Home > Personal Finance > The OCC Enters the Thunderdome: Bank Regulators Do Battle

Comments 0 Comments

Will states have the power to defend themselves against abusive bank policies? Or will a federal agency cozy with the nation’s largest banks prevent the states from doing anything? That’s the issue at the heart of an uncommonly public fight between two bank regulators with very different ideas about how best to protect consumers.

The issue came to a head this week when George W. Madison, top lawyer at the U.S. Treasury, sent a letter blasting the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in response to its proposal to continue overruling state banking laws pretty much the same way it did before the subprime mortgage crisis.

In his unusually blunt letter, Madison criticized the OCC for ignoring the intent of Congress, which passed a law last summer specifically limiting the comptroller’s power to preempt state laws.

“The notion that the new standard does not have any effect runs afoul of basic canons of statutory construction; it is also contrary to the legislative history,” Madison wrote.

Regarding the office’s plan, an OCC spokesman had this to say: “The comment process is a very important part of every rulemaking, and we will be carefully reviewing all comments we’ve received as we move toward a final rule.”

[Related: Watchdog: With Regulation, Consumer Mortgages Could Dry Up]

This whole thing might seem arcane to many. But actually, the question of federal preemption gets to the heart of the ongoing mortgage crisis. Beginning in the late 1990s, states began to notice the devastation happening across many neighborhoods and cities caused by predatory lending and abusive subprime mortgage loans.

Many of these loans were designed to fail, says Kathleen Engel, a law professor at Suffolk University who was among the first academics to research the trend. Mortgage companies made the loans to reap the upfront fees, and they structured many of the loans to have increasing interest rates, forcing homeowners to refinance. Every time they refinanced, the mortgage companies received another round of fees, eventually stripping homes of all their equity and forcing the homeowners into foreclosure and eviction.

“They were unsustainable from the get-go,” Engel says.

Some states, including North Carolina and Ohio, saw what was happening and passed laws to ban predatory lending. But the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency used its power of preemption as the nation’s primary banking regulator to strike down those laws, without passing new rules of its own to stop the practice.

The comptroller’s decision was widely criticized by housing experts and consumer advocates. The ruling was “at best, misguided, and at worst, a blatant attempt to increase the power of the OCC at the expense of homeowners, the sovereignty of the states, and the intent of Congress,” according to a letter to the OCC signed by nine consumer advocate groups in 2003.

Unfortunately, the advocates were right. The subprime mortgage spree eventually caused a massive economic bubble and the recession that followed, according to the final report by the Congressional Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.

[Related: Multiple Fronts in Mortgage Industry War]

In response to that crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, which included language reining in the comptroller’s power to override state law, but giving the comptroller’s office the power to write the final rule. The OCC’s proposal tweaks the wording, but otherwise keeps its current preemption power to overrule any state law that may “obstruct, impair or condition” the banking industry.

That, according to the Treasury, is totally bogus.

“This avoidance of the specific standard is inconsistent with the plain language” of Dodd-Frank, Madison wrote.

The attorneys general of all 50 states also wrote a letter criticizing the OCC’s proposal, calling it a power grab that could lead to a repeat of the current recession.

“Protection of consumers is a traditional state duty and power,” the state officials wrote. “The OCC does not have authority to preempt general state laws.”

Image © Heike Brauer | Dreamstime.com

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.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

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