Yes, the misunderstand ramifications of a overreacting politician and his well 
intentioned buddies can in fact do the exact opposite of what was intended. Such is the case HR 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 (though being amended somewhat).
While I am for more licensing requirements across the board, including those currently exempt (such as the banks and their employees), the proposal still takes things too far and will ultimately hurt the consumer.
There are some good points in the bill, and it has been watered down a bit to eliminate some consumer harm, yet there is still vagueness plaguing the bill. Things like "must provide tangible benefit" are left open ended. Who determines this? Who is better at determining it, a mortgage planner or a politician?
There are also issues regarding Title III of the bill that will adversely affect consumers’ ability to obtain mortgage financing.
Brian Brady has been very vocal in his blogging and hits a lot of good points. His latest post on Bloodhound Blog links nicely to his previous posts, so read up on his take.
The bottom line is that the bill, even in its current form, will still do more harm than good.
(Update: HR3915 is scheduled for the House floor Thursday, Nov. 15)
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
