For the past year and a half, we’ve held the line on harmful tax hikes in Washington, D.C.
When Congress was debating the “Build Back Better Act,” we worked with key lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, to stop the worst proposals. It worked-- those tax hikes never saw the light of day.
In fact, when Congress passed the so-called Inflation Reduction Act in August, it reflected our work and your needs. The final legislation didn’t include a host of dangerous tax hikes. And it preserved the existing taxation regime for mortgage servicing rights.
We’re equally focused on stopping regulatory overreach.
The main threat we see is coming from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), where the single director can act as judge, jury, and executioner, all in one.
When it comes to the bureau, the bottom line is this: Americans need the CFPB to establish clear and consistent standards. That means providing the opportunity for notice and comment when enacting rules. And it never means circumventing the rulemaking process.
Market oversight works best when regulators provide consistent guidance to all market participants via notice and comment rulemaking, interpretive rules, and guidance that reflect stakeholder input, and applying them prospectively and providing the market appropriate runways for compliance.
That approach allows MBA to educate the bureau on the potential impact of their rules, just as we did on their request for information on fees that mortgage originators and servicers charge their customers. It allowed us to tell the bureau that these types of fees are clearly disclosed in advance, reasonable, and reflect services actually performed.