Bill Overview
Title: Trigger Leads Abatement Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits credit reporting agencies from providing a credit report not initiated by a consumer if the report is being provided on the basis that the consumer has had a credit inquiry regarding a home mortgage loan. This practice, known as producing a trigger lead, provides notice to other mortgage lenders that the consumer is seeking a mortgage loan.
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
Target Audience
Population: People seeking mortgages
Estimated Size: 15000000
- The bill affects the lending practices in the mortgage industry, specifically targeting how trigger leads are generated and used.
- Trigger leads are often used by competing mortgage lenders to solicit consumers actively seeking a mortgage.
- This affects consumers who inquire about mortgage loan options.
- All potential home buyers/mortgage seekers who expect their data privacy to be protected can be impacted globally, as such laws can set precedents.
- According to US data sources, 78.7 million homeowners existed in the US as of 2020, and a typical year sees millions of mortgage inquiries.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to curtail the practice of trigger leads, which may enhance privacy for consumers seeking mortgages.
- The potential positive impact on privacy could lead to increased consumer confidence in seeking mortgage inquiries, possibly improving self-reported wellbeing.
- However, not all consumers will be aware of the policy or believe it significantly changes their situation; thus, the impact might not be universally high.
- Given the limited budget, the policy may also focus efforts on specific education or enforcement, perhaps impacting the total reach.
- The total number of potential new and refinancing mortgage seekers is substantial, but realistic impacts must consider awareness and perception of changes, in addition to the policy's direct effects.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I really value my privacy and have always been cautious about who gets my information.
- I think this policy would make me feel more confident in starting the mortgage inquiry process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Marketing Manager (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's annoying to be bombarded with calls and emails after refinancing inquiries.
- This policy could reduce such nuisances but sometimes competition benefits me as a consumer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Financial Analyst (San Francisco, California)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that maintains my data privacy is a win for me.
- I’m already bombarded with credit offers; I’d like less, not more, of that when I start looking for a mortgage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Real Estate Agent (New York, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Trigger leads affect the competitive dynamics of my business.
- It might be good for consumers, but it changes how lenders advertise to potential clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Lawyer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- After my last home inquiry, I was overwhelmed by spam and calls.
- I'd support anything that potentially cuts down on my personal information being used without consent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree, I want less hassle in my financial matters.
- I wasn't aware of trigger leads, but knowing this is changing seems beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Business Owner (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like knowing my options, even if I get offers I didn't necessarily ask for.
- Transparency in how my data is used matters to me, but so does saving money.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm excited to buy my own home, but I don't want my inquiry to trigger spammy offers.
- This policy makes me more comfortable about starting the process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Engineer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In my line of work, everything is about precision, including who sees my financial data.
- I appreciate the additional privacy this might bring to the table.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Freelancer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this really stops unnecessary offers, it's a relief.
- I don’t have the time to handle all the spam from mortgage inquiries.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20200000 (Low: $15200000, High: $25200000)
Year 3: $20400000 (Low: $15400000, High: $25400000)
Year 5: $20800000 (Low: $15800000, High: $25800000)
Year 10: $21800000 (Low: $16800000, High: $26800000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential legal challenges from credit reporting agencies or lenders may affect initial implementation costs.
- The impact on competitive market practices may vary: while some firms might see increased costs, others could see decreased marketing costs due to industry-wide compliance.
- Equity considerations must be made to ensure that the bill doesn't lead to unintended disadvantages for certain consumer groups, particularly those with fewer resources to access mortgage information.