Posts Tagged ‘Consumer Protection’

John Berlau

Richard Cordray’s ‘Heroes’ Occupy Banks and Private Homes

by John Berlau

When asked about the “Occupy Wall Street” movement in October, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren praised it to the hilt. “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do,” she told the Daily Beast. Yet when pressed in November on the OWS adherents’ increasingly violent tactics, she told a Boston TV interviewer: “Everybody has to follow the law. There’s no exception on that.”

But Warren’s apparent disavowal of the tactics of OWS and like-minded community organizers may not be shared by Richard Cordray, President Obama’s nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Warren designed. Cordray has long supported ESOP, formerly known as the East Side Organizing Project, an Ohio housing advocacy group that has distinguished itself by storming into banks and launching plastic “shark attacks” on the lawns of private homes. ESOP’s leaders brag about what they call their “organized hits” on banks and other targets, which have included the home of the late Congressman and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp.

As Ohio treasurer and attorney general, Cordray lobbied for state and federal funding for ESOP and publicly praised funders of the group as “the real heroes.” And in a highly unusual move for a nominee awaiting confirmation, Cordray returned to Ohio in October to be the keynote speaker at the group’s gala dinner.

Since his nomination in July to head the bureau created by the Dodd-Frank financial “reform” law, Republicans have held fast against confirmation. But largely, they haven’t made Cordray’s state record an issue. They have focused instead on structural defects in the agency’s design, such as the massive new powers the bureau will have to ban financial products it deems “abusive” and its lack of accountability to Congress.

These criticisms are valid, but they may not be enough to hold Senate Republicans together without criticism of the nominee’s merits. Just before Thanksgiving, Scott Brown (R-Mass.), facing a tough reelection challenge from Warren, became the first GOPer to commit to voting for Cordray. The Democrat-controlled Senate plans to hold a vote on his confirmation this week, possibly as early as Tuesday. Human Events‘ Neil McCabe reports that in addition to Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, other GOP targets for Cordray supporters include Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Tennessee’s Bob Corker, and Cordray’s home state Senator Rob Portman of Ohio (though Portman seemed to reaffirm his opposition in a statement to Human Events last week).

But Cordray’s support of ESOP needs further scrutiny, particularly since as head of the bureau, he will have the power to help funnel federal support to ESOP and like-minded community organizers with virtually no oversight by Congress. And a report by Bloomberg News suggests that Cordray specifically blessed ESOP’s “organized hits” on banks and homes.

(more…)

Capitol Confidential

CFPB: The Bureau of Situational Social Justice

by Capitol Confidential

When Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) was convinced by a retailing giant to enact legislation imposing price controls on credit card transactions he engineered a massive wealth transfer from credit card companies to retailers – a cost that would ultimately be borne by consumers.  Opponents of Durbin’s fee warned of the consequences of his actions including increased costs for consumers and elimination of credit card incentive programs.  As Milton Friedman said, “there is no free lunch.”

After the government imposed their fee cap, the marketplace responded predictably.  Banks, including Bank of America, raised fees on consumers in order to cover the cost imposed by the Durbin Amendment.  Caught with his tail between his legs, Durbin and his allies declared war on the banks.  In a letter to the newly codified Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Durbin accused banks of trying to “sneak fees past” consumer and “urge[d]” the CFPB to “swiftly require financial institutions to post on their websites a standardized, concise and consumer-friendly disclosure form that lists the fees and key terms associated with checking accounts.”

Whether Durbin is successful in fighting back remains to be seen but what we do know is we now have a government agency at the disposal of elected officials that will police marketplace policies, fee structures and pricing decisions.  If it’s not bad enough that the Bureau will make regulatory decisions based on the political whims of politicians, their own justification for regulations are worse.  Much worse.

(more…)

Capitol Confidential

The Perils of Government Regulations and Unintended Consequences

by Capitol Confidential

Washington public policy is replete with examples of government regulators thinking they know best, imposing new government rules that then exacerbate the existing problems. As things become worse, they blame the free market and call for more government regulations to fix the burdens they created.  Of course, just as it was the first time, the cure is worse than the disease. And the vicious cycle continues.

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren could be the poster child for the law of unintended consequences.  Warren’s career was built upon advocacy of government regulations that created bigger problems than those she initially addressed.  As the problems compound, so does her call for even more government red tape.

All of this mader her a hero to the progressive community, a Harvard professor, an advisor to the president and a creator of a new regulation-pushing agency of government known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  Maybe once, she will get something right but don’t hold your breath. The housing market collapse is a case in point.

In 1994, President Clinton and his cronies laid the groundwork for the creation of the Housing Bubble and the Wall Street crisis a decade later.  The Investors Business Daily uncovered a “smoking gun” memo that declared war on a near invisible enemy – racism is mortgage lending:

(more…)

Brad Schaeffer

Durbin’s Amendment: Handout to Retailers Is Why Banks Are Charging You More

by Brad Schaeffer

On Fox Business’ Freedom Watch last week I sat down with Democratic strategist and former Chuck Schumer aide Christopher Hahn to discuss the “ Durbin amendment” to the Dodd-Frank Bill.  If you are unfamiliar with the attachment to the bill, you may nonetheless be feeling the effects soon enough in the form of higher banking fees from checking account maintenance to debit card usage.

What the amendment (that went into effect on October 1st) does is place a cap on per-transaction “swipe fees” that banks charge retailers when purchases are made via debit cards.  They used to charge retailers roughly 44 cents per transaction.  Dodd-Frank limits this to 21 cents.  Since these fees are absorbed by the retailers, it doesn’t take a Wharton Business School degree to see that the immediate beneficiaries of this government intrusion into the private sector are the so-called big-box, high-volume retailers such as Walmart, Walgreens, Home Depot, Target, and others.

Mr. Hahn may have offered the weak Democratic operative/apologist defense of the bill in that Durbin was just doing what Senators do by helping his constituents, but I made it a point to remind him that the populist senator’s constituents in this case are not the consumers in his state but rather Big Retail.  The last time I checked, many retail titans are far wealthier than most Wall Street “fat cats” already.  The Walton family’s combined wealth far outstrips Warren Buffett’s (or Bill Gates’, for that matter), making them the de facto richest family in the world.  They are about to get a little wealthier as Walmart reaps its share of this estimated $7 billion annual windfall the Durbin amendment shifts from the banking to the retail sector. (more…)

Capitol Confidential

Elizabeth Warren May Be Gone, but the Agency She Built Lives On

by Capitol Confidential

If the American Left has a Joan of Arc, her name would be Elizabeth Warren.  The Harvard professor was the designer and creator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the independent regulatory agency that was given the power to regulate every financial transaction in America without proper checks and balances from Congress.

The plan was for Warren to head the Bureau and conduct a reign of regulatory terror on the economy.  But even President Obama got cold feet.  Warren was too radical to be confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.  So Warren picked her replacement, Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, packed her bags back to Massachusetts and declared a run for the US Senate.

The arrogance of power and the ignorance of history may be the best way to describe Warren and the government agency she concocted.  The philosophy behind the Bureau is simple – the learned and intelligencia must control the marketplace in order to protect the simple-minded.

We were given a little insight into her philipsophy by a person who videotaped a recent campaign appearance.  In Warren’s worldview, your success is dictated not by your efforts to work hard or your ingenuity, but by the state.

Warren addressed the issue of class-warfare in a manner appropriate for the Harvard faculty lounge.

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.’ No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own —nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

This arrogance extends beyond a philosophical debate.

(more…)

Andrew Mellon

IndyMac Attack: Did Schumer, Paulson, Soros, and the CRL Kill the Bank and Profit From Its Collapse?

by Andrew Mellon

At the end of 2007, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson invested $15 million in the leftist non-profit, Center for Responsible Lending, their largest single donation ever. Around the same time, Paulson and his employees contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed, at the time, by Sen. Chuck Schumer. Roughly six months later, CRL and Sen. Schumer both launched a highly public attack on the California-based mortgage lender, Indymac. The lender failed, wiping out the investment of thousands of people. Roughly six months after that, John Paulson, in partnership with George Soros, bought up the remnants of Indymac for pennies on the dollar.

It is a drama that no longer surprises us, unfortunately. Wealthy investors use their access to elected officials and their checkbook to advocacy groups for private profit. But this story has a twist; a top executive of CRL when this deal went down, Eric Stein, is now working at the Treasury Department,  heading up the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Mr. Stein will be the chief federal official designing regulations to protect consumers. Right.

This is that story.

1221-Hedgefunds-Tepper-Soros_full_600-1

Financial crises create opportunities. Prudent and discerning entrepreneurs who save their capital for a rainy day are able to acquire assets at firesale prices and put these assets to higher and better uses. Market forces cleanse wasteful malinvestments, innovative business models make existing ones obsolete and the economy roars forward all the stronger for it.

But while market entrepreneurs generally prosper during times of great dislocation, ultimately to the benefit of all participants in the economy, today political entrepreneurs have hijacked the economic system. The politically connected elites have used this downturn to carry out a massive wealth transfer from the people to the public and private sectors, fleecing the middle class for their own enrichment.  In their hypocrisy, the long ago small businesses that grew large because of free markets have helped chain these markets through lobbying for regulations and subsidies to shield themselves from competition and their own errors.

This has occurred most egregiously in the financial sector, where there has been a veritable free-for-all in legalized political plunder.  Those who understand the illusory nature of our monetary and symbiotically related political and financial systems have clamored to profit as much as possible before the house of cards falls, with the sanction of our supposed representatives.

(more…)

Anthony Randazzo

Obama’s Wall Street Regulations as Behavioral Control

by Anthony Randazzo

As Congress prepares to move forward on financial services regulation, it’s worth taking a step back to look at the proposals for what they really are: behavioral control mechanisms. This is not to say that regulation is inherently bad. A free market can only exist within a framework of rules for competition. And there are certainly some good aspects of the White House plan to reform Wall Street’s rules. But the core measures the president wants passed before the end of the year are simply the expansion of government to dictate terms of action to financial institutions and consumers.

First, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) is an attempt to control the behavior of financial institutions, and what they can or cannot offer. It is an attempt to govern the behavior of individuals who are apparently no longer capable of bearing responsibility for their own actions in choosing financial products. Wright and Zywicki write for FinReg21 that there is a “high likelihood of unintended consequences that will result from [CFPA] actions, including reducing competition and valuable consumer choice.”

skinner

Second, derivative regulation reform proposals would make it very expensive and complicated to write unique derivative contracts between firms, with rules designed to push the market towards using more standardized products. Why? Because standard contracts are easier to monitor, easier to control.

Third, the tiered structure for regulating financial institutions will create categories that allow the government to vary its regulatory rules based on the arbitrary perception of risk in the market by the regulators. Washington is looking to control how much risk firms can take, and what kinds of risks.

And fourth, the executive pay rules that passed the House and are now before the Senate Banking Committee, grant the government authority to restrict compensation packages it deems “threatening” to the financial sector. Not only is a grab at more control, this power would allow regulators to intimidate companies into setting pay by its terms without ever having to exercise the power.

(more…)