ABA Perspective Reigning in a Regulator Gone Rogue
In an American Banker op- ed earlier this year, I called out the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the leadership of Rohit Chopra as a “regulator gone rogue.” I’m not alone in my criticism: in September, 12 Republican lawmakers took the bureau to task over what they called a “radical and highly-politicized agenda unbounded by statutory limits.”
Rob Nichols, President and CEO American Bankers Association
Unfortunately, the bureau has continued to push legal boundaries on several different fronts in recent months.
First, the bureau has waged an aggressive public relations campaign against so-called “junk fees” — using a term the CFPB coined to demonize the legitimate fees, including overdraſt fees, that banks charge consumers for the products and services they offer. Trowing these fees in with things like concert ticket processing
fees, resort fees and other surprise fees charged by retailers and hospitality businesses was a deliberate move to confuse the public about the well-disclosed fees they currently pay. (For the record, banks don’t charge resort or ticket fees, nor does the CFPB have authority to regulate those types of fees.)
Another alarming step by the Chopra bureau was its decision to update the UDAAP section of its exam manual in a way that fundamentally upends the regulatory approach to fair lending supervision and enforcement, without providing industry stakeholders or the public the opportunity to provide feedback through the notice and comment process under the Administrative Procedure Act. Instead, the CFPB chose to take a backdoor route to expand its authority — giving itself the ability to examine for alleged disparate treatment
or impact across all areas of bank operations using the authorities granted by the Dodd-Frank Act under its authority to prevent “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices.”
In reality, the CFPB’s authority to enforce anti- discrimination laws is limited to credit products. It’s clear that this move is an attempt by the bureau to set itself up as a “super-regulator” of financial practices using authority Congress did not give it.
To be clear: ABA fully supports the fair enforcement of the nation’s anti-discrimination laws. We simply believe these laws should be enforced by regulators within the boundaries set by Congress. Tis updated manual does not qualify.
Given that the bureau has not seen fit to rescind the manual — despite previous
6
mobankers.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32
