The Supreme Court has ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional in a 5-4 vote and overturns decisions by a federal district court and appeals court. The CFPB is allowed to continue to operate but its Director (Kathy Kraninger) can be removed by the President at will. The CFPB was originally set up after the 2008 financial crisis and through 2017 had returned nearly $12 billion to consumers.
Please keep comments on topic.
Hat tip to DDG
Based on this story, CFPB should either be abolished immediately, or at least the communist infiltration should be purged. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/townstone-financial-fires-back-at-cfpb-discrimination-lawsuit/
This stuff is a runaway train unless people put a stop to it.
long live CFPB!
Toothless tiger organization anyway. They did nothing more than forward your complaint then the bank just ignores it. CFPB needed to be given more power to arbitrate
they were helpful for me a couple years back with US Bank and HSBC bonuses though, and most recently kinda helpful in 2019 for a Citi bonus that took 6 months from end of bonus period to resolve
The organization is worse than useless now, it actually hurts matters because it takes responsibility from other agencies that could have helped. However, that’s by design. Mick Mulvaney who was in charge of it, hated the CFPB from the start and railed against it while in Congress. When Richard Cordray was in charge, the organization was incredibly effective.
Most of my interactions with CFPB have been about banks that failed to pay a promotion. Under Cordray, all I had to do was file a complaint via a webpage, and within literally 2 or 3 days, I’d get my money. It was GREAT! It’s toothless now because Trump (deliberately) chose someone to lead it that actively advocated for dismantling it.
Can someone tell me what differences they observed following the creation of the CFPB? Other than the fact that it exists, and you can file complaints with it, the ripple effects haven’t been clear to me (presumably because I didn’t start following this blog until well after it had been established).
It used to be that when you made a complaint where you were legitimately in the right, the banks would not be able to stonewall you and would be forced to reply to you within a time period and indemnify you for losses, or rectify the issue, under penalty of fines. Also, they used to publish complaints publicly with identifying information redacted.
Love CFPB. I’ve never used them for bonuses or anything like that. Instead, I used them against predatory lending such as my home refinance. I am an accountant and it’s hard to understand the true closing costs of a home refinance but hey, that’s what I do for living. Upon auditing my final costs, I found that the costs were not what I was initially promised and this is when CFPB kicks in. I spoke with someone there who understood exactly the differences between the initial good faith estimate versus that final HUD statement and she pointed out a couple of mistakes in my calculation. She told me that they devote quite a bit of resources to those types of complaints and they assign their best people to tackle those types of problems. I think the bank got reprimanded for messing around with the numbers.
for those of you saying this is bad, remember that this will mean that the 2020 winner can remove Trump’s appointee to the CFPB
True, Trump removing his own appointee wouldn’t be anything new.
@TW. Lol. He may indeed win again, which would be crazy.
@zoro
I think regardless of who wins in any election, if a new regime comes to power, all of the senior executives are replaced, including US attorneys and heads of any federal agency.
Thank god the CFPB was around last year. I had a ton of trouble getting back $2000 from chase when they closed an account. They claimed Citi never confirmed a cashier check. After two months of back and forth with Chase and Citigroup I filed a complaint. 10 days later I had a check for $2000.
A fascinating dissent from Justice Kagan that examines the rather modern ‘unitary executive’ theory of governance. Specifically, how the executive powers beyond the specifically enumerated military and foreign affairs clauses differ from the historical application to financial affairs.
I expect you took 15 minutes to write this message, proofreading over and over again.
tldr
You also put ‘specifically’ twice in one sentence.
Folks, the decision states CFPB is constitutional, only its structure of head appointing is unconstitutional.
CFPB won’t vanish or have any change in the near future, Congress should make CFPB leading by commissioners, no more one single director.
The decision is very clear, if agency is lead by A director, that director should be able to remove by the president anytime. If the agency is lead by commissioners, it’s protected by term.
Will probably affect the Federal Housing Finance Agency (Fannie and Freddie’s regulator) as well, since it’s structured basically the same way.
Any chance you made it to page 4 of the ruling?
“While the CFPB’s independent, single-Director structure is sufficient to render the agency unconstitutional, the Director’s five-year term and receipt of funds outside the appropriations process heighten the concern that the agency will “slip from the Executive’s control, and thus from that of the people.” ”
It’s disconcerting that so many people cheer on an agency created with no legitimate constitutional basis, operated by non-elected and non-removable leaders (as originally put in to law) that had the ability to create regulations and rules out of thin air, fine companies millions of dollars and not have any executive or legislative oversight. As designed it couldn’t be controlled by Congress through the appropriations bills because it doesn’t even receive funding from Congress.
Yet, so many on this site pull out the pom poms and yell “Rah rah rah!” because the agency got them back $200 from Big Evil Bank Corp. that one time 3 years ago.
Yeah, it isn’t accountable to the legislative or executive branches, and that’s the best part about it. Since both those branches are hopelessly corrupted by regulatory capture, the only hope of making the agency genuinely effective was to make it accountable to no one.
“Accountable to no one.” That’s an absolutely frightening concept.
Especially for the big banks.
@Curmudgeon
You just described the Federal Reserve. Are you going to complain about them, too? Or, are they an exception to your rant? I wonder why the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled that the Federal Reserve is no different…or maybe it hasn’t been brought up yet?
“It’s disconcerting that so many people cheer on an agency created with no legitimate constitutional basis, operated by non-elected and non-removable leaders (as originally put in to law) that had the ability to create regulations and rules out of thin air, fine companies millions of dollars and not have any executive or legislative oversight. As designed it couldn’t be controlled by Congress through the appropriations bills because it doesn’t even receive funding from Congress.”
Oh dear…Curmudgeon is just another kid who was bullied in school. How terrible (or funny, depending on who you ask).
Toothless against evil Paypal though.