$18-20%: That’s the return rate industry representatives claim is necessary to sustain the shared equity investment (HEI) model, a figure now under intense scrutiny in Pennsylvania and beyond. House Bill 2120, currently before the Pennsylvania legislature, proposes to classify shared equity contracts – marketed as “no debt, no interest” home equity investments – as residential mortgages. This isn’t simply a semantic debate; it’s a fundamental challenge to a rapidly expanding financial product and a test case for how states will regulate a burgeoning market promising homeowners cash without traditional loan obligations. Follow the money, and you’ll find a collision between consumer protection concerns and an industry aggressively defending its business model.
The Mechanics of Equity Capture and the Consumer Risk
The core of the dispute lies in how shared equity works. Companies like Hometap, Point, and Unlock – founding members of the industry group the Coalition for Home Equity Partnership (CHEP) – provide homeowners with a lump sum in exchange for a percentage of the home’s future appreciation. Rep. Arvind Venkat initiated the legislation after constituent Wendy Gilch, a fellow with the Consumer Policy Center, raised concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding these agreements. Gilch’s initial investigation, sparked by advertisements touting “free money,” revealed a less straightforward reality: homeowners are effectively giving up a growing share of their home’s equity over time. While CHEP emphasizes the absence of monthly payments and interest, Venkat argues the mechanics – appraisals, liens, closing costs, and defined repayment triggers – mirror those of a traditional mortgage, demanding equivalent consumer safeguards.
See the original realestatenews.com story for the full account.
This isn’t a hypothetical concern. Pennsylvania’s anti-usury framework caps returns on home-secured lending in the mid-single digits. Industry representatives, however, have reportedly indicated they require returns approaching 18-20% to maintain viability, particularly if contracts are resold to investors. This discrepancy highlights a critical tension: the advertised simplicity of HEIs masks potentially substantial costs for homeowners, especially if property values increase significantly. The lack of standardized disclosure, as Gilch points out, leaves consumers vulnerable to underestimating the true cost of accessing this equity.
A Patchwork of Regulation Emerges
Pennsylvania isn’t operating in a vacuum. Maryland, Illinois, and Connecticut have already moved to classify similar agreements as mortgages, triggering licensing requirements and consumer protections. Litigation in Washington state over a shared equity contract’s classification as a reverse mortgage, though settled, further underscores the legal ambiguity. Maine and Oregon have considered similar proposals, while Massachusetts has taken enforcement action against at least one provider. This escalating regulatory activity suggests a state-by-state patchwork is forming, creating a complex landscape for both consumers and companies operating in this space.
The timing is crucial. Elevated interest rates and reduced refinancing activity have fueled demand for alternative equity-access products. This increased demand, coupled with the relatively new nature of HEIs, has allowed the industry to scale quickly. However, the regulatory scrutiny now emerging mirrors past interventions in unconventional housing finance models. The recent collapses of MV Realty and EasyKnock – companies offering upfront payments for listing agreements and sale-leaseback transactions, respectively – serve as cautionary tales. Both faced regulatory action and litigation related to contract structure and consumer understanding, demonstrating a pattern of rapid growth followed by regulatory intervention.
The Industry Response and Future Implications
The formation of CHEP in 2025 signals the industry’s recognition of the stakes. Cliff Andrews, CHEP President, argues that classifying HEIs as mortgages applies a framework “that was never designed for, and cannot meaningfully be applied to, equity-based financing instruments,” and that HB 2120 would represent a “de facto ban” on the product in Pennsylvania. While CHEP supports comprehensive regulation, it advocates for a distinct regulatory category that preserves the flexibility of the shared equity model.
However, the industry’s argument hinges on a distinction that regulators – and increasingly, consumers – are questioning. If shared equity contracts are treated as mortgages, underwriting standards will tighten, return structures will be constrained, and the secondary market for these contracts will likely undergo significant changes. Conversely, a carve-out could allow the model to continue operating with greater flexibility, but at the cost of ongoing state-by-state negotiations and potential regulatory uncertainty. The outcome in Pennsylvania will likely set a precedent for other states grappling with how to regulate this evolving financial product.
What this means for your wallet: Watch closely whether Pennsylvania lawmakers prioritize consumer protection or industry growth. If HB 2120 passes, expect shared equity products to become less accessible in the state, potentially limiting homeowners’ options for accessing equity. But if the industry successfully lobbies for a separate regulatory framework, be prepared to scrutinize the fine print of any shared equity agreement, paying close attention to the potential long-term cost of giving up a portion of your home’s future appreciation. The key question for consumers is this: will the convenience of “no debt, no interest” outweigh the potential for a significantly reduced share of your home’s equity gains down the line?
