In a quote potentially for the ages, John C. Dugan, Comptroller of the Currency since 2005, told the Senate Banking Committee yesterday, enforcement of consumer protection laws “should stay with the bank regulators, where it works well.”
This is a bold statement. Does Mr. Dugan have any evidence to support the idea that consumer protection vis-à-vis financial products currently works well? A close reading of his written testimony to the Senate Banking committee reveals none.
In fact, his whole testimony sounds like it comes from a parallel universe – one that did not just experience the biggest banking crisis in world history.
On p.18 of his testimony, he does have a good statement of the broader issues (emphasis added).
“Today’s severe consumer credit problems can be traced to the multi-year policy of easy money and easy credit that led to an asset bubble, with too many people getting loans that could not be repaid when the bubble burst. With respect to these loans – especially mortgages – the core problem was lax underwriting that relied too heavily on rising house prices. Inadequate consumer protections – such as inadequate and ineffective disclosures – contributed to this problem, because in many cases consumers did not understand the significant risks of complex loans that had seductively low initial monthly payments. Both aspects of the problem – lax underwriting and inadequate consumer protections – were especially acute in loans made by nonbank lenders that were not subject to federal regulation.”
The “especially acute” in the last sentence may be correct, but we know that many regulated banks (covered by all the existing regulators) participated in exactly the same rip-offs of consumers – which created the basis for a financial system meltdown.
Remember that the OCC supervises over 1,500 national banks, which includes many that have run into serious difficulties recently (a full list is not easy to find, but start here and here; or use this search; the list includes Citi, BoA, Wells Fargo, etc). (Post here stories of how OCC-supervised banks either took care of you as a consumer or mistreated you. Did the OCC side with you or the bank?)
The heart of Mr. Dugan’s objection to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) as proposed appears on p.25,
“The Proposal would vest all consumer protection rulewriting authority in the CFPA, which in turn would not be constrained in any meaningful way by safety and soundness concerns. That presents serious issues because, in critical aspects of bank supervision, such as underwriting standards, consumer protection cannot be separated from safety and soundness.”
Mr. Dugan wants to put the bank first – and if that involves taking more from the consumer or even taking advantage of the consumer, so be it (read the first full paragraph on p.26 carefully).
My favorite statement comes at the end.
“Our experience at the OCC has been that effective, integrated safety and soundness and compliance supervision grows from the detailed, core knowledge that our examiners develop and maintain about each bank’s organizational structure, culture, business lines, products, services, customer base, and level of risk; this knowledge and expertise is cultivated through regular on-site examinations and contact with our community banks, and close, day-to-day focus on the activities of larger banks.”
Is this why almost all our major banks essentially failed in 2008?
By Simon Johnson