As I speak daily to different MBA members, one constant topic of late among our residential members has been the recent implementation of Know Before You Owe (TRID) rule.
In the run up to TRID this past October, many predicted pandemonium for homebuyers. And although concerns that consumers might face difficulties or delays in securing mortgages have not yet played out, that was thanks only to the monumental efforts of lenders and their staff. However, while lenders continue to adjust to the new rule, more clarity is needed from the CFPB.
In response to last week’s New York Times article on the GSEs, a number of housing finance experts have come forward to point out the many problems with the Times’ false narrative.
The Times column and other similar pieces contain a number of inaccuracies, regarding both the history and the future of the GSEs. We speculate this narrative is being driven by those who stand to gain windfall profits from recapitalizing and releasing Fannie and Freddie from conservatorship.
I spoke to the NY Times reporter several times on the substantive policy issues at play. Eventually, however, her questions shifted to allegations of possible ethical and legal violations on my part.
The New York Times published a story today that is flat out wrong in a number of respects. The story weaves a false narrative of political intrigue filled with half-truths claiming that MBA’s advocacy of policies supporting market-based housing finance reform somehow benefit a select few.