime lender Household Finance settled the largest consumer fraud settlement in U.S. history. Household Finance paid a whopping $484 million in fines to a joint settlement with a group of attorneys general. One month later Household was acquired by HSBC, the London financial giant, for $16.4 billion, setting off a bidding war on subprime dealers by the highest parts of Wall Street. It’s like they were being rewarded, instead of punished, by the markets for committing consumer fraud. This convinced me of the need for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; I see the argument for why the market can regulate itself when it comes to pizza and barbers, but has proven unable to when it comes to mortgage debt.

Right now our consumer mortgage lending markets are a mess. We’ve seen how servicers are messing up modifications and how bad loans were issued knowing that they could be passed off to unsuspecting investors. Right now would not be a good time to gut a crucial piece of consumer protection already in place for deceptive mortgages, especially when the Consumer Financial Protection Agency isn’t up and running yet.

This appears to be happening. Right now the Federal Reserve Board is proposing a new rule to make changes to rescission and disclosure provisions in the Truth in Lending Act. There’s no urgency to do this, especially right now with the mortgage market so weak and suspicion about lenders and servicers so high.   The way it is being done is that it looks like it wants to circumvent the new consumer protection agency before it is up and running; given the bad history of mess-ups with the Federal Reserve and consumer protection, wouldn’t it be wise to wait just a little while longer?

The National Consumer Law Center has more at this webpage, including ways you and your organizations can get involved. Check it out. Below is their one-page summary of the changes:

At the depths of the worst foreclosure crisis since the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve Board has proposed new rules that make it much harder for homeowners to escape abusive loans, avoid foreclosure or obtain refinancing. The rules could be finalized before the July 21, 2011 transfer of the Board’s authority to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The rules should be withdrawn and reconsidered by the CFPB in the context of its comprehensive evaluation of mortgage protections.

The changes to rescission and disclosure provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA):
– Create a huge obstacle to escaping an illegal mortgage. Since 1968, TILA has allowed homeowners to demand that a lender release the mortgage lien if the loan violates the law. The homeowner can then refinance or negotiate a loan modification to repay any amount owed. The Fed reverses the statutory rule and requires consumers to obtain a new loan before the first loan is cancelled. Most homeowners cannot qualify for two mortgages, making TILA’s remedy for illegal loans useless to all but the wealthiest homeowners.

– Lower standards for accurate loan information. Lenders would have greater latitude to provide inaccurate information. For example, lenders could understate the monthly payment by $100, more than 10% of the average mortgage payment. Large tolerances are also proposed for the loan amount.

– Favor lenders and reduce consumer protection. Creditors could replace the Fed’s consumer-tested disclosures with their own, untested forms, potentially omitting key disclosures altogether. A myriad of other changes in the 250-page rule rewrite the disclosure regime and further limit consumer protections. The Fed is clear in the proposal that its primary aim is to relieve creditor burden, not further consumer protections.

The proposed rule is not only bad policy; it exceeds the Fed’s authority to change the protections Congress enacted. There is no urgency to the proposed changes or justification to rush them through before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau takes over for the Fed on July 21, 2011. The Fed should withdraw the proposed rule and allow the CFPB to consider the proposal as part of its comprehensive review of mortgage disclosures and protections.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Federal Reserve Proposing Mortgage Rule to Eliminate Key Foreclosure Protections

  1. Ted K says:

    Mike, seems I’m running out of my 9 lives on blog comments recently. Did you ever read William Seidman’s book??? Head of FDIC around ’87–’89??? This isn’t a commercial And I get nothing out of this, for the record. I would guess his book (value wise and price per page) is better than William Black’s book on S&L’s. I got Seidman’s book for like $3.95 on “Amazo” you know who…… Check it out Mike

  2. John Morrison says:

    Is there any legal way for the Fed to countermand a statute, a law passed by Congress? At some point, if this rule is enacted, the effect would be to require lawsuits, which would ultimately lead to the courts overturning the rule as contrary to the law. The cynic in me thinks that those proposing the rule know this perfectly well, and are intentionally throwing a monkey-wrench into consumer protection, to mislead consumers and tie things up in the courts.

  3. AR says:


    I just read your post from 7/31/9, ‘The Financial Innovation That Wasn’t’ after reading this week’s ProPublica piece ‘Fannie and Freddie’s Regulator Opposes Reducing Mortgages for Struggling Homeowners’ (http://tinyurl.com/39rg4yb). Commenter David Chess, on Yves Smith’s post today (‘Florida Judge Cancels All Foreclosure Sales in His Division Through Year End’) suggests that FHFA is a creature of the FED.

    I’ve been wondering if Treasury and the FED are using F&F to buy the toxic loans at par, then let the servicers foreclose in their own names, using the notes as bearer paper to feed at the trough yet again. I’ve read of three foreclosures that were stopped when the borrowers’ defense was that banks were trying to foreclose on them but the borrowers had proof that Fannie owned their loans. My guess is that Fannie is letting its servicers do this. It’s clear that the GSEs’ refusal to write down principal is aimed at assisting the banks to ‘earn’ their way back to solvency, and that there are various backdoor bailouts going on. If F&F did principal reduction modifications then the servicers would not be able to foreclose and ‘earn’ money for the banks.

    I think this theory fits with the FED’s suggested TILA rewrite.

    Could the FED possibly be unloading toxic loans on Fannie too? What’s happening with those mortgages? Where are those notes?

  4. Pingback: Federal Reserve Proposing Mortgage Rule to Eliminate Key Foreclosure Protections (via Rortybomb) « Pilant's Business Ethics Blog

  5. Mike, have you seen Krugman today:

    “thanks to one of my commenters for pointing to Mike Konczal’s dissection of claims that there has been a huge increase in the number of regulators”

    That was me!


    You do a fantastic job, I’m glad to help it be utilized.

  6. Pingback: A Housing Fix | Chicago Policy Review

  7. Pingback: Rising Star Shorts: Bank of America and Lender Processing Services « Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge

  8. Pingback: City-Ledes » Blog Archive » Fiscal Clarity

  9. Pingback: City Ledes » 12-20-10: Fiscal Clarity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s