Tag Archives: CFPB

Under The Radar: Deregulation and Setting Up the Next Big Bank Debacle

If a person were thinking that the current administration, and those politicians in Nevada who espouse Trumpism, are dangerous in terms of health care insurance affordability, women’s’ health issues, and environmental sustainability — let me offer one more thing to worry about:  Financial deregulation.

Let’s start with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for a position on the US Supreme Court, this would be the self-same Kavanaugh who once ruled that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was “structurally unconstitutional.” [Politifact]  Please recall for a moment that one of the reasons for the CFPB’s creation was the propensity in some  retail banking circles to generate consumer indebtedness (which could in turn be used as the basis for derivatives) in ways that were definitely not beneficial to both the borrower and the lender.   We know one man’s debt is another man’s asset, but when the debt level becomes impossible and default becomes probable the derivatives become unstable.  This, as the saying goes, “ain’t rocket science.”  But wait! How do we know when things are likely to become unstable?  There’s supposed to be an agency for that, the Office of Financial Research.  However, the Trump nominee to head this agency would really rather eliminate it.

But the fact that this nomination is flying under the radar is not surprising. The OFR is arguably the most important piece of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that is never discussed. Despite its lack of public attention, the OFR’s crucial financial stability role demands a leader willing to aggressively execute its lofty mission. Unfortunately, President Trump’s nominee to lead the OFR is more likely to defang and defund the agency than to strengthen it. [AmBanker]

The American Banker explains further:

In the lead-up to the 2007-2008 crisis, financial regulatory agencies did not have a good grasp of how risks that were building across and outside of their specific jurisdictions could threaten financial stability. Regulators were not sharing sufficient data with one another and there were significant pockets of the financial sector where data was not available to any regulator. The Dodd-Frank Act sought to address this issue, in part, by creating the Office of Financial Research.

So, the budget was cut by 25% and the staffing levels by 38%.  This really isn’t conducive to sharing sufficient data and making data available to regulators.   If this is beginning to sound like telling the CDC it can’t investigate and collect data on gun violence in this country because then we might have more relevant statistics in order to understand the problems, that’s because it is.  So, let’s not collect data because then we’d find out things some folks would be happier if we didn’t know.

Then there are the more blatant attempts to roll back the Dodd Frank provisions, for example, see Investment News from last March.  On compliance teams from last May.  And, the JOBS Act 3.0 is just about a death knell for consumer protections, as of August 7 2018.

But wait yet again! There’s more.  There’s that matter of $1.4 trillion — that would be trillion with a T — in student debts in this country a larger portion of which Wells Fargo would really like to access. [Bloomberg] And, yes, this would be the same Wells Fargo which agreed on August 2, 2018 to pay out $2.09 billion in fines for a decade old mortgage loan scheme. [HuffPo]  This, while Secretary of Education, our Yacht Collecting Betsy DeVos, is proposing a rule which would cut student loan debt relief by some $13 billion. [LATimes]  [NYTimes]  So, if a person were scammed by, say, Corinthian, [WSJ] or The Fly By Night School of Urban Hang Gliding, or … Trump University [NBC] … good luck with that?

Did we take our eyes off the major players from the 2007-08 debacle?  Kindly review the “Malaysian Problem” re-emerging at Goldman Sachs.  Or, are we paying attention to what’s happening with a Goldman Sachs whistleblower case of possible wrongful termination which bubbles to the surface every so often? Stick a pin in the name Lars Windhorst for future reference? Why is Goldman Sachs moving jobs out of New York and into Utah? [BusinessInsider]  Cut costs? Yes, but why move back office compliance jobs to “remote” areas?

Then there’s the CFPB’s inexplicable turn to weakening the rules made with regard to loans made to members of the American Armed Forces. [NYT]  This reporting from NPR is pretty chilling:

“NPR has obtained documents that show the White House is proposing changes that critics say would leave service members vulnerable to getting ripped off when they buy cars. Separately, the administration is taking broader steps to roll back enforcement of the Military Lending Act.

The MLA is supposed to protect service members from predatory loans and financial products. But the White House appears willing to change the rules in a way that critics say would take away some of those protections.

“If the White House does this, it will be manipulating the Military Lending Act regulations at the behest of auto dealers and banks to try and make it easier to sell overpriced rip-off products to military service members,” says Christopher Peterson, a law professor at the University of Utah, who reviewed the documents.”

Bank deregulation didn’t work.  It didn’t work in the 1920s; it didn’t work in the 2000s; and, it’s not going to work now.  Notice, please, how when Republicans like Senator Dean Heller refer to Dodd Frank and other financial reform legislation they get vague and highly general. They speak of “onerous” regulator burdens, which are “job killing,” and don’t promote “free enterprise.”   These politicians need to be nailed down with specific questions, such as:

(1) Should the Federal Government collect data about banking trends and risk management and share this with relevant regulators?

(2) Should the Federal Government promote safe lending practices including the regulation of payday loans and similar loans made to members of the US Armed Forces?

(3) Should the Federal Government be taking a more critical look at the levels of student indebtedness, and at the accountability of the institutions offering student loans?

It’s hard to focus on some of the important news involving financial regulation, consumer protection, and other topics whilst we’re being fire-hosed with a daily inundation of surreptitious tapes, the latest cabinet level scandal du jour, and the musing of the misogynist in chief.  However, these are topics on which we should hold candidates accountable in November.

Comments Off on Under The Radar: Deregulation and Setting Up the Next Big Bank Debacle

Filed under banking, Economy, financial regulation, Politics

Scary Stuff Indeed

Yesterday was an extremely interesting day, replete with all manner of scary stuff compliments of social media platforms and a Special Counsel. However, not all of the frightening items were associated with the Trump Campaign’s eagerness to get the produce of Russian hacking, and Russian assistance.  Here’s some other stuff in the GOP treat basket:

ICE again proves its ultimate heartlessness and horrifying lack of understanding of what it means to “protect” Americans; illustrated by the case of Rosa Maria Hernandez — a ten year old with cerebral palsy undergoing gall bladder surgery.  And, this isn’t the only case — there was the story of parents arrested while their child was having brain surgery, the arrest of an undocumented Iraqi man who was serving as a bone marrow donor for his niece, and a brain tumor patient pulled from a hospital.  ICE thus becomes the ultimate Halloween Scary Story.  Candidates for public office ought to be ask outright how they would assist in the process of getting immigration officials to adhere to their own guidelines on “sensitive locations.’

Nobody in the GOP appears to be all that outraged that the Trump Campaign not only accepted assistance from the Russians, but actively sought to get the goods on Secretary Clinton from Russian sources.  This isn’t normal, or even paranormal — it’s the kind of thing that would make any other campaign (Democratic or Republican) call the FBI if the Russians showed up at the door with treats.  But still, #45 refuses to accept the fact that the Russians at least meddled and at most attacked the US with campaign “assistance” — social media help; opposition research; and, (the part we keep ignoring) attempts to hack into the voting systems of at least 21 and possibly 39 states.  We do need much more attention paid to the last item on the list since the Cult-45 group persists in saying this is a Spook, there’s nothing to see here.

Somehow a tiny company in Montana got a whopper contract, now cancelled, to supply power to the entire island of Puerto Rico.  Nothing puts a place like Whitefish, Montana on the map like having the Secretary of the interior stammering he’s nothing to do with this — and if I believe this then you could easily get me to believe that all the little spookies at the door are Real!

It’s been 30 days since the tragic Las Vegas Shooting, and what has the Congress done to limit high capacity magazines? Bump stocks? Anything?  This month has been a nightmare for the families of the deceased, and the families of the injured.  The nightmare will continue until politicians stop being terrified of the National Rifle Association.

Republicans have been unable to explain away the specter of Opioid Abuse while cutting massive amounts of funding from Medicaid.  The GOP budget calls for cutting some $1.5 trillion from the program over the next decade — while 30% of opioid treatment is covered by Medicaid insurance.   States, already strapped by the crisis will have to either come up with more funding or ration care — speaking of Death Panels…

The Senate of the United States believes that individual Americans are perfectly capable of taking on The Big Banks all by themselves — Super Heroes in Litigation.  So, on October 24, 2017 the Senate voted to dismiss a CFPB rule that would have allowed class action law suits against the Big Banks by ripped off customers; forcing those customers into individual arbitration.  Senator Dean Heller was pleased to vote in favor of this nightmare.

This list seems long enough to send sentient beings into the closet for the Halloween Season, one almost shudders to think what more the Republicans have in mind — like the tax cuts for the 1% and questionable benefits for the rest of the population…

Comments Off on Scary Stuff Indeed

Filed under anti-immigration, Gun Issues, Immigration, Medicaid, Politics

Heads Up Nevada, We Could Once More Join The Sand States

Heads up, Nevada!  There’s another storm on the horizon, and it’s not meteorological, nor is it related to the proliferation of high powered rifles and stockpiles of ammunition.  It has to do with a crisis we thought we’d withstood and overcome.

We were one of the Sand States eight years ago, those with massive development projects in which homes were constructed, mortgages were offered, and then sold into secondary markets to be sliced, diced, tranched, and manipulated into financial products in the Wall Street Casino.  We know what happened next.  The investment banking sector collapsed, the financial markets were in ruins, and Nevadans felt the aftermath with unconscionable unemployment levels and lost income.

The response was the Dodd Frank Act, a set of regulations to control the excesses of the Wall Street Casino and investment banking practices.  The first major assault came from the House of Representatives last June:

“The House legislation, called the Financial Choice Act, would undo or scale back much of Dodd-Frank. The bill was approved 233 to 186. All but one Republican — Walter Jones of North Carolina — voted for the bill. No Democrats supported it.

Its major changes include repealing the trading restrictions, known as the Volcker Rule, and scrapping the liquidation authority in favor of enhanced bankruptcy provisions designed to eliminate any chance taxpayers would be on the hook if a major financial firm collapsed.

The bill also would repeal a new Labor Department regulation, largely still pending, that requires investment brokers who handle retirement funds to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own compensation, company profits or other factors.”

Representative Mark Amodei voted in favor of this bill, HR 10, on June 8, 2017.   What Representative Amodei voted for was to allow banks to play in the stock market with depositors money (remember deposits are guaranteed up to $250,000) and to allow financial advisers to recommend products to their customers which are not necessarily to the advantage of their retired clients, but which may happily enhance the financial advisers’ bottom lines.   In light of what happened to this Sand State in 2007-2008 Nevadans should be especially concerned about this.  But, wait, there’s more

Remember that one of the major problems for working Americans, Nevadans included, was the burden of pay-day lending?  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd Frank Act, is seeking to limit the negative impact of some of the more egregious practices in this sector of the banking industry.  Now the Comptroller of the Currency has another idea, publicized on October 5th:

“…the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency surprised the financial services world by making its own move—rescinding guidance that made it more difficult for banks to offer a payday-like product called deposit advance.”

Lovely, so now banks can “offer” those insidious high rate pay-day loans, only changing the name to “deposit advance,” and consumer will be right back on the hook.  At almost the same time as the CFPB issued a rule preventing pay day lenders from handing out loans without reviewing a customer’s capacity to repay the loans, the bankers get the green light to hand out “deposit advances.”

There is one bill in the US Senate which does offer some improvements on Dodd Frank, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Senator David Perdue (R-GA) have introduced a bill to address some of the problems for community banks.  There are more reasons to support this legislation than to oppose it, but beware of the rationalizations and gamesmanship.

Those who want to eliminate the CFPB, gut its authority, or toss the Dodd Frank Act altogether may wish to convince us that (1) the entire act needs to be repealed to “enhance the free market,” or some other euphemism for re-opening the Wall Street Casino, (2) the CFPB places “burdensome” regulations on those pay day lenders who (bless their hearts) are only trying to provide more “options” for consumers.   This isn’t the most interesting or engaging story of the moment, but it is an issue Nevadans would do well to follow very closely.

We don’t need to be ground into the sand again.

 

 

Comments Off on Heads Up Nevada, We Could Once More Join The Sand States

Filed under Amodei, Economy, financial regulation, Nevada, Nevada economy, Politics

Amodei, Your Banker’s Best Friend

House Roll Call Vote 412 wasn’t one of those votes likely to draw much general media attention, even its title seemed designed to induce yawns: “Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to “Arbitration Agreements.”  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) voted in favor of this measure on July 25th, and few noticed, much less commented.  It’s a small thing, but indicative of a mindset that favors the Big Banks over the interests of American consumers.

Background

 “In May 2016, the CFPB issued a proposed rule prohibiting predispute arbitration agreements in providing consumer financial services products. This rule would prohibit mandatory predispute arbitration agreements in consumer agreements for items such as checking or savings accounts, credit cards, student loans, payday loans, automobile leases, debt management services, some payment processing services, other types of consumer loans, prepaid cards, and consumer debt collection. The rule would also prohibit predispute arbitration agreements in connection with providing a consumer report or credit score to a consumer or referring applicants to creditors to whom requests for credit may be made.” [ABA]

Translation:  For “predispute” read Day in Court, as in the rule prevents a financial corporation from requiring arbitration before a person can take his or her case to court as a member of a group of consumers who have been hurt by the financial institution’s action or actions.   The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau explained:

“Many consumer financial products like credit cards and bank accounts have contract gotchas that generally prevent consumers from joining together to sue their bank or financial company for wrongdoing. These widely used clauses leave consumers with no choice but to seek relief on their own – usually over small amounts. With this contract gotcha, companies can sidestep the legal system, avoid accountability, and continue to pursue profitable practices that may violate the law and harm countless consumers.”  (emphasis added)

And, Representative Amodei supported the legislation to disapprove of this rule which was an attempt to protect consumers from actions like the following:

The poster child of bank malfeasance, Wells Fargo’s  —  “admitted its employees systematically created millions of sham bank accounts in its customers’ names, and then in many cases fraudulently billed those same customers for fees and services they never agreed to. Executives of the megabank knew this was happening but did nothing. Then, they decided to blame 5,300 “rogue” employees, who were summarily fired. Now, to ward off thousands of lawsuits, the company is hiding behind binding arbitration clauses in its victims’ contracts.” [USNWR]

And, there’s this —

“Military readiness has been negatively affected by unscrupulous payday lenders who prey on military servicemembers and veterans. The victims become overly indebted thanks to exorbitant interest rates and hidden fees they don’t understand, and then find themselves unable to obtain relief thanks to forced-arbitration clauses. Because of this, the Military Coalition, which represents nearly 6 million uniformed service members, veterans and their families, has formally petitioned Congress to ban the clauses.”  [USNWR]

It’s hard to imagine siding with unscrupulous bankers against the interests of enlisted personnel who are in the E6 to E9 ranks  in which pay runs from $2,486.99 to $4,186.09 for a person with more than eight years service, however Representative Amodei found a way to do it.  The problem became such a persistent issue for the military that in 2007 the Department of Defense started enforcing the Military Lending Act to protect its service personnel. However, pay day lenders found loopholes such that they could re-introduce their ‘products’ to members of the military. [MrktPlc] Who would support legislation designed to force members of the Armed Services to accept arbitration before they could have their day in court?  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and his Republican cohorts in the 115th Congress.

What makes this vote particularly noticeable regarding the protection of bankers is that there are ways — at least two — to ‘prevent’ that bete noir of all Republicans, the consumer lawsuit, without pitching the baby out with the bath water.

The first way would be to make all arbitration voluntary.  Companies could save time and money, and avoid publicity IF the consumer agrees.  If there is no agreement then the case goes to court.

The second possible solution would be to put the arbitration on a “business pays” status.  The American Bar Association offers this common sense proposal:

“The CFPB should require any consumer arbitration to be fully business-funded at no cost to the consumer. When a business faces transaction costs of nearly $2,000 per arbitration filed, repeat consumer filings will attract its attention. In addition, the CFPB could consider requiring that any consumer arbitration which results in a favorable consumer award on the merits should be awarded treble damages and attorneys’ fees. This provision would include a sort of “built in” incentivizing provision. The goal of this provision is to encourage organically what we already see occurring, increased settlement of consumer disputes. Still further, the CFPB should require that any consumer arbitration award must result in a written statement of decision, which permits other consumers to know how the arbitrator applied the law to the facts of that case. This will facilitate consumer knowledge of potential corporate overreach (and encourage more recovery), and will also help aid the consumer in arbitrator selection.”

In short, it is not necessary to go full-bore all-out in support of the banksters among us in order to prevent the unscrupulous from skinning the unwary or uninformed, but that’s what Representative Mark Amodei did on July 25, 2017.

Perhaps this may be explained by the fact that as of May 2017 Representative Amodei received $8,000 in donations from commercial banks for this election cycle, another $7,000 from credit unions, and $1,000 from finance and credit companies.  Or maybe it relates to the $25,000 he’s collected from the American Bankers Association over his political career?  Whatever the motivation, it’s clear that Representative Mark Amodei is placing the interests of the bankers above those of American consumers.   This situation could be rectified in 2018.

Comments Off on Amodei, Your Banker’s Best Friend

Filed under Amodei, consumers, Economy, financial regulation, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics

Deregulation isn’t the solution, it’s the problem

Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) was pleased to vote for the so-called “Choice Act,” which rolls back some of the reforms enacted in the wake of the Wall Street casino debacle and subsequent recession as the Great Wall Street Derivative Monster collapsed like an air dancer in a Nevada wind.   The theory behind this ridiculousness is that regulations restrict commerce, and a restriction of commerce diminishes wealth, therefore diminished wealth impacts investment, ergo diminished investment equates to a limit on economic growth.  Not. So. Fast.

Yes, regulations restrict “commerce,” but only some kinds of “commerce,” generally the fraudulent variety.  I am free to issue shares of stock in my corporation — however, I am not free to issue shares of stock in the Reese River Steamboat Company.  Some sharp soul offered shares of this highly dubious company during one of the mining booms, and assuredly some investors were cheated by this obviously fraudulent sale.  We have regulations to prevent this.  We have laws and related regulations to prevent insider trading, to prevent “blue sky” stocks, and to reduce the possibility investors are cheated by financial products which promise high returns with little or no risk.  Sometimes the adage, “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is,” isn’t quite enough to prevent mismanagement of other people’s money.

Recently, Wells Fargo was found guilty of violating regulations and laws relating to the creation of phony accounts, the fine totaled a massive $185 million and some 5,300 individuals were fired. [NYT] The situation was all the more egregious because the bank was ripping off its own customers.  $100 million of that fine was the highest penalty the CFPB ever levied against a financial institution.  This is precisely the agency the so-called “Choice Act” wants to ham-string.

The “Choice Act” would eliminate the regulation regime which was intended to prevent the collapse of banking institutions.  Just for the record, let’s look at the list of US institutions that either disappeared or were acquired during the Great Recession: New Century, American Home Mortgage, Netbank, Bear Stearns, Countrywide Financial, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Sovereign Bank, National City Bank, CommerceBancorp, Downey Savings and Loan, IndyMac Federal Bank, HSBC Finance Corporation, Colonial Bank, Guaranty Bank, First Federal Bank of California, Ambac, MFGlobal, PMI Group, and FGIC.

If we extrapolate the “let the market sort it out” argument to its conclusion — it’s acceptable to allow banking institutions to over-extend themselves to such an extent that they will ultimately collapse; that’s just the market “at work.”  Fine, if the impact of such deregulation solely impinges on the banking institutions themselves, but that’s not what happens in the real world.  In the real world such supposedly safe havens (money market accounts) were in peril:

“A little over a year ago the collapse of Lehman Brothers sparked heavy redemptions from the dozen or so money market funds that held Lehman debt securities. The hit was particularly hard at The Reserve Fund, a money market fund that had a $785 million position in Lehman commercial paper. Soon The Reserve saw a run on its Primary Fund, spreading to other Reserve funds. Reserve tried to furiously sell its portfolio securities to satisfy redemptions, but this only depressed their values.

Despite its best efforts, The Reserve Primary Fund couldn’t find enough buyers and on Sept. 16 the unthinkable happened. The Primary Fund “broke the buck,” meaning that the net asset value of the fund, $1, fell to $0.97 a share. It was only the second time a money market fund, which are commonly thought of as guaranteed, broke the buck in 30 years.”

Meanwhile in Nevada, unemployment soared to 14+%, the state endured being listed among the states with the highest levels of foreclosures, and it took until 2016 for the state to recover almost all the wealth and jobs lost in the aftermath of the deregulated Wall Street casino debacle. [LVRJ]

Deregulation may sound fine when discussed in theoretical, ethereal, terms, it obviously didn’t work in the real world in which Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, WaMu, and IndyMac collapsed, and where the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck.”

The questions someone should ask of Representative Amodei, and other “deregulators,” are:

(1) Do you favor a return to the regulatory environment in which investment banks were allowed to over-extend and engage in risk taking far beyond their capacity to remain solvent?

(2) Do you favor a regulatory environment in which those being regulated are allowed permission to “self regulate,” without oversight from governmental agencies and institutions?

The second question is particularly important because it addresses the question of trust in commercial relationships.

The most basic of all commercial relationships is the simple act of buying and selling.  I have something to sell, and there is a potential customer for my goods or services.  This is another point at which deregulation can easily become part of the problem.  If I am selling food, there are self-evident reasons for regulating the conditions under which that food is prepared and served to the general public.  Deregulation invites disasters of the public health variety.  We trust that the food offered for sale by restaurants and groceries is safe for consumption.

If I am selling financial products does the buyer (consumer) have the expectation that my product is what it purports to be?  That it is backed by sufficient funds for ‘redemption?’ That it conforms to the standards of acceptable practices?  And, if it doesn’t, are there avenues of redress such that the consumer can be compensated?  In short, can the customer be assured that he or she can trust the product?

If I am selling a manufactured product, can the consumer trust that the item was produced in a safe way, that the product will perform as advertised, that the product will not create a hazard in my home or office?  There are voices on the fringe of Free Market thought calling  for the abolition or at least the restriction of the Consumer Product Safety Commivoicssion, who would love to see the return of Caveat Emptor, but most reasonable people agree that regulations pertaining to product safety are conducive to commerce, NOT restrictive.  A vehicle which meets or exceeds safety standards is more likely to be my choice than a vehicle which does not.  A vehicle which meets or exceeds fuel consumption standards is more like to be my choice than one which does not.  In short, regulatory standards benefit the best products (and their producers) while those who do not meet the standards have a more difficult time at the point of sale.  Now, the question becomes — do we want a regulatory environment which benefits the marginal, the inadequate, or perhaps even the corrupt producers?

Unfortunately, the deregulatory voices are answering this question in the affirmative.

Is this really the answer Representative Amodei and his cohorts want to give to constituents in the Second District? In the US?  To our customers around the world?

 

 

Comments Off on Deregulation isn’t the solution, it’s the problem

Filed under Amodei, banking, Economy, financial regulation, Foreclosures, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics

Please stop clapping long enough to check your wallet?

The followers of the Orange Agent of Change applaud his “actions” which they take to mean validating their world view informed by Faux News.  If they have a moment, they might want to stop for a moment and check their wallets.

At the next town hall meeting, if in fact your Republican Representative deigns to have one,  there are some pertinent questions you might want to ask because they relate directly to your very own money.

(1)  Why did the Republican House pass HJ Res 67 on February 15, 2017 which rescinded the Labor Department rule requiring financial advisers for retirement accounts to give YOU advice in YOUR best interest, and instead allowing those advisers to revert to giving you advice that could be based on what was profitable for their own firm?

*Nevada note: Representatives Rosen, Titus, and Kihuen voted against this, Representative Amodei voted in favor of it.

The babble you may get from those Representatives in support of this will almost certainly center on the banksters’ argument that the rule impinges on their profitability, and may thereby reduce their ability to provide service to you. Service like this you could do without.  If your financial adviser won’t agree to provide you with retirement investment suggestions based on YOUR best interests, then it’s time for you to reconsider your relationship with that company. You should expect your adviser to act in YOUR best interests and not use you (and your money) to generate fees and revenue for their own company.

(2) Why do House Republicans want to strip the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of its power to protect average Americans from predatory lenders and other financial scams?

“Legislation in the works would limit the bureau’s enforcement authority, reduce its ability to make rules and repeal its consumer complaint system.

It would also greatly shrink the enforcement tools at the consumer watchdog’s disposal, blocking it from being able to go after businesses engaged in deceptive practices and restricting its oversight of big publicly traded companies that are already regulated by agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.” [NYT] [The Hill]

This is precisely what H.R. 1031, introduced by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX4) would do.  Please pay special attention to the part wherein the GOP wants to strip out the consumer complaint system.  Without consumer complaints Wells Fargo could have gleefully, and profitably, carried on opening fraudulent accounts and charging fees. Instead, they’ll be paying a $185 million dollar fine. [NYT]  In fact, the CFPB has caused the restitution of some $11 billion for defrauded Americans. [The Hill] The bill looks to be approved by the House Financial Services Committee.  Remember how Republicans are fond of telling you that you deserve to keep your money?  Well, the CFPB is one good way of helping you to keep your very own money out of the mitts of unscrupulous banksters.

Here’s guessing that removing the relative independence of the CFPB is a way to reward the banksters, the predatory lenders, and others who don’t want any restrictions on their actions – no matter the cost to US consumers – and this should not pass unnoticed.  This isn’t exactly helping you keep your money in your wallet or bank account.

Then perhaps the Congressional representative will be willing to hear what you have to say about stripping 320,000 of their health care insurance coverage in the state of Nevada? [previously on DB]

Comments Off on Please stop clapping long enough to check your wallet?

Filed under consumers, Economy, House of Representatives, Politics, Republicans

Warning: Republicans Are Hazardous to Your Bank Account, and this includes Rep. Heck

Dem Rep Job Creation These are some of the most dangerous words ever spoken – with regard to your bank account:

“After eight years of the Obama economy, Americans are struggling with stagnant wages, reduced hours, and decreased economic opportunity. The policies of this Administration, from the Affordable Care Act to the Dodd Frank financial reform legislation, have hurt economic growth and make it more costly and burdensome for businesses to expand and add workers.” [Heck]

Heck tries to waffle a bit in the last segment: “I will continue to support reasonable regulations that protect the consumer, employees, and the environment while working to reduce burdensome federal regulations so that businesses can thrive and create good-paying jobs.”

First, it’s fact check time. As the chart above indicates the ACA and the Dodd Frank Act have not “decreased economic opportunity,” (whatever that might mean) and in light of what’s been happening with Wells Fargo Bank we need to talk about the “burdens of regulation.”  We also need to talk about a piece of legislation that just passed the House Financial Services Committee.

The “Financial Choice Act” —

“The Financial Choice Act split the banking panel with a vote of 30 to 26, with just one Republican, Representative Bruce Poliquin of Maine, siding with the committee’s Democrats against it.

Mr. Hensarling has been a prominent critic of Dodd-Frank and other changes after the 2008 financial crisis, including the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to regulate the consumer finance industry.

“It has been six years since the passage of Dodd-Frank. We were told it would lift our economy, but instead we are stuck in the slowest, weakest, most tepid recovery in the history of the Republic,” said Mr. Hensarling at Tuesday’s session. “The economy does not work for working people.”

The legislation, which was unveiled in June, calls for numerous changes to Dodd-Frank. One provision would allow some of the largest banks to exempt themselves from some regulatory standards if they maintained an important ratio of capital to total assets at 10 percent or more.” [NYT]

There’s more. The Financial Choice Act (comprehensive summary pdf) reads like the American Bankers Association Christmas Wish List and Birthday Party requests combined with everything a banker would want from a Financialist Santa Claus.

However, let’s start with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about which the House Republicans have several complaints:

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not accountable to Congress or the  American people. The Bureau’s policies often harm consumers or exceed its legal authority because the Bureau is not subject to checks and balances that apply to other regulatory agencies.” [House pdf]

This is another iteration of the initial whine the GOP wheezed out when the idea of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was suggested which would not be subject to the corporate/financialist tastes of Republican Congressional representatives.  The ones who want government so small it can be drowned in a bathtub – and the CFPB along with it.   At this point it might be instructive to ask: What harm has been done to consumers of, say, Wells Fargo Bank, by the CFPB?

“When news first broke that Wells Fargo would pay the largest fine in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau history for routinely opening unauthorized accounts that clients didn’t want or need, CEO John Stumpf put blame squarely on his worst-paid workers.

He’s changed his tune since, as political pressure over the years-long scandal mounted and evidence depicting the high-pressure sales culture at the bank got more attention.

And now, the bank’s board is reaching into Stumpf’s own pocket to discipline him. The CEO will forfeit $41 million in past compensation — all of it in the form of investment holdings that hadn’t vested yet — and the woman who ran his firm’s retail banking unit will give back $19 million of her own.” [TP]

What harm was done by this agency in fining Wells Fargo for its “cross selling scam” that created phony accounts to boost sales figures?  And, what is wrong with this result?

“By clawing back a large chunk of Stumpf’s roughly $100 million in compensation over the past decade, though, the board is hoping to signal that it’s taking the scandal seriously. The day news of the $185 million fine broke, Stumpf portrayed it as an issue of some bad apples at junior positions and said responsibility started and stopped with the 5,300 people fired in response.

That holier-than-thou response first started to crack in front of the Senate Banking Committee last week, when senators including Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) bounced the bank head off the walls of a hearing room for hours.

Wednesday’s announcement of clawbacks comes a day before Stumpf returns to Capitol Hill to face the House’s version of the same inquisition.

Clawbacks are a hot-button concept for finance watchdogs and Wall Street critics. Many of the industry’s sins stem from compensation policies that incentivize executives to break whatever rules they have to keep the company stock rising, knowing they’ll walk away rich even if the company gets caught. Clawbacks, observers and policymakers say, are an important tool in reversing that deviant cycle.” [TP]

So, how do the House Republicans mean to “improve” the CFPB? The CFPB that caught Wells Fargo? Made the Bank pay fines and restitution? Made the Board of Directors claw back the ill-gotten gains of the bank executives and not lay the whole scam on the lower level employees?

The House Republicans want to (1) replace the head of the CFPB with an awkward “bipartisan” board; that should facilitate logjams and obstructionism. (2) Make the CFPB budget subject to specific Congressional control – meaning the Congress can cut the budget until there is no way the agency can do its job. (3) Require a cost benefit analysis of every rule promulgated by the agency – which means if the regulation “costs too much” for the preservation of bank profits the rule dies. (4) Prohibit the CFPB from cutting off “access” to fraudulent or abusive bank practices and products.  In other words, the bankers have the CHOICE to offer any product they wish and if you buy in and get scammed that was your choice as a consumer.

Now it’s time to return to Representative Heck’s own words: “…Dodd Frank financial reform legislation, have hurt economic growth and make it more costly and burdensome for businesses to expand and add workers.” 

Does Representative Heck believe that they current structure of the CFPB as an independent agency is a weakness?  Does he believe that it should be subject to Congressional pressure to weaken its enforcement activities?  Is CFPB protection from fraudulent practices and products really denying Americans “choices” in financial products?

If the “Financial Choice Act” (essentially a repeal of Dodd Frank) came up for a vote in the House today would Representative Heck vote in favor of it?

And how does he feel about the House GOP charges that the CFPB was late to the game and didn’t handle the Wells Fargo case adequately?

“Where was the CFPB? Why did they come in so late to the game?” he continued. “They have immense powers and this is their job to enforce these basic consumer laws and it appears they were asleep at the switch.”

Hensarling also has criticized regulators for the $185-million settlement with the bank, which allowed Wells Fargo to avoid admitting any wrongdoing. 

The controversy over the San Francisco-based financial institution has become the latest flash point in a bitter battle between Republicans and Democrats over the fate of the CFPB, which was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank overhaul of financial regulations.

The legislation passed with almost no GOP support. Ever since, House and Senate Republicans have been trying unsuccessfully to reduce the power of the bureau, arguing it was designed to avoid congressional oversight and has limited consumer’s access to credit through over-regulation.” [LATimes]

Interesting that the very Republicans who were trying to reduce the power and capacity of the CFPB to regulate lending practices are now trying to blame the agency for not doing enough, fast enough.

“Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said Republicans are pushing “a false narrative” about the CFPB’s role in the Wells Fargo case in order to discredit the agency.

“The fact is the CFPB and OCC were investigating before the L.A. Times story came out,” he said. “But that does not mean that the leading congressional opponent of the CFPB won’t try to pitch that narrative again at this hearing because it plays to his base. But it’s simply false.” [LATimes]

Nice try, Rep. Hensarling, but there’s an ample record of Republican opposition to the creation, organization, and implementation of the CFPB to make any contention that the 1,600 man/woman agency wasn’t trying to do its job in regard to the egregious practices of Wells Fargo. As the old saw goes: That dog won’t hunt.

So, the next question to Representative Heck (and Hardy and Amodei too) is: In light of the Wells Fargo scandalous behavior and the bilking of its own customers, what are you advocating to increase the power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to actually protect PEOPLE and not the bankers who have been scamming them?  No one chooses to get bilked, and no one should have to tolerate banks who chose to bilk their customers.  Period.

** On the other hand Nevadans who want adequate protection from illegal, illicit, and otherwise unethical banking practices have an advocate running for the U.S. Senate – Catherine Cortez Masto, who has a track record of taking on the big banking interests on behalf of us “little people who pay taxes.”   A candidate with an endorsement from the woman who fought for the CRPB, Elizabeth Warren:

“I’m so grateful to have Senator Warren’s support,” said Cortez Masto. “Senator Warren and I are both committed to taking on the big banks, protecting consumers, homeowners and helping to grow the middle class – issues I championed as Attorney General and hope continue doing in the U.S. Senate with her. Unlike my opponent Joe Heck who has voted to keep tax breaks for big corporations and billionaires like the Koch brothers, I will fight for policies that help hard working Nevadans, not hurt them.”

“Catherine’s race is critical to restoring our Democratic majority,” said Senator Warren. “During her two terms as Nevada’s Attorney General, Catherine held big banks accountable and fought predatory lending, cracked down on sex trafficking and got tough on elderly, child, and domestic abusers. Catherine knows who she’s fighting for and I need her fighting alongside me in the Senate.” [Link]

And there’s the choice – let the banks make the choices? Or, protect people from the banks’ bad choices.

Comments Off on Warning: Republicans Are Hazardous to Your Bank Account, and this includes Rep. Heck

Filed under Economy, financial regulation, Heck, koch brothers, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics, Republicans