The Trump administration’s moves to change -- some say “gut” -- the nation’s fair housing policies may have awakened a sleeping giant.

And the reason is pretty straightforward: It’s simply bad for business.

Besides being unfair, discrimination against consumers on the basis of race, gender or income means fewer people will be renting or buying houses.

Among the fair housing building blocks the administration has been trying to weaken are the long-standing Fair Housing and the Community Reinvestment Acts, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created only a decade ago in response to the mortgage crisis, largely to protect borrowers.

Responses from proponents of federal protections have ranged from jawboning by consumer advocates and real estate trade groups to congressional hearings. California is going even further, by proposing to create its own version of the CFPB to make up for what it perceives as the federal watchdog taking its eye off the ball.

“As the Trump administration undermines and weakens the rules that protect consumers from predatory businesses, California is filling the void and stepping up to protect families and consumers,” Gov. Gavin Newsom told local media recently.

The Golden State’s proposed Department of Financial Protection and Innovation reportedly will be given more staff and money than the current Department of Business Oversight, which it would replace.

The state is going its own way because the White House is challenging the structure of the CFPB, arguing that it infringes on the power of the president. The case is now before the Supreme Court.

“The structure of the Bureau, including the for-cause restriction on the removal of its single director, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers,” the administration is arguing. “The United States previously informed this court that it has also concluded the statutory restriction on the president’s authority to remove the director violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, and that the question would warrant this Court’s review in an appropriate case.”

Consumer advocates are also rankled by recent changes to the Fair Housing Act’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing standard, saying they eviscerate fair housing protections.

According to an analysis by the Mortgage Bankers Association, the proposed FHA changes “would discontinue rules promulgated by the Obama administration that require communities to address racial discrimination issues in housing. The rule proposes to reduce regulatory burdens to governments by eliminating an assessment tool used to map racial segregation.”

After a quick huddle with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, another prominent housing trade group, the National Association of Realtors, came out reaffirming the group’s own commitment to fair housing.

Elsewhere, Sam Tepperman-Gelfant, deputy managing attorney at nonprofit Public Advocates, said, “The proposal would further an already devastating affordable housing crisis caused by policies that put the profits of developers, speculators and billionaires over our right to have a place to call home.”

And Malcolm Torrejon Chu, director of programs at the Right to the City Alliance, said that “the proposed changes will further target communities of color and increase racist discriminatory housing policies.”

Meanwhile, upcoming changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, which has been in effect since 1977 and was last updated in 1995, have consumer advocates crying foul and one key congresswoman alleging cheating.

In December, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed to “modernize” the CRA to ensure “increased bank activity in low- and moderate-income communities where there is significant need for credit, more responsible lending, greater access to banking services, and improvements to critical infrastructure.”

But consumer groups think the changes will only weaken the CRA.

What the changes will really do, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition maintains, is “weaken affordable housing standards” by devaluing bank branches in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, scaling back bank accountability and excusing small banks from rigorous CRA exams.

“There is no doubt that these proposed changes will be disastrous for low- to moderate-income communities,” says NCRC chief executive Jesse Van Tol.

The rule will become effective at the end of the period allowed for receiving comments, but one congressional housing advocate thinks there is some hanky-panky going on. House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is worried that someone has been stuffing the ballot box, seeking to validate changes to the landmark bill.

Waters, whose committee recently held a hearing on the proposed changes, has written to the Comptroller of the Currency and the chairman of the FDIC, saying “certain special interest groups have submitted comments in other rule-makings while posing as consumers, small-business owners and other stakeholders. These fraudulent comments undermine legitimate debate on proposed rules by creating the false appearance that a position has widespread, grassroots support.”

Cheating like this might not seem as momentous as baseball’s sign-stealing crisis, but the CRA has a lot of fans -- especially considering it can be used to challenge big banking mergers, often causing the banks to open their wallets to promise more mortgage money for more people.

Waters also accused regulators of trying to push the changes through “as soon as possible” by cutting the customary 120-day comment period in half.

On the substances of the proposed changes, she maintains the Community Reinvestment Act would become the “Community Disinvestment Act,” and would lead to a “widespread” retreat of bank investment in these communities.

-- Freelance writer Mark Fogarty contributed to the writing of this column.

It may never be too early to become a homeowner. But for some, it may be better to wait until they mature a tad.

That’s one of the findings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ recent National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It tracked lifetime homeownership rates and how long individuals sustained ownership, covering the years from 1979 (when most participants were between the ages of 17 and 21) to 2016.

In contrast to the homeownership rate, which measures ownership at a specific point in time, the lifetime rate measures whether someone has been a homeowner at any point in his or her life. And concurrently, it can show how long people survive as owners once they take the plunge.

As economists at the National Association of Home Builders read the results, survival rates gradually improved as the studied cohort grew into their 30s.

Of those who became owners in 1980 at around age 23, only 53% were owners after eight years. But of those who joined the ranks in 1992, in their mid-30s, 88% were still owners eight years later.

Another observation from the NAHB: Most likely the result of the Great Recession, survival rates fell steeply between 2004 and 2012. Those who bought just prior to the downturn were most likely to fall by the wayside, because they bought at the top of the market and had little time to build equity before prices crashed.

As they say, timing is everything.

Single women may earn just 79 cents, on average, for every dollar earned by men. But they own more homes than single men, according to an analysis from online mortgage marketplace LendingTree.

In total, unmarried women own more than 1.5 million more homes than unwed men in America’s 50 largest metro areas: about 5.1 million homes to men’s 3.5 million. There isn’t a single Top 50 metro where men out-own women.

Women also take out more equity-conversion mortgages than men, and almost as many as married couples, according to data shared by the Department of Housing and Urban Development at a recent industry gathering.

Nearly 40% of such mortgages insured by the government last year were to multiple borrowers (likely married couples). But 38% went to single women -- most likely recent widows who found themselves short on cash.

Fannie Mae, the big secondary mortgage market entity that purchases loans from other lenders, now has a catalog of 65 fake outfits listed as employers on loan applications -- businesses whose existences could not be confirmed.

There are all sorts of tipoffs. One is that the occupation listed by the borrower does not credibly coincide with the borrower’s age or experience. Another is that the applicant has only been on the job for a short time.

Other red flags: Prior employment is listed as “student,” the starting salary appears high, the employer’s stated location can’t be ascertained, the templates of submitted pay stubs are strikingly similar to those of other fake employers, and the pay stubs lack such typical withholding items as health and medical insurance.

In one case, the would-be borrower said he’d been a student prior to his current job. But he claimed three years of work experience, and had only been at the job three months. In other instance, the applicant’s pay stub didn’t match previous stubs from the same employer.

Remember, boys and girls: It is a federal crime to prevaricate on an application for a mortgage.

Home-sellers last year nailed a gain of $65,000, a 13-year high, according to ATTOM Data Solutions’ end-of-year report.

Notice we didn’t use the word “profit” or the term “pocketed.” Because people probably didn’t do either.

The gain, as measured by the data analytics company, is based on the selling price minus the purchase price. It’s highly likely these folks spent some money from their own resources to improve their properties -- and that’s a debit, not a credit, on every homeowner’s scorecard. So is whatever they may have had to lay out at closing on behalf of the buyer.

Sure, we can “deduct” the cost of a kitchen or bath remodel, as well as some other expenses. But it’s still money out-of-pocket that has to come off the bottom line before figuring your profit, or return on investment.

That said, sellers last year still did better than the previous group, when the gain on the typical sale was “only” $58,100. One reason: People had been in their houses a wee bit longer than in 2018. Indeed, tenure last year -- 8.21 years -- was the longest since 2000.

According to a recent report from the CBC Mortgage Agency, families provide financial assistance on about a third of all purchase transactions in which the financing is insured by Uncle Sam.

But because minorities often don’t have the inter-generational wealth to help their family members, down payment assistance has become an effective tool for them to achieve ownership, a status they might not otherwise be able to afford.

A CBC study found that more than half of borrowers receiving assistance in the form of grants, silent second mortgages and the like were racial or ethnic minorities, and more than a third were the first in their families to buy a house.

Obtaining an affordable mortgage is an art, not a science, especially for first-time buyers, and is just as important as finding an affordable house.

Fortunately, homebuyer education -- learning how to cover your down payment and closing costs, in particular -- can provide real traction toward financing your first home. Moreover, you can save thousands of dollars in lenders’ fees if you mind the wise words of the old Smokey Robinson song “Shop Around.”

Taking a class for a few weeks is an excellent way for first-timers to learn about credit and mortgages. On certain types of loans, homebuyer education is a requirement. And repeat buyers could learn a lot, as well -- especially if they haven’t been in the market for some time.

Marisa Calderon, executive director of the National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals, sees a little schooling as useful across the entire spectrum of buyers. “Education is helpful regardless of anyone’s financial situation, especially when it comes to the nuances of managing homeownership,” she says.

The big mortgage agencies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae often require homebuyer education to qualify for specialty loan programs. With Fannie’s HomeReady, designed for low-income borrowers, completing the course gives qualified buyers a shot at financing with just 3% down -- a far cry from the 20% many loans require.

Homebuyer education programs vary, but they have some common traits. They teach students the ins and outs of credit scores, as well as how and when to pay bills, balance a checkbook, save money and live within their means.

Classes also cover how to manage student loans and other debt; the value of nontraditional forms of credit, such as timely rent payments, cellphone bills and utility bills; and overcoming a reluctance to use credit cards to establish and build credit records.

Far from being just for first-timers, counseling benefits homeowners at all stages. For example, seniors looking to access the equity they’ve built in their homes through reverse mortgages are required to visit a counselor by the Federal Housing Administration, which insures the bulk of these loans.

Even proprietary reverses originated by lenders outside the FHA limits come with a counseling requirement; the sessions are usually handled by the same counselors who work on government-insured Home Equity Conversion Mortgages. Low-down-payment loans or loans that come with some form of assistance are really where the rubber meets the road. For example, the congressionally chartered nonprofit NeighborWorks America has just unveiled a program for Alaska residents who earn 100% or less of the median income in their areas. It offers a $10,000 forgivable loan for buyers who successfully complete an educational component.

“A knowledgeable borrower is a sustainable borrower,” says Stephen Barbier, the relationship manager at NeighborWorks.

“Homebuyer education and counseling create knowledgeable buyers, who save money through awareness of affordable loan products and down-payment assistance, he said. “(It also helps buyers) understand the rights and responsibilities of homeownership, and ensures they have a trusted adviser to turn to with questions.”

The number of buyers receiving such aid recently doubled, according to Freddie Mac. In a survey by Freddie Mac and Down Payment Resource, which tracks programs available in every state, 5% of respondents reported receiving a loan or assistance from either a nonprofit or a government program in 2013. By 2016, that figure increased to 10%.

There’s quite a bit of help available, if you know where to find it. Of the 2,500 homeownership programs in DPR’s database, 83% had down-payment funds available at last count.

Yet DPR’s Rob Chrane says the availability of assistance is not as well-known as it should be.

“Research and data show there is a wide gap between consumer perception of what it takes to buy a home and what it really takes,” he says. ”Sixty-five percent in a recent survey thought they needed 15% for a down payment. That’s pretty far off the mark.”

Mounzer Aylouche, vice president of homeownership programs at MassHousing, says an assistance program his group has started has “made an indent” in affording the very pricey Boston market.

The agency offers financing with just 3% down to buyers with incomes at or below the median in the Boston area. Moreover, the down payment can be funded by a second mortgage of up to $12,000 at just 1% interest.

The program is so successful, it is being expanded to include “workforce” housing for buyers who earn more than 100% of Boston’s annual median income. In this case, a 2% loan of up to $15,000 will help offset participants’ closing costs.

Another way to cut your upfront costs is to bargain with your lender about its fees. Closing costs can be daunting, but they don’t have to leave you with nothing in the bank. You can save thousands by shopping around.

Mortgage platform LendingTree reports that buyers can be saddled with as many as 16 different fees during the mortgage process. In last year’s first quarter, these charges added up to a median of $2,059 for buyers and $1,807 for owners who were refinancing.

But by shopping lenders -- or by using some good old-fashioned jawboning -- some borrowers got away with paying nothing at all in fees, once again showing the value of learning about mortgages before taking the leap into homeownership.

-- Freelance writer Mark Fogarty contributed to this report.