Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

This is one of the main reasons the MBA, NAR, and NAHB are wary of the USSCT upholding the 5th Circuits ruling that the funding mechanism of the CFPB is Unconstitutional (It also helps explain why nothing has perpetual existence like a federal government agency):

"2. A recent CFPB safe-harbor rulemaking rein-
forces the potential for widespread economic
harm.
A recent CFPB rulemaking—which proposed only to
replace one safe harbor with another—documented the
potential for broader harm to the credit markets and
economy more generally. In 2020, the CFPB issued a pro-
posed rule concerning the sunset date of the GSE Patch,
a Qualified Mortgage safe harbor scheduled to expire on
January 10, 2021. See Qualified Mortgage Definition Un-
der the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z): Extension
of Sunset Date, 85 Fed. Reg. 41448 (proposed July 10,
2020). Although lenders liked the substance of the re-
placement, they warned that a rocky transition would dis-
rupt the market for residential mortgages.
As explained by the Mortgage Bankers Association,
suddenly terminating the safe harbor at the end of the
Government Sponsored Entities’ conservatorships could
lead to “severe market disruption.” Mortg. Bankers
Ass’n, Comment Letter on Extension of Sunset Date 6
(Aug. 10, 2020), tinyurl.com/y5n89czd (Mortgage Bankers
Comment). Creditors emphasized that they “cannot
simply ‘flip a switch’ to transition” from one safe harbor
to another. Iowa Bankers Ass’n, Comment Letter on Ex-
tension of Sunset Date 2 (Aug. 7, 2020), tinyurl.com/
4m5y5an2 (Iowa Bankers Comment). Indeed, a hasty
transition would give lenders “no choice but to cut back on
their lending,” because “rapid changes to the regulatory
scheme governing mortgage lending are sure to create
substantial compliance risk.” Ctr. for Cap. Mkts. Compet-
itiveness, Comment Letter on Extension of Sunset Date 2 (Sept. 16, 2019), https://tinyurl.com/52d7w57p (CCMC
Comment).
Dire as they were, these warnings assumed that one
CFPB rule would immediately replace another. An actual
gap between safe harbors would have multiplied these
risks, and the outlook would have been worse yet if the
safe harbor disappeared entirely. See Mortgage Bankers
Comment 4.
2 Because lenders have “little appetite for
[ability-to-repay] uncertainty,” failing to replace the GSE
Patch would prompt “a steep increase in the cost of credit,
or perhaps an inability for some borrowers to access
credit entirely.” Id. at 6. Even worse, there could be “sig-
nificant knock-on effects across the economy.” CCMC
Comment 3.
Lenders feared these significant economic effects if a
single CFPB safe harbor expired. A decision voiding all
CFPB rules would increase that harm exponentially.

Footnote 2:
2 See also, e.g., Am. Bankers Ass’n, Comment Letter on Extension
of Sunset Date 2 (Aug. 10, 2020), tinyurl.com/ycy695h3 (citing “risk of
market disruption”); Credit Union Nat’l Ass’n, Comment Letter on
Extension of Sunset Date 2 (Aug. 10, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/
zyx8wvfj (urging CFPB to “avoid gaps in QM coverage that would
disadvantage borrowers and create uncertainty in the nation’s eco-
nomically vital mortgage lending market”); Indep. Cmty. Bankers of
Am., Comment Letter on Extension of Sunset Date 3 (Aug. 10, 2020),
https://tinyurl.com/bd2bnupt (predicting “harmful effects on the
availability and cost of credit if the GSE Patch expires before the Bu-
reau amends the General QM requirements”); Real Est. Servs. Pro-
viders Council, Comment Letter on Extension of Sunset Date 1 (Aug.
6, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/yc895d73 (“We do not want consumers to
lose any access to credit because of uncertainty under any new rule.”)."