The Federal Reserve Board eagle logo links to home page

Building Sustainable Homeownership:
Responsible Lending and Informed Consumer Choice

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois  60604
June 7, 2006



Agenda | Transcript printable Printable version (300 KB PDF)

Pages 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 | 76-100 | 101-125 | 126-150 | 151-175 | 176-200 | 201-225 | 226-250 | 251-267

TranscriptLinePage
              And I guess the question to you is we 1151
know there is a problem, so how do we get our arms 2151
around this?  What type of research can we 3151
reasonably do that will really point to the 4151
direction all of us should be going, whether we are 5151
a credit rating agency -- because I know you have a 6151
concern about packaging your loans and the 7151
investors that want to buy those loans, they are 8151
going to be concerned if there are issues of risk. 9151
So what role can research play in that? 10151
              Then I also have a question as it 11151
relates to the credit rating companies.  Where do 12151
you see yourself trying to help move this agenda 13151
forward?  Because at some point it's going to 14151
impact you in a way that you're not going to be 15151
probably happy with.  So how do you deal with 16151
that? 17151
    MR. ERNST:  I will take a stab.  There is a lot 18151
there, some very great questions.  I think a lot of 19151
what motivated HOEPA and the state predatory 20151
lending laws that have followed it have been 21151
concerns about equities stripping.  Instances where 22151
borrowers, in fact, were losing ground in the 23151
transaction.  And I think that very much has been a 24151
focus of state predatory lending laws today.  It's 1152
something that we can learn a lot about from the 2152
states. 3152
              I think what is newly coming into 4152
focus now is increasing awareness of issues that 5152
relate more to underwriting suitability that 6152
relates to loan outcomes.  So not just whether the 7152
transaction helped the consumer move forward and 8152
was a constructive step in their economic life, but 9152
whether or not -- and this goes some to externality 10152
issues that Anthony was raising -- whether or not 11152
there were issues related to foreclosures, and some 12152
were touched on, appraisal issues and other 13152
concerns from the former panel.  But whether these 14152
issues can provide some light. 15152
              So I would suggest there are two 16152
broad sets of spectrums that research can help 17152
eliminate.  One is the extent to which certain loan 18152
features help or hinder borrowers in their effort 19152
to build and maintain wealth.  And the second is 20152
more directly related to foreclosures and loan 21152
outcomes as indicators as to whether or not the 22152
loan underwriting and origination process is 23152
functioning sufficiently. 24152
              I think that second question really 1153
is just coming more into focus in recent years as 2153
we have had enough experience in subprime mortgages 3153
to get a sense of what the outcomes were.  Because 4153
in 1999 and 2000 when North Carolina passed this 5153
law, the market size was so small that it was hard 6153
to get much insight into those patterns.  But I 7153
think we are getting more information now as to 8153
where those opportunities exist. 9153
    MR. MASON:  I would agree.  If you look at the 10153
state of the economy since post-September 2001, 11153
it's just been on fire.  So it's kind of hard to 12153
look back at all of the state laws and see exactly 13153
the impact, because people have been building up so 14153
much equity in the housing market that there may be 15153
some fuzziness of the data as to who is defaulting, 16153
who is not defaulting, why are they defaulting. 17153
Really, the question is why are they defaulting, 18153
right? 19153
              And the increase in home prices has 20153
probably -- and I think it was alluded to before -- 21153
has probably taken out some of the low FICO score 22153
implications of how people are defaulting and 23153
they're rebuying and they're buying from other 24153
lenders.  So I think as the data becomes seasoned 1154
we will be able to see and as the housing market 2154
has now been softening a little bit, I think we 3154
will be able to see more of the real impact. 4154
    MS. WILLIAMS:  Do you feel there is a role that 5154
you can play to kind of assist in this whole 6154
process as a credit rating agency? 7154
    MR. MASON:  We honestly don't take steps to 8154
push forward any sort of public policy.  Our real 9154
concern is what is the credit of this loan.  What 10154
is the credit profile of this borrower, what is the 11154
potential of loss on this loan that will inure to 12154
the investors in the mortgage backed securities. 13154
So we pay attention to the laws, we assess the 14154
laws, but we really don't take a stand on public 15154
policy. 16154
    MR. QUERCIA:  If I may add, I think Michael 17154
said before the unfortunate event is that there is 18154
not a data set that exists that you can use to 19154
analyze this, and commitment from the housing 20154
finances on the writing perspective. 21154
              To make it more complicated, as I 22154
mentioned in my remarks, in my view there is an 23154
intersection in here that actually creates a 24154
problem.  That actually consumer credit issues and 1155
the housing finance is the other one of the two. 2155
So it would be very difficult to tell you to make a 3155
study to be conclusive about what you need to do to 4155
address this issue. 5155
              So I think at best you have to find 6155
people with differing opinions to do the study, but 7155
I don't think you have in my view a study that 8155
would provide an answer. 9155
    MS. BRAUNSTEIN:  Actually, this was going to be 10155
my question.  I have to admit, I'm still being 11155
somewhat confused by this, which seems to happen to 12155
me more and more as I get older.  But we see 13155
different studies, and going back to North 14155
Carolina, which has been around the longest and has 15155
been studied most, we have, sitting here in the 16155
room, two very different opinions about the impact 17155
of that law.  And it's hard to sort out kind of 18155
what is what when you're trying to make policy. 19155
              I was wondering, and I may be sorry I 20155
asked this, if it's possible to kind of not 21155
through a very long dissertation on your papers -- 22155
to kind of sort out, Michael, why is it that you 23155
think that North Carolina has restricted credit, 24155
and why, Keith, do you feel that it may have 1156
prevented some loans being made but the ones it's 2156
prevented are the bad ones.  And is it possible to 3156
kind of sum up what the differences are in some 4156
respect? 5156
    MR. STATEN:  Actually, I think there are a lot 6156
of similarities in the study.  There have been 7156
three different databases that have been used, 8156
completely different.  There may have been some 9156
overlap, but essentially three different 10156
databases.  My recollection is all of them found 11156
reductions in at least the refi side of loans made 12156
in North Carolina.  Initially in the immediate 13156
period afterwards, and now some of these studies 14156
have gone further, ours now takes it right up to 15156
2004.  It's not the case on the home purchase side, 16156
but it was on the refi side.  So I don't think 17156
there is any disagreement there. 18156
              The disagreement comes in whether we 19156
think that is a good thing or a bad thing. 20156
Frankly, my opinion is somewhat more neutral.  I'm 21156
not saying necessarily it's good or bad.  I'm 22156
simply noting that there clearly was a reduction in 23156
loans. 24156
              And I'm posing a question what 1157
happened to those borrowers that didn't get the 2157
loans?  Did they just not want them?  Was it the 3157
case that they were in the past targets of what is 4157
called push marketing where they were sort of 5157
persuaded that this was a good kind of loan but 6157
didn't have the burning need, the liquidity need to 7157
get it for themselves?  Or were there some of them, 8157
and our study it suggests it's the highest risk 9157
guys, the low FICO guys, that just don't get the 10157
loan at all? 11157
              I don't have an answer to that, but 12157
it's clear there was a reduction. 13157
    MS. BRAUNSTEIN:  I guess maybe I had it wrong. 14157
I've always thought in the past that you were 15157
saying this was a bad thing because people who 16157
should be getting credit are not getting credit. 17157
As opposed to this could be a good thing because 18157
maybe the people who didn't get credit shouldn't be 19157
getting the loans. 20157
    MR. STATEN:  I certainly never said the 21157
latter.  But mostly what we've noted is loans have 22157
gone down.  And generally when you see that 23157
happening as a result of a regulation, generally 24157
your impulse is to say there is a problem. 1158
    MR. PENNINGTON-CROSS:  Can I intervene to make 2158
this a little less clear for you? 3158
    MS. BRAUNSTEIN:  I want to give Keith a chance 4158
to respond. 5158
    MR. ERNST:  Perhaps I would be wise to yield to 6158
Anthony at this point.  But I want to make an 7158
observation.  One of the things that has been very 8158
clear to me in the studies that have been done to 9158
date is in the rejection rates.  The applicants who 10158
went in and applied for credit in North Carolina 11158
were no more likely to be denied credit than 12158
applicants in other states without laws under 13158
similar settings.  And if the law were really the 14158
barrier to those loans being made, I would expect a 15158
higher rejection rate for applications.  Lenders 16158
would say, look, we would like to make this loan 17158
for you, but the regulatory burdens are too high. 18158
Therefore, we have to reject your mortgage. 19158
              In fact, we don't see that in the 20158
studies.  I think there have been some studies that 21158
did have a marginal decrease.  We had one that 22158
did.  We went back with data later with another 23158
look and said, well, we don't actually find a 24158
significant difference in their accounting compared 1159
to other states. 2159
              But conceding for the point of 3159
argument there is a marginal decrease, I think the 4159
question becomes is that decrease along the lines 5159
that policy makers intended.  And that is what our 6159
study also tried to take a look at.  And I will 7159
concede Michael's point that it's very difficult to 8159
know with absolute certainty whether you're 9159
filtering exactly the right ones.  But we've got to 10159
ask the questions of the data we have and try to 11159
find the answers.  And when we did that, we found 12159
what looked like a good match up with policy 13159
makers' intentions. 14159
    MR. PENNINGTON-CROSS:  Let me follow up on that 15159
rejection comment.  My research shows that there 16159
are many laws out there that substantially reduce 17159
rejection rates, okay.  So that is a potentially 18159
positive reaction to those laws, perhaps due to 19159
additional prescreening by lenders. 20159
              We also have to note that rejection 21159
rates sometimes are extremely high, over 40 22159
percent, in some states over 50.  So it's a 23159
substantial issue, this high rejection rate. 24159
              So now let me go back.  We had a 1160
bunch of comments about how the law in North 2160
Carolina reduced the flow of credit.  Let me also 3160
say there were laws that increased the amount of 4160
subprime credit.  So we had regulations that were 5160
passed that actually were associated with quite 6160
large increases in subprime.  We had other laws 7160
that were associated with large decreases in places 8160
like Georgia. 9160
              So how do we pass something that is 10160
regulating a market and have actually applications 11160
and originations go up?  It doesn't sound like an 12160
old-style usury law.  That is a point for 13160
interpretation, but it's my interpretation that 14160
people were uncomfortable, and during this market 15160
when they felt it was likely they were going to be 16160
predated on.  That they were vulnerable, and they 17160
felt more comfortable when the law was in place. 18160
And when the law covered a large segment of the 19160
market, more people tended to apply to this high 20160
cost segment. 21160
    MR. STATEN:  Can I add a follow-up comment to 22160
that? 23160
    MS. BRAUNSTEIN:  Sure. 24160
    MR. STATEN:  Maybe I'm all wet on this, and 1161
those of you in the mortgage business can school me 2161
if I am wrong, but when I think about these large 3161
national mortgage companies making loans throughout 4161
the country, I think of it in terms of the credit 5161
card process.  I think about the marketing 6161
process.  We all know how much volume of 7161
solicitations we get through our mail, or we get 8161
through the telephone in the old days if you didn't 9161
take yourself off the list. 10161
              If a law is passed that discourages 11161
me as a big lender from taking a higher risk 12161
because I can't price accordingly, or if I do price 13161
accordingly I have to put up with all these 14161
regulations, then I'm going to tweak my marketing 15161
machine.  I'm going to prescreen, as Anthony 16161
suggested, and you know they are all doing this. 17161
And I'm going to tweak it so I aim to a little 18161
different segment of the market, not the high risk 19161
guys anymore.  The little bit different segment of 20161
the market that's lower risk, more qualified.  I 21161
put more marketing resources into it.  My rejection 22161
rates go down because they are more qualified, I 23161
may actually get applications going up. 24161
    MS. BRAUNSTEIN:  But is that what's happening? 1162
    MR. STATEN:  I don't know.  But I'm saying that 2162
could be the explanation. 3162
              Let me just finish.  The person is 4162
not getting the loan anymore, because they are not 5162
getting the call anymore, they're not getting the 6162
piece of mail, is the high risk factor. 7162
    MR. POSNER:  Can I make a point on that?  I 8162
think some of this debate is barking up the wrong 9162
tree.  I think there is a fact which I have heard 10162
and somebody will jump in and correct that, I think 11162
the data suggests that very few HOEPA loans get 12162
paid, period. 13162
              Now, is that good or bad?  I don't 14162
know.  But the debate so far is about trying to 15162
demarcate which parts of the market are good or bad 16162
because it's X points or X fees.  Meanwhile, the 17162
markets that are driving this business are changing 18162
every day. 19162
              I want to add a comment about what 20162
drives subprime loans into default.  I'm very 21162
skeptical of a regulatory or legislative process 22162
that would try to identify that cause and proscribe 23162
laws around it.  Because in fact investors are 24162
studying these issues statistically in real time, 1163
and they would tell you it's not just the 2163
borrowers' FICO and it's not just the terms of the 3163
loans, but it's also the housing market.  So 4163
booming home prices are going to lead to very 5163
different loss profiles than softer housing 6163
markets.  And it's not just interest rates and the 7163
rest of the economy.  I'm very skeptical that any 8163
research done using databases will be able to 9163
replicate that decision making criteria. 10163
              So this strategy of trying to say 11163
this fee, this point, HOEPA, non-HOEPA, I think is 12163
extremely shortsighted.  Whereas if we look back at 13163
what has gone wrong in the last few years -- I 14163
started to mention, I got beeped off -- some of the 15163
big problems have been companies like Providian or 16163
Household or Associates, and I haven't followed 17163
Ameriquest but it seemed to be there had been some 18163
issues there.  These were problems not of fees or 19163
pricing or that kind of stuff, they were problems 20163
of cultures and controls at these companies. 21163
              And I have no idea how legislation 22163
would address those kinds of issues.  In fact, what 23163
worked really well is consumer activists working 24163
together with regulators sensitive to consumer 1164
complaints, stepping in and fixing the problems at 2164
those companies.  So to me that seems like a more 3164
fruitful approach.  More focusing regulatory 4164
reaction to actual consumer complaints. 5164
    MS. WILLIAMS:  If I can just ask -- 6164
    GOVERNOR OLSON:  Go ahead, Alicia. 7164
    MS. WILLIAMS:  Because I'm listening to 8164
Kenneth, and I guess going back to what Michael 9164
said earlier, which I don't think I heard a 10164
response to, because I think I heard you say that 11164
we haven't identified a practice we are trying to 12164
study. 13164
              So could you elaborate on what you 14164
meant? 15164
    MR. STATEN:  Well, we don't have an unambiguous 16164
definition of what is a predatory term.  It's not a 17164
high price on a loan.  High prices can be fine. 18164
It's not a prepayment penalty.  It's not high 19164
loan-to-value ratio.  Those can all be good things 20164
in the right hands with the right borrower.  But 21164
they can be really lousy things, too. 22164
              I think that plays, then, any 23164
attention to judge whether a law squeezes out some 24164
of those terms was effective.  Well, is the effect 1165
of it it squeezed out those terms, but did it 2165
benefit the borrowers?  And that is my point. 3165
    MR. ERNST:  I will recognize it's a challenge. 4165
I guess I would say there are many instances in 5165
life, safety and soundness is one, where we have a 6165
vague concept that we have to try to 7165
operationalize.  We have to try to find some way to 8165
say, well, how are we going to find some guidance, 9165
how are we going to provide a regulatory framework 10165
that leads to good outcomes, can we find ways to do 11165
it. 12165
              And I think for researchers our 13165
challenge is to say, well, how is this working in 14165
the predatory lending context.  How are the policy 15165
makers trying to get a handle on this, and then to 16165
ask questions about whether or not it's worked. 17165
And I think we can always work to do a better job 18165
of that, but I would say it's not impossible to 19165
proceed and try and glean some knowledge from the 20165
data that is available to us.  It's challenging, 21165
but it's not impossible. 22165
    MS. WILLIAMS:  Are there things that you think 23165
the regulatory agencies can use to help facilitate 24165
research that you're trying to do in this vein? 1166
    MR. ERNST:  Well, I do think there are things, 2166
and we probably don't want to open the whole 3166
Homeowner Mortgage Disclosure Act debate here, but 4166
I do think there is additional information that 5166
could be brought to light properly. 6166
    GOVERNOR OLSON:  If I can come back, Keith, you 7166
introduced the term "suitability" and then a couple 8166
of times you then said "suitability and 9166
underwriting."  I am familiar with the term 10166
"suitability" as it applies to investment 11166
products, and specifically not as it applies to any 12166
credit product that is carefully underwritten. 13166
              In your judgment is suitability 14166
necessary in the absence of underwriting, or is it 15166
something that we need to have both of? 16166
              First of all, I'm not sure that we 17166
need a suitability standard in the business if in 18166
fact the underwriting is working, but that's my 19166
question. 20166
    MR. ERNST: I guess where suitability comes from 21166
in my comments is sort of a growing recognition 22166
that increasing the home mortgage options that 23166
borrowers are faced with today are every bit as 24166
complicated as the investment options they are 1167
presented by investment counselors who are subject 2167
to that requirement.  We think that a suitability 3167
requirement could go a long way towards raising 4167
professional standards in assuring that borrowers 5167
are being recommended products that serve their 6167
interests and their needs. 7167
              Now, I think underwriting will also 8167
be and will always be a critical component of the 9167
process.  But just because a mortgage product has 10167
been underwritten doesn't mean that -- prudently 11167
doesn't necessarily mean that that was exactly or 12167
what was necessarily a product, a good indicator 13167
that it was a suitability product for the 14167
borrower.  But I think it's different because 15167
suitability goes to what products were recommended 16167
to a borrower and underwriting goes to how does the 17167
borrower fit into the product that is recommended 18167
to them. 19167
    MS. BRAUNSTEIN:  This is an interesting 20167
discussion, because this issue has come up more and 21167
more recently in different venues, is that I think 22167
our philosophy has been up until now that we have 23167
tried through disclosure, through having the 24167
disclosures to give the consumers the information 1168
that they would need.  So that they could make that 2168
decision themselves in terms of what is suitable 3168
and what is not and do product comparison.  As 4168
opposed to putting that responsibility on the 5168
lender to try and somehow evaluate what is suitable 6168
for the consumer, and I would just like to get a 7168
reaction on that. 8168
    MR. ERNST:  Around my point and then I will 9168
step away from the microphone.  I think actually 10168
the flipping standard, we had some conversation 11168
this morning about the desire for greater coverage, 12168
but I think the flipping standard that was 13168
implemented in the last round of HOEPA revisions is 14168
in fact a suitability type standard if we stop and 15168
think about it.  It requests that the loans serve 16168
the interest of the borrower, which is the loan 17168
suitable for the borrower in these circumstances. 18168
So I think we have some precedent in thinking it 19168
through. 20168
    MR. QUERCIA:  My feeling is that many of the 21168
mortgage products are so complex, I don't think 22168
it's appropriate to put the burden on the 23168
borrowers.  I think it will make the borrowers have 24168
trouble without following the finances and many 1169
other things. 2169
    GOVERNOR OLSON:  Do we have any advocates of 3169
behavioral economics at the table who want to speak 4169
to how that might impact, how that is impacting the 5169
choices? 6169
               (No verbal response.) 7169
    GOVERNOR OLSON:  I don't blame you. 8169
    MR. CHANIN:  Have there been any studies or 9169
research on whether consumer counseling has been of 10169
benefit in terms of either pre- or post- in terms 11169
of consumer default rates for this market? 12169
    MR. STATEN:  Well, there have.  The one that 13169
most specifically addresses homeownership 14169
counseling I think is the one that folks did three 15169
or four years ago.  And they found a definite 16169
positive lift if done the right way, and I forgot 17169
the details now. 18169
    MS. BRAUNSTEIN:  They looked at 40,000 loans 19169
that are in their affordable goal product, which 20169
was targeted for loans. 21169
    MR. STATEN:  And they got substantially lower 22169
delinquency rates on those two or three years out. 23169
    MR. PENNINGTON-CROSS:  We noticed that that 24169
paper is published.  So there are technical 1170
problems with their selection and documentation in 2170
the computer.  There is strong support that there 3170
is problems with that data. 4170
    MR. QUERCIA:  I also stand on the reviews.  But 5170
looking at post-mortgage counseling, and the reason 6170
it's most likely to be effective for borrowers that 7170
had received prepurchase, before purchase.  So 8170
there is some kind of connection even after they 9170
take their home, or the impact of having received 10170
counseling before purchasing a home. 11170
    MR. STATEN:  There is another study, and it 12170
came out in the Feds Consumer Affairs Research 13170
Conference last year maybe, on the ability of 14170
homeownership counseling to school borrowers to 15170
make better choices with respect to prepayment, and 16170
I forget the effect on default.  But there was some 17170
result with respect to timing of prepayment, which 18170
suggests that at least it's possible to educate 19170
them.  It's not maybe going to go all the way to 20170
some of these exotic loan products, but it's 21170
possible. 22170
    GOVERNOR OLSON:  I sense the panel is losing a 23170
little steam.  Maybe that happens at five minutes 24170
before lunch and nobody wants to impede on their 1171
lunch. 2171
              Kim made a point that I would like to 3171
just follow up, because I think it's critical.  We 4171
began, at least I began, the program this morning 5171
by talking about extraordinary changes having taken 6171
place in the mortgage market just in the last four 7171
years.  And I would encourage all of us, and it's 8171
instinctive for me and it may be for some of you, 9171
to presume that where we are now will be a steady 10171
state for a while. 11171
              But at the pace of change that is 12171
taking place, I can only assume that the pace of 13171
change will continue to accelerate.  There are no 14171
destinations, there are only journeys.  So I would 15171
think that as we look at the changes that are 16171
taking place, we ought to keep that in mind that a 17171
fix or even an evaluation of today's market may or 18171
may not have -- may have limited value as the 19171
market goes forward.  I will consider that the 20171
benediction, unless someone has something they 21171
would like to add. 22171
              We will now break for lunch, then we 23171
are back here at 1:30.  And I think the afternoon 24171
panel is really important because we are talking 1172
about the area of consumer education.  And this has 2172
to be at the heart of this issue.  Then at 3:00 3172
o'clock, again we want to hear from people who 4172
would care to speak.  And be sure, if you want to 5172
speak at 3:00 o'clock, that you have registered. 6172
              Thanks very much.  It's been a very 7172
informative morning. 8172
                   (Whereupon, a lunch break was 9172
                   taken.) 10172
    GOVERNOR OLSON:  Welcome back to the afternoon 11172
session.  We had two, I thought, very good, highly 12172
interactive sessions this morning.  We've heard 13172
from people that represented various points of 14172
views that were expressed very thoughtfully and the 15172
discussion I think added a lot.  This is the sort 16172
of dialog I think that we were hopeful to be able 17172
to generate from this hearing, so that's an awfully 18172
good start. 19172
              We're about to start the third panel, 20172
the title of which is "Sustainable Ownership: 21172
Consumer Education."  That sustainable ownership 22172
certainly is a societal value.  Consumer education 23172
is going to go a long way to help achieve that 24172
value.  So we are looking forward to the 1173
panelists. 2173
              As we did this morning, we will ask 3173
everybody to have their opening statement of five 4173
minutes, and that gives us ample and full 5173
opportunity to get a lot of dialog and discussion. 6173
              Right at 3:00 o'clock we're going to 7173
make sure that the people that are here who care to 8173
speak would be given a chance to do so also. 9173
              We will continue to go in the order 10173
from my right to your left, which is clockwise. 11173
              So, David, why don't you introduce 12173
yourself, your group, and grab the microphone from 13173
Michael there, and then we will hear from you 14173
first. 15173
    MR. ROSE:  Okay.   I'm unlucky or -- 16173
    GOVERNOR OLSON:  Very fortunate. 17173
    MR. ROSE:  Good afternoon.  My name is David 18173
Rose, I'm research director at National Training 19173
and Information Center, NTIC. 20173
              NTIC was founded by Gail Sacana 21173
(phonetic) in 1973 to try to improve the quality of 22173
life in neighborhoods across the country.  We have 23173
been trying to fulfill that mission for the last 24173
30-some years, and one of the things that we 1174
certainly learned is that access to credit is 2174
central to helping neighbors.  But it's not just 3174
access to credit, any credit, it's access to good 4174
loans.  Loans to residents to help them build their 5174
wealth and their goals. 6174
              There are three points I wanted to 7174
try to make today.  The first, general consumer 8174
education does not withstand high pressure sales 9174
tactics, nor do the emotions that are involved in 10174
buying a house.  Some people are simply not ready 11174
to be homeowners and that is a hard truth for many 12174
to accept. 13174
              As a solution to predatory lending, 14174
the arguments for consumer education often blame 15174
the borrower.  The arguments suggest that if the 16174
borrower had known more, they wouldn't have agreed 17174
to such a lousy loan. 18174
              Often, the real mistake the borrower 19174
made was to take the advice of a real estate or 20174
finance professional that did not have their best 21174
interests at heart.  General consumer education 22174
will never prepare a borrower well enough to go up 23174
against a well-trained finance professional, nor 24174
overcome the emotions of falling in love with a 1175
home or the willingness to do anything to get one's 2175
family into a home or to keep them in a home. 3175
              The second point I want to make is 4175
that the comprehensive home buyer education can 5175
help combat these pressures, but it is a very 6175
limited resources. 7175
              NTIC works with community groups 8175
across the country whose mission it is to improve 9175
their neighborhoods.  When working with one of our 10175
community partners, the borrower receives more than 11175
consumer information.  They gain an ally that is 12175
not interested in simply closing deals, but 13175
preparing families for successful homeownership. 14175
And the organization is around after the sale to 15175
help the new homeowners deal with the inevitable 16175
problems of owning a house. 17175
              NTIC has developed community 18175
corporate partnerships that use the strength and 19175
commitment of local organizations to design 20175
appropriate loan products and to help families have 21175
safer homes. 22175
              The third point I want to make is 23175
that the industry must be held accountable for its 24175

McCorkle Court Reporters, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 312-263-0052

Pages 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75 | 76-100 | 101-125 | 126-150 | 151-175 | 176-200 | 201-225 | 226-250 | 251-267


2006 Hearings