- Michael Bloomberg thumbs FAA ban, plots course to Israel
- California bans full-contact football practices in off-season
- Thune: Downed fighter jets show more evidence of separatist capabilities
- Obama tells DNC fundraising crowd: ‘I’m not overly partisan’
- Chambliss: Downed jet ultimately goes back to Putin
- Perdue strategy: Run against Reid, Obama, Pelosi
- White House: More changes to contraception mandate coming
- ‘Operation Normandy’ set to send 3,500 volunteers to border to ‘stop an invasion’
- Netanyahu’s spokesman: Safe to fly to Israel
- Oregon vandals smear cars with doughnuts, pastries, chocolate bars
HUGHEY: Uncle Sam’s risky home loan rules
Experience shows federally backed mortgages aren’t safer
Question of the Day
The political world is full of myths. Last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau instituted a new regulation over the troubled mortgage market in an attempt to define certain lending practices as good or bad. The new Qualified Mortgage Rule will require lenders to consider eight different factors when evaluating loans, including current income status, current employment status and ability to pay.
On its face, this new rule seems to be pretty reasonable. Due to government pressures to lend to questionable credit risks, lenders and borrowers engaged in absurdly risky loans. So why is the consumer bureau’s new rule not up to the task?
First, the bureau falsely assumes it has the knowledge to know what good lending practices are for the entire mortgage market without understanding the diversity of borrowers and lenders. The new rule simply takes a one-size-fits-all approach for an entire market. In reality, there is no way to understand all the complexities of the mortgage market. Furthermore, there is no way to guard against unintended consequences, including the possibility of community banks being forced out of the mortgage market and the possibility that private banks will subsidize “bad loans” (as defined by the consumer bureau) in order to make them appear better than they really are.
Second, the bureau’s rule does not properly address the cause behind the risky lending practices of the past decade. In support of the rule, Richard Cordray, the bureau’s director, said, “We have a financial crisis and a lot of pain and misery in this country that was caused by reckless lending and toxic products that should never have been offered and that this rule will see are never offered again.” However, this implies that the private sector was to blame for all of the bad lending and that the government ought to correct such behavior.
In their paper entitled, “The House that Uncle Sam Built,” Steve Horwitz and Peter Boettke have pointed out the private banking industry was pressured by government actors to engage in the risky loan practices. Every step of the way, the government both encouraged and incentivized private actors to throw caution to the wind when it came to the housing market before 2008.
Finally, the new rule excuses government loans from the same rules applied to private loans. According to Ed Pinto of the American Enterprise Institute, the bureau’s rule excuses all Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Federal Housing Administration loans from these requirements, under the assumption that if the loans were made by these institutions they must be good loans. This is clearly a double standard that punishes private lenders but ignores the dangerous practices that are encouraged under government loans.
The bureau expects us to believe that it has the knowledge to know which banks, bankers and mortgage practices are good and which are bad. The irrationality of government intervention in the housing market is built upon correcting previous irrationalities caused by government intervention. Perhaps most importantly, though, unlike other relatively harmless myths — such as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy — the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule will have dangerous, real-world consequences for those who buy into it.
Jason Hughey is a policy analyst at Americans for Prosperity.
TWT Video Picks
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
Get Breaking Alerts
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- Two Ukrainian fighter jets shot down
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- HURT: The cost of 'free' water in Detroit
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives