Regulatory: If banks don’t do anything wrong, they have nothing to worry about, right?
The cost related to the bureaus regulatory power is choking consumers.
September 15, 2011 at 09:37 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This column is part of a series of articles on the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the upcoming wave of regulations affecting the consumer financial industry
The debate over whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets to be as powerful and independent as provided in the Dodd-Frank Act rages on even though the statute has been in place for more than a year. Title X—the bureau's enabling statute—has been fully effective since July; fully effective, that is, other than it has no director.
Forty-four republican members of Congress vowed long ago not to approve anyone nominated to the position of bureau director until the director's unitary powers were severed and the bureau's funding placed back within the budgetary control of Congress. So far, these 44 senators have kept that vow by dodging a recess appointment and refusing to seriously consider President Obama's nomination of Richard Cordray as the bureau's first director. Political views aside, this remains stunningly good theater, albeit theater that approaches the absurd.
Meanwhile, one thing that is easily overlooked is that Dodd-Frank, Title X, and the bureau will continue to increase costs to every consumer of financial products and services. Mortgages are going to cost more. Credit cards are going to cost more. Virtually any type of consumer loan product that you can imagine is going to have added costs associated with them. Why?
First, and most significantly, new regulations mean increased costs. There is simply no way around this truism. The regulations expected to spawn from the Dodd-Frank Act may exceed 10,000 pages before all is said and done. And for the consumer financial services industry, that is not all there is to worry about and comply with. There is a new agency with some very broad powers and new statutory provisions that attempt to legislate fairness in the industry. The compliance issues here are manifest and beyond debate.
Second, the uncertainty of where the bureau is going is not helping to reduce costs. Planning these days consists of a series of “what if's,” not the least of which is “what if the bureau has a director,” and “what if the director is Cordray.”
The market for consumer credit is just not like it was before. Care to hazard a guess at why?
David Lazarus, a well-respected business columnist for the Los Angeles Times, recently and succinctly argued that “[i]f banks do nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.” He is not alone in that sentiment, of course. The bureau was built with this concept as one of its pillars. But it is flawed. Banks can do nothing wrong and still suffer the consequences of the legislation. And guess who will share in those consequences? If you said “consumers,” give yourself a high five.
“But these are banks, they can afford it.” Naïve. All banks are not made equal. The costs of complying with Dodd-Frank will easily fly into the billions. This has the potential to strain even the major banks. Plainly, though, small town community banks that so many people love are likely to suffer the most. They simply do not have the same level of resources that the majors or even the regionals have. Surveys suggest that many community banks are looking for exit strategies, a tall order in this economy.
So, what to do?
There is little in the way of choice at this point. If you are a bank or any other type of financial services company that services consumers, you do your best to comply. You spend the money and hope. If you are a consumer, you can take some comfort that you have a new “cop on the beat,” as the bureau likes to call itself. But you must wonder, if you have not already, why things cost more while the credit you may really need seems relatively scarce. Can we blame Title X for all this? I do.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250