Skip to main content

View Diary: Predatory Lending doesn't have to be Bankruptcy sequel (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Conflict of interest? (none)
    Them's fightin' words for an attorney.

    I'm afraid I don't see the "conflict of interest" that you're referring to.

    I just happen to be a progressive Democrat working in the mortgage industry.  My inside experience allows me to recognize the compelling need to balance the competing interests involved.

    I'm a passionate advocate for consumer protection.  I believe that current law needs to be strengthened, but it needs to be done at the federal level.  I also believe that unchecked assignee liability in anti-predatory lending laws ultimately harms consumers by hobbling the secondary market for mortgages and increasing the cost of credit.

    This is a view I have arrived at after a lot of unclouded thought.

    •  Forgot to mention (none)
      that I also believe that subprime lending, properly regulated (for example, by a strong, preemptive, federal anti-predatory lending law) benefits consumers who would not otherwise qualify for mortgage credit.
      •  If it weren't for subprime lending... (none)
        If it weren't for subprime lending, I wouldn't be a homeowner.

        Now I own my home free and clear, no mortgage at all, and I'm not about to take out another one, prime or subprime. But the way I got there was via subprime lending. Five years ago, my late husband and I, who had just completed a Chapter 13, bought a house. Our interest rate was 11% on a 3-year fixed, turning to an ARM after those three years. We anticipated refinancing.

        Instead, he died, and left me with just sufficient funds to pay off the house. I did so.

        But if that loan hadn't been available, we wouldn't have been able to buy the house in the first place, and I wouldn't be a homeowner with a paid-off house today.

        They should all be judged soaking wet.

        by Kitsap River on Fri May 06, 2005 at 07:07:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No clouds in sight? (none)
      Then you try and tell me how you can square this: The Feds are DEREGULATING the industry, not making it more fair. And yet you support it happening on the Fed. level? Either you're living in a dream world (after all I'm sure we'd all love to see Fed. level reform but is it likely?) or (IMO) you are exhibiting a conflict of interest. As Medical experts would say "first do no harm" and Ney-Kanjorski does a whole-lotta harm and almost no good, esp. in the area of stopping states who want to protect their consituants even when Congress sells them to MBNA and the like.

      We definitely need to create strong and consistant federal regulations, but until we controll the federal government we're going to have to fight on the state and local levels and at the same time make sure that the feds (and Dems with conflicts of interests, not you, more like the good Senator from MBNA Biden) from preempting the states.

      Either stand with consumers or stand with your business interests, but don't pretend that you're fighting for one while working for the other.

      And I'm not saying sub-prime lending is bad, hell half of my generation or more will most likely find themselves in that position at some point, but we need the gov't to protect us from the sharks...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site