Deregulation is coming back! The housing bubble will return soon!

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Ad hominem and strawman... the most widely used Internet tactics and counter-tactics.

User 1: That's an ad hominem!
User 2: Now you are using a strawman!
User 1: You're a strawman!
User 2: Now that an ad hominem!
 
Trump ignores Dodd-Frank and CFPB in Congressional address
https://www.cfpbmonitor.com/2017/03/01/trump-ignores-dodd-frank-and-cfpb-in-congressional-address/

By Alan S. Kaplinsky on March 1st, 2017

In his more than one hour nationwide address last night to a joint session of Congress, President Trump discussed a broad range of topics:  repeal of Obamacare, tax relief, immigration, rebuilding the Country?s infrastructure, strengthening the military, foreign trade.  All of these topics, and others mentioned by him, were important campaign issues for Trump.  Noticeably absent from his speech was any mention of Dodd-Frank (let alone any suggestion of a repeal) or the CFPB (let alone any suggestion that he intended to remove Director Cordray).  Indeed, he barely referenced the need for regulatory relief:

?We have undertaken a historic effort to eliminate job-crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency; imposing a new rule which mandates that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.?

While Trump implied that these deregulation initiatives apply to all Federal agencies, they likely apply only to executive agencies and not to independent agencies like the CFPB.

While it is hazardous to read too much into topics that he omitted from his speech, it is tempting to observe that the discharge and replacement of Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB and the legislative initiatives to repeal or amend Dodd-Frank are not near the top of the President?s agenda.
 
Perspective said:
hello said:
Perspective said:
Thanks for the ad hominem - very popular with Trump and some folks here.
Click to expand...

I found this conversation very interesting but honestly, are you not guilty of the very same thing?  Perhaps this is even worse as you are making generalized attacks on many people...
Click to expand...

My intent with that comment was not to insult the person commenting, attempting to negate the opinion being given. My intent was to educate and shame Trump, and others, who resort to ad hominems regularly.
Click to expand...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y74E_thD1u0

 
Perspective said:
Four myths in the battle over Dodd-Frankhttps://www.americanbanker.com/news/four-myths-in-the-battle-over-dodd-frank
Click to expand...

I'm a bit ignorant of Dodd-Frank.  My ignorant bias is in favor of it at the moment. 

That said, the article you posted is basically a biased essay.  The comments on it also tend to agree that it's propaganda.  Did you read the article before you posted it here or did you just post it based on the headline?

Myth #1:  The author didn't prove that costs didn't go up.  "I'm not sure Dodd-Frank can be said to have had an impact".  Debunk fail.

Myth #2:  The claim is that less people can get loans.  Their argument is that while Dodd-Frank  tightened loans, the banks did it before they were required to.  In a way, it's an argument that Dodd-Frank may not be necessary as the market will fix itself.  With logic, we can conclude that if the law  disqualifies more people, that less people can get loans.  Debunk Fail.

BTW, I am generally for these sort of restrictions.

Myth #3: Basically the same as Myth #1 and Myth #2.  Debunk Fail.

Myth #4: The author didn't prove that costs didn't go up.  Debunk Fail.
 
spootieho said:
Perspective said:
Four myths in the battle over Dodd-Frankhttps://www.americanbanker.com/news/four-myths-in-the-battle-over-dodd-frank
Click to expand...

I'm a bit ignorant of Dodd-Frank.  My ignorant bias is in favor of it at the moment. 

That said, the article you posted is basically a biased essay.  The comments on it also tend to agree that it's propaganda.  Did you read the article before you posted it here or did you just post it based on the headline?

Myth #1:  The author didn't prove that costs didn't go up.  "I'm not sure Dodd-Frank can be said to have had an impact".  Debunk fail.

Myth #2:  The claim is that less people can get loans.  Their argument is that while Dodd-Frank  tightened loans, the banks did it before they were required to.  In a way, it's an argument that Dodd-Frank may not be necessary as the market will fix itself.  With logic, we can conclude that if the law  disqualifies more people, that less people can get loans.  Debunk Fail.

BTW, I am generally for these sort of restrictions.

Myth #3: Basically the same as Myth #1 and Myth #2.  Debunk Fail.

Myth #4: The author didn't prove that costs didn't go up.  Debunk Fail.
Click to expand...

Fair criticisms of the article. However, Dodd-Frank opponents (Hensarling, Trump) repeatedly make broad accusations about how terrible Dodd-Frank is, making unfounded conclusions as well, citing much less proof than this article.

If anything, the CFPB, the primary Dodd-Frank creation loathed by some Republicans, has been too zealous in trying to right too many wrongs too quickly without the ability, or desire, to read the political tea leaves of doing so. Dodd-Frank required the CFPB write some rules, but they went well beyond what was required in the statute. They grew their own enemy list quickly.

There's a potentially stalled effort to regulate/eliminate payday lending. The industry is furious about this and fighting back. The CFPB also is planning to regulate the auto lending ("sales installment contract") market. Those folks have muscle/money too.
 
Perspective said:
Fair criticisms of the article. However, Dodd-Frank opponents (Hensarling, Trump) repeatedly make broad accusations about how terrible Dodd-Frank is, making unfounded conclusions as well, citing much less proof than this article.
Click to expand...
That's probably why I still favor it.  I've not heard any convincing arguments against it.

I've heard convincing arguments against the DOL, on the other hand.  I think I would have otherwise favored it.

Perspective said:
There's a potentially stalled effort to regulate/eliminate payday lending.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where I stand on this.  I've seen it help some people.  By far, most of the time I've seen it allow people to hurt themselves.  I really hate these businesses.  They are pretty much predators.  What about the few people that they do help?
 
PHH urges Court of Appeals to kill CFPB
Argues CFPB constitutional issues go well beyond director?s authorityhttp://www.housingwire.com/articles/39557-phh-urges-court-of-appeals-to-kill-cfpb

Amicus briefs in support of PHH were filed on Friday by:

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
American Bankers Association, American Financial Services Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Mortgage Bankers Association, Housing Policy Council of the Financial Services Roundtable, Real Estate Services Providers Council and seven other trade groups
ACA International
The Cato Institute
RD Legal Partners, LP, RD Legal Funding, LLC, RD Legal Finance, LLC and a related individual
The Attorneys General of Missouri, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
State National Bank of Big Spring, 60 Plus Association, Inc., and Competitive Enterprise Institute
 
U.S. Department of Justice Files Amicus Brief in PHH Corporation v. CFPB

Today, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for the court's en banc review of its panel decision in PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Department of Justice urged the appellate court to find as the panel did and strike down the CFPB's for-cause removal restrictions found in the Dodd-Frank Act, leaving the CFPB's Director removable by the President at will. This position puts the Department of Justice in opposition to the position of the CFPB.

In its brief, the Department of Justice wrote that "a removal restriction for the Director of the CFPB is an unwarranted limitation on the President's executive power" and "because a single agency head is unchecked by the constraints of group decision-making among members appointed by different Presidents, there is a greater risk that an 'independent' agency headed by a single person will engage in extreme departures from the President's executive policy."

The appellate court granted the CFPB's petition for rehearing en banc on February 16, 2017. In the October 2016 decision, the appellate court found that the Director of the CFPB "enjoys more unilateral authority than any other officer in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government, other than the President." The appellate court ruled that the CFPB would continue to operate, but "will do so as an executive agency akin to other executive agencies headed by a single person, such as the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury" and would be removable by the President.

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard before the en banc court on May 24, 2017.
 
Opinion: Trump's last-second swipe at an Obama retirement rule

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ignorance-is-expensive-when-it-comes-to-retirement-investing-2017-03-16?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
 
It's a lot of work for these companies to meet the DOL requirements.  For many companies, it will take at least 6 months, and more likely a year.  For that reason, they started changing a while back to meet the deadline.

From that article.
No, it's likely to fail because the investment industry's largest providers already have moved to accommodate the regulation. The biggest names are on board with full transparency. For them, it's about credibility.

Basically, all the big companies have already changed the way they do things to avoid the flurry of ambulance chaser lawsuits.  The new DOL rules are already policy at most brokers.
 
Banks' Non-QM Share Drops as 3rd Party Share Up
http://www.mortgagedaily.com/stories/BankSurvey033017MBA.asp

QM loans accounted for 91 percent of the typical bank's 2016 mortgage production.

That left just 9 percent of residential loan originations that were non-QM loans. The non-QM share tumbled from 14 percent in 2015 and was lower than any year since the QM designations became effective. The non-QM share had been as high as 16 percent in 2013.

In fact, 30 percent of banks limit their offerings to QM programs. In addition, 45 percent of banks are only making non-QM loans to target markets or with other restrictions.

Among loans that don't meet QM standards, high debt-to-income ratios and insufficient documentation were the biggest factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top