Home > Personal Finance > What Could Happen to the CFPB Under President Trump?

Comments 0 Comments

Since the day it was created, Republicans have talked about dismantling or defanging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). With the surprise election of Donald Trump as the next president, and continued Republican control of Congress, the GOP will certainly have that chance. It won’t be easy, however.

The brainchild of then-Harvard bankruptcy professor Elizabeth Warren, the CFPB was created in the wake of the financial meltdown caused, in part, by consumer confusion and missteps when using products like complex mortgages. Among its first tasks was creating simplified documents for home sale closings. It has also taken on a host of other controversial financial products, like payday loans and private student loans.

Consumers have generally been receptive to the agency, which celebrated its fifth anniversary this summer. At the time, it said it had helped 27 million consumers get $11.7 billion in relief from financial businesses. More than 700,000 consumers had filed a complaint with the bureau. And that was before a $185 million settlement with Wells Fargo for deceptive cross-selling.

On the other hand, Republicans in Congress have tried — via token legislative efforts destined for presidential vetoes — to kill the bureau. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced the Repeal CFPB Act just last year, for example. They claim it has too much power and is hurting financial institutions with burdensome regulations.

Authors of the law that created the CFPB worked hard to design an agency that could be above the whims of party swings in Washington D.C. It is run by a single executive, instead of the typical five-member executive committee, like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The CFPB executive serves five-year terms that are out of synch with presidential elections, and the law stipulated that the chair could only be removed ‘for cause.’ Its funding source is not Congress, but the Federal Reserve, to prevent meddling pressure from the Capitol when Congress members might dislike individual bureau decisions.

That independence, which CFPB creator Warren has said was critical for the bureau to perform its watchdog function, has been the source of Republicans’ distaste.

“Most troubling is the fact that the CFPB is completely unaccountable to Congress and the American people,” Rep. John Ratcliffe (D-Texas) wrote in a letter explaining his sponsorship of a House version of the Repeal CFPB Act. “This unique setup makes the CFPB the least accountable regulatory agency in the federal government; a situation that invites regulatory excess and abuse.”

That setup was clearly designed to prevent a future Republican administration from killing the bureau; it will be tested now. On the campaign trail, Trump said he would work to repeal the Dodd-Frank law — the omnibus financial reform legislation that included the creation of the CFPB. His specific views on dismantling the CFPB are unknown, but he’s made little secret about his distaste for Warren, its creator.

The CFPB did not respond to a request for comment to its press office.

Could the CFPB Be Eliminated? 

Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director of advocacy organization PIRG, says the CFPB’s structure makes it even harder to dismantle than Obamacare. So a complete elimination is quite unlikely.

“Changing the CFPB’s policy-based statute, unlike Obamacare … is subject to a 60-vote filibuster in the Senate. That’s the main hurdle,” he said.

But there will be plenty of ways to chip away at the bureau’s power via legislative maneuvering. That effort has long been under way.

“We expect [Republicans] to try and bypass that rule by attaching riders to either full appropriations bills next year or continuing resolutions,” he said. “In fact, riders to eliminate independent funding, convert it to a commission, delay the payday and arbitration rules, and more, have been attached to the House and Senate appropriations bills for years, but stripped in negotiations with the White House.”

The CFPB is right in the middle of enacting a new set of payday lending rules, and rules extending credit card like protections to newly popular prepaid debit cards. The fate of these rule-making processes is uncertain.

The biggest uncertainty, however, is the future of director Richard Cordray. Currently serving a term set to expire in 2018, a surprise federal court decision in October sets the stage for his early removal.

While considering the appeal of a penalty issued to a mortgage seller for alleged kickbacks, a federal appeals court in Washington D.C. found that the CFPB’s “removable only for cause” structure for the bureau’s director was unconstitutional. The court’s ruling means that, for now, the CFPB director serves at the will of the president, and can be removed for any reason.

It’s been expected that the CFPB will appeal that ruling, but the timing of such an appeal is now urgent.

“If the … decision stands, of course, on January 21 Trump could remove Cordray,” Mierzwinski said. “Most think it will be appealed before then and many think it will be reversed.”

Or, it could be the source of a bargaining chip between parties. The appeals court panel suggested that a commission structure would pass the Constitutional check.

A Commission on the Horizon?

CFPB critics say they favor a commission structure because it would add a layer of checks and balances to the bureau’s actions. Several bills, including the Financial Product Safety Commission Act of 2015, have been introduced by Republicans to change the structure of the agency.

“We just believe it creates an environment for more sensible rule-making from collaboration, much like among this committee, from different minds,” Wally Murray, chairman of the Nevada Credit Union League, said during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on the CFPB last year. “When you have one person in charge of the entire bureau, who sets that agenda? One person essentially. We just feel like it’s a more common sense approach to coming out with common sense regulation.”

The structure would also bring the CFPB in line with other federal agencies, like the FTC and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

And that’s the problem, CFPB supporters argue. Sure, a set of regulators already had authority over banks during the run-up to the housing bubble collapse. They weren’t nimble enough to stop bad practices before the damages was done.

“Part of the reason the agency has succeeded is the current single-director structure makes it easier for Congress to hold someone accountable for the agency’s core mission — concentrating the mind in a way that does not occur with multi-person boards,” Warren wrote in an op-ed defending the bureau. “The single-director structure also allows the agency to be more nimble in responding to new and emerging threats to consumers, to move faster and more definitively. And the structure permits the head of the agency to stay focused on protecting consumers, rather than burning time managing partisan sniping and bickering among the political appointees on a commission.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has been more blunt in her assessment of the proposed commission structure.

“Why are bankers, other lenders and their political allies so enamored of commissions? Because they often succumb to partisan gridlock and are only rarely able to summon the will to stand up to corporate power,” she said earlier this year. “The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, has yet to do much of anything about the built-in corruption of the credit rating agencies, eight years after the rating agencies played such a conspicuous role in causing the financial crisis.”

Waters also pointed out the other regulators, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, have single-director structures.

“What’s so different about the CFPB? It’s the first and only financial oversight agency with a mandate to put fairness, transparency and the safety of consumers and borrowers ahead of the power and profits of banks and financial companies,” she said. “The lawmakers attacking the legitimacy of its governing structure have made it abundantly clear that what they really object to is the idea of a regulatory body successfully wielding its power on behalf of consumers and the public interest.”

That power is sure to be tested now.

Image: andykatz

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.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

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