Home > Personal Finance > Why the CFPB Is in Danger of Getting Trumped

Comments 0 Comments

Just beyond the Trump swelter of the hour, lawmakers have been busy concocting plans to dismantle key achievements of the Obama years. Among those accomplishments currently targeted is a concerted effort to destroy, defang, scrap (feel free to select the word) the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The CFPB was created to protect consumers from the kinds of predatory practices that played a big part in the financial meltdown of 2007 to 2008. The idea was simple: Create a federal agency to be, to quote Sen. Elizabeth Warren, “the cop on the beat” in the financial sector. The CFPB was to have the ability to take decisive action to shut down questionable practices. The CFPB was designed to be the regulatory safeguard against future financial wipeouts. (Think: Batman.)

It’s Populist!

Given the populist nature of Mr. Trump’s ascent to the White House, it remains for me a real head-scratcher as to precisely why the CFPB is on the chopping block.

The agency is tasked after all with policing financial products (and practices) that specifically take advantage of consumers. It has jurisdiction over a host of consumer “favorites” like credit reporting agencies, payday lenders, debt collectors, debt settlement companies and student loan servicers, as well as banks, credit unions, credit card companies and many other financial services organizations operating in the United States.

With the power to ban financial products deemed “deceptive, unfair or abusive,” the CFPB also possesses the authority to impose significant penalties on financial predators.

What kind of penalties are we talking about? More than $5 billion so far, including a record $100 million against Wells Fargo in 2016 ($185 million all in). The CFPB has helped nearly 30 million consumers recover several billions of dollars in remedies from financial companies. All this, and in 2016 the CFPB, experiencing a huge amount of growth both in programs and staff, stayed $67 million under its budget cap.

So, if the CFPB hasn’t been too expensive for the federal government to run, what’s the problem? Follow the money.

Conservatives argue that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (aka Dodd-Frank, the law that authorized the creation of the CFPB) has cost businesses more than $24 billion in compliance-related expenses and 61 million paperwork hours. It’s also a federal agency, and it has a fairly big budget. This is what the Republicans are focused on.

You can almost hear President Trump: “So, why are we spending so much money on this thing? It’s sad, really.”

It’s Under Attack

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, cited what he calls “the avalanche of regulations that smother the U.S. economic system” in his latest rally to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This so-called “avalanche” was in response to an economic event that nearly destroyed the world economy.

Hensarling seems to be motivated primarily by conservative ideology, a central tenet of which being that too much centralized power is a bad thing. “The CFPB is arguably the most powerful, least accountable agency in U.S. history,” Hensarling wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece. “CFPB zealots have the power to determine the ‘fairness’ of virtually every financial transaction in America. The agency defines its own powers and can launch investigations without cause, imposing virtually any fine or remedy, devoid of due process.”

In an Oct. 11, 2016, decision, a federal appeals court ruled that the president should have the authority to fire the director of the CFPB other than for cause. The agency is currently appealing the court’s decision. “Other than the President,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 2-1 majority, “the Director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire United States Government, at least when measured in terms of unilateral power.” Anticipating the popular response, Kavanaugh added, “That is not an overstatement.” [Update: On February 16, 2017, a U.S. appeals court agreed to reconsider the October ruling on May 24.]

The reason I say the attacks are mainly ideological is complicated, but in essence it seems like pressure from financial sector lobbyists plays a big part in the pushback against the CFPB and that the focus on centralized power is really just putting sheep’s clothing on an influence-buying wolf.

I don’t know how else to view the willful misunderstanding of what the CFPB actually does, which is simple: It demands accountability from financial institutions. The idea that, as Hensarling said, the CFPB “requires lenders essentially to read their clients’ minds, know and weigh their clients’ comprehension levels, and forecast future risk” is absurd.

Consider, if you will, the various ways consumers got screwed by the Wild West years in the finance world that led to the Great Recession. There is no mind reading required, but plenty of policing is needed.

It doesn’t matter if it’s the latest SNL sketch or Trump’s policy man Stephen Miller proclaiming that the new administration accomplished more in three weeks than most presidents achieve in four or even eight years — a claim that was quickly quashed — though I suppose he was right if you consider chaos an accomplishment. What matters is that we’re getting distracted from assaults on real progress made since 2008.

Killing the CFPB is an ill-advised and dangerous move, and one that will backfire on Republicans in the long run. As we as consumers filter through the latest, greatest Trump outrage (or triumph), and as we focus on the news cycle, huge things are happening behind the scenes. This one might be a doozy, making America unacceptably vulnerable again.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

Image: uschools

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team