• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wells Fargo Bank

From the administration that wants to severely lessen the impact of the CFPB. I wonder if I'm the only one who will see that irony.

They will negotiate it down. No, not cash on hand.

The CFPB is required to keep crooks like Wells Fargo in check.
With all of the different scams they have done, they deserve every dime of the fine.
 
The CFPB is required to keep crooks like Wells Fargo in check.
With all of the different scams they have done, they deserve every dime of the fine.

I agree, but that wasn't my point. Trump and the Republicans are trying to scale down the CFPB's power dramatically. The Wells fine proved, once again, the value and importance of the CFPB existing at least as strongly as it does today.
 
I agree, but that wasn't my point. Trump and the Republicans are trying to scale down the CFPB's power dramatically. The Wells fine proved, once again, the value and importance of the CFPB existing at least as strongly as it does today.

Ah, I see, thank you.

Given the financial industry's disclosure about derivatives as a major cause of the 2009 meltdown, Wall Street cannot be trusted to self regulate.
 
Maybe they have insurance?

After all of their exposed illegal actions during the last year, surely no insurance company would cover them.
 
After all of their exposed illegal actions during the last year, surely no insurance company would cover them.

You can get insurance for anything...as long as you pay the price.
 
Wells Fargo had a quarterly profit of 6 billion in its last 4th quarter. A 1 billion dollar fine is nothing to what it earns in a year

"... And the industry is extraordinarily profitable. Wells Fargo, for example, said last week that it earned $5.9 billion in the first three months of the year. Other big banks reported similarly booming results — a far cry from an industry ravaged by overbearing regulators."

I think they'll be ok. Loan insurance products are incredibly profitable for banks.
 
I agree, but that wasn't my point. Trump and the Republicans are trying to scale down the CFPB's power dramatically. The Wells fine proved, once again, the value and importance of the CFPB existing at least as strongly as it does today.

This fine proved no such thing. The CFPB was a consolidation of regulation and oversight of 7 different agencies and nothing in any proposed changes would have make the illegal actions of Wells Fargo less illegal. Furthermore, the 4 proposed changes wouldn't have made these less illegal either.

In the agency's report to Congress, Mulvaney suggested four major changes, all of which would limit the CFPB's authority and independence.

First, he wants Congress to control the CFPB's funding. Currently, it is funded by the Federal Reserve, a provision designed to shield the consumer protection agency from political pressure.

He also wants to change the law to make directors of the CFPB subject to termination by the President, like administration political appointees. Under the law, the director can only be fired by the President for cause.

Mulvaney also suggests Congress appoint a CFPB inspector general to respond to complaints about the bureau and its officials. And finally, the acting director said Congress should give itself the power to finalize all bureau rules.

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cfpb-director-asks-congress-to-reduce-the-agencys-power-040318.html

Are these changes minor? That is debatable. Did the fines prove what you said? Absolutely not.
 
This fine proved no such thing. The CFPB was a consolidation of regulation and oversight of 7 different agencies and nothing in any proposed changes would have make the illegal actions of Wells Fargo less illegal. Furthermore, the 4 proposed changes wouldn't have made these less illegal either.



https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cfpb-director-asks-congress-to-reduce-the-agencys-power-040318.html

Are these changes minor? That is debatable. Did the fines prove what you said? Absolutely not.

I make my living dealing with the CFPB. Please don't presume to tell me about them, and I'll show you the same courtesy of not telling you about the line of business you are in, which I presumably know as much about as you do about banking regulations and the CFPB.
 
I make my living dealing with the CFPB. Please don't presume to tell me about them, and I'll show you the same courtesy of not telling you about the line of business you are in, which I presumably know as much about as you do about banking regulations and the CFPB.

I deal with the turnpike every day but that doesn't make me an expert of transportation. Fine, you work with them, I'm sure you do good work, but a fine does not prove "the value and importance of the CFPB" as those acts were still illegal before the CFPB. If you choose to make a statement such as the CFPB did something to bring about the fine more expeditiously, then I can't refute that and your experience would be relevant.

I also don't have time to look up each users occupation before posting and I deal with each post one at a time. Get off your high horse and deal with my challenge of your statement by countering them, or by not responding.
 
I deal with the turnpike every day but that doesn't make me an expert of transportation. Fine, you work with them, I'm sure you do good work, but a fine does not prove "the value and importance of the CFPB" as those acts were still illegal before the CFPB. If you choose to make a statement such as the CFPB did something to bring about the fine more expeditiously, then I can't refute that and your experience would be relevant.

I also don't have time to look up each users occupation before posting and I deal with each post one at a time. Get off your high horse and deal with my challenge of your statement by countering them, or by not responding.

My statements were clear. I have been posting about the CFPB repeatedly on this board since it was created. You are free to search my many, many posts on them through the years. I don't have time to educate an anonymous poster on a message board about the CFPB.

I suggest months of research on the CFPB, the governing bodies of the FRB, OCC, NCUA and FDIC, the alphabet soup of regulations - federal and state-specific - the Dodd-Frank Financial reform bill, the circuit courts before understanding the background of the Wells Fargo case, as well as the many hundreds of others that you won't read about and which are now going through the courts.
 
Fair statement. The sky would be limitless.

Most banks carry D&O insurance, which protects them in the event of penalties which are levied against bank directors and officers. Banks really can't get insurance that covers them against class action suits and large penalties from their regulators or the governing bodies, like this one, so they have reserves in their risk management budgets to cover the monetary penalties.
 
My statements were clear. I have been posting about the CFPB repeatedly on this board since it was created. You are free to search my many, many posts on them through the years. I don't have time to educate an anonymous poster on a message board about the CFPB.

I suggest months of research on the CFPB, the governing bodies of the FRB, OCC, NCUA and FDIC, the alphabet soup of regulations - federal and state-specific - the Dodd-Frank Financial reform bill, the circuit courts before understanding the background of the Wells Fargo case, as well as the many hundreds of others that you won't read about and which are now going through the courts.

You have done nothing to indicate that the fine alone proves the value of CFPB, that was my point. You likely know more to say that there is proof, but you haven't shown it. I'll say it again: "Get off your high horse and deal with my challenge of your statement by countering them, or by not responding." Remember, on an anonymous message board, you are anonymous too.
 
You have done nothing to indicate that the fine alone proves the value of CFPB, that was my point. You likely know more to say that there is proof, but you haven't shown it. I'll say it again: "Get off your high horse and deal with my challenge of your statement by countering them, or by not responding." Remember, on an anonymous message board, you are anonymous too.

Yes, I'm anonymous.

I don't have to prove the value of the CFP to you. It's up to you to research it, and all of the other things I mentioned, and decide the value for yourself. You don't know anything about this industry and as I already said, I don't have the time to educate you on it. I barely have enough time to educate my clients.
 
Yes, I'm anonymous.

I don't have to prove the value of the CFP to you. It's up to you to research it, and all of the other things I mentioned, and decide the value for yourself. You don't know anything about this industry and as I already said, I don't have the time to educate you on it. I barely have enough time to educate my clients.

Does 'educating your clients' require scented massage oils!?
:mrgreen::lamo
 
Yes, I'm anonymous.

I don't have to prove the value of the CFP to you. It's up to you to research it, and all of the other things I mentioned, and decide the value for yourself. You don't know anything about this industry and as I already said, I don't have the time to educate you on it. I barely have enough time to educate my clients.

That would be so cool if I were arguing the value of the CFPB, in general, which I'm not. I'm arguing that the imposition of fines on Wells Fargo do not "the value and importance of the CFPB". By definition, that would mean that the fines would not have happened without the CFPB, which I can't believe you are arguing. Perhaps you can point to some regulation which the CFPB brought about that did not exist prior to the CFPB. As for an anonymous message board, you know nothing about what I know and don't know about the banking/credit industries and their associated regulations. How presumptive of you.

I have challenged your contention and despite all the grandstanding about how much knowledge you have, I have not belittled anything you said or anything you represented about yourself. I merely disagreed with your conclusion about the Wells Fargo fines proving the value of the CFPB. Perhaps if you are so busy you should stop responding to a post I made over a week ago, but that is your decision. If you choose to respond, which I'd rather you didn't, please at least counter my one and only point.
 
Back
Top Bottom