if you do that kind of work, yapp about it.
Say out loud what the risk is, tell us what you did about it. Tell us what would have happened if it weren’t for you.
One of the challenges with ongoing litigation is it’s hard to comment about why one does things. Y’all are smart though, here are some quotes from which one can draw an inference:
“With it’s new “Home Equity Investment” (“HEI”), Hometap joins a long line of predatory financiers attempting to strip home equity away from vulnerable consumers and into its own pockets.”
“the Hometap HEI is riskier, underwritten with less diligence, and vastly more expensive to consumers than pre[-2008]-recession subprime mortgage loans”
“Hometap reviews no documentation of income, assets, or employment, and does not base its underwriting decisions on any ofthese factors.”
“Hometap engages in much of the same conduct that was rightly prohibited after the subprime mortgage crisis in order to prevent a future foreclosure crisis and ensure the solvency and soundness ofthe economic system. In failing to either extend financing only to those homeowners who have a demonstrated ability to repay, as with forward mortgages, or to comply with the strict limits on reverse mortgages outlined herein, Hometap flouts or circumvents these critical regulations”
All quotes are allegations yet to be proved.
There may also be many other reasons to do this. Perhaps Alice is trying to decide whether Alice is a trustworthy journalist, and thus how much credibility to assign to things Alice writes, both that column and in the future. Knowing that Alice didn’t write the headline should mean that the badness of the headline should not factor into your opinion of Alice, but also that whatever warm glow of credibility that you have based on Alice being a good journalist should not extend to future headlines on Alice’s columns.