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.”)."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
