Talk:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Richard Cordray resource

• Mayors urge Richard Cordray’s appointment as head of CFPB (with related video) Dec 7, 2011 1:59 PM American City and County, by Stephen Ursery; excerpt ...

  The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) is urging the U.S. Senate to confirm Richard Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The push by USCM comes as Senate Republicans are vowing to block Cordray’s nomination in tomorrow’s scheduled vote. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., USCM President Antonio Villaraigosa and Vice President Michael Nutter lauded Cordray ...

99.181.136.158 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

---

United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau → Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – "United States" is unnecessary disambiguation not supported by official usage. See the bureau's official site, which features CFPB branding. Popular references to the "United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau" surely exist, but these are either errors or prose disambiguation and contextualization; without similar offices in other governments, the "United States" qualifier is an artifice of ours. Note that a majority of the other members of Category:Independent agencies of the United States government, as well as its parent Category:Agencies of the United States government, lack this designation. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - a> US is not only country in the world that has a something like this, even if they might not be named exactly the same, many translate into English as such. b> It appears that the official name is actually "Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection"but they use the initials CFPB. --MrBoire (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. If disambiguation is needed at a later date it can be disambiguated as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (United States), but if "United States" is not part of its official name then it shouldn't be tacked on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per WP:NC-GAL, use official names, example given United States Department of the Treasury. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• What evidence is there that the official name includes "United States" though? I don't see it on the website, at Learn about the Bureau or Creating the Consumer Bureau. Dodd–Frank established the bureau; although the references on that article are a mess, I see references to a "Consumer Financial Protection Agency," still without the "United States" qualifier. Of the references currently on the list, The New York Times, Mybanktracker.com, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, the Chicago Tribune, and Law360 also use the proposed form; only Reuters seems to use the current form (abbreviated as "U.S."). If your reading of WP:NC-GAL is correct, categories such as Category:Independent agencies of the United States government need mass renaming. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Read all of WP:NC-GAL. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I could respond more effectively to you if you were specific as to which part you were referring to. Is it the part about "pre-disambiguation"? This implies, as MrBoire says, that there are similarly named (in translation) bodies in other countries, but I haven't seen any evidence of that. Note that all three foreign language versions of this page—Spanish, Norwegian, and Chinese—use translated versions of the proposed form. Are there really foreign agencies that necessitate pre-disambiguation? --BDD (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:NC-GAL, unique agency titles (which this appears to be) need no qualifier. Powers ^T 15:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The official name doesn't include "United States". The example in WP:NC-GAL is mistaken and needs to be replaced, United States Department of the Treasury is disambiguated to distinguish it from other departments called Department of the Treasury. (it would be clearer if it was disambiguated as Department of the Treasury (US), but then it would sound less natural.) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional information

Thank you so much for your prompt reply and guidance on contributing to Wikipedia. In response to your sourcing suggestion, I pulled some third party sources for each section of the text and cited them below with links. Please don’t interpret my citation of these articles or other links as an endorsement of the source by me or the CFPB. I just thought these sources might assist you and others interested in improving the page.
I would be excited to assist any editors interested in enhancing the CFPB’s Wikipedia article. Of course, I work at the CFPB, so I have a conflict of interest. But I believe that the Bureau has great resources for the public that are only useful if American consumers know about them. Wikipedia is a valuable resource for millions of Americans who want to know more about how their government works and what it can, and should, be doing for them. More information on the CFPB’s entry on Wikipedia would help citizens access this knowledge.
Please let me know if you have other suggestions on how I can support editors of this entry.
Thank you,
Harris.CFPB (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

History

In July 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The stated mission of the CFPB is to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans. On July 16, 2013, the Senate confirmed Richard Cordray to a five-year term as the Director of the CFPB.

Congress established the CFPB to protect consumers by administering and enforcing several federal consumer financial laws. Among other things, the CFPB:

• Conducts rule-making, supervision, and enforcement for federal consumer financial laws
• Takes consumer complaints about consumer financial products or services
• Promotes financial literacy
• Researches consumer behavior
• Monitors financial markets for risks to consumers
• Enforces laws that prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the consumer financial markets

Resources for the Public

The CFPB provides plain-language answers, from experts, to common financial questions in an interactive database called Ask CFPB. The database provides a resource for consumers looking for information on various financial topics.

The CFPB accepts complaints from consumers about credit cards, mortgages, private student loans, bank accounts and services, consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, and debt collection and continues to work toward expanding complaint handling to include other products and services under the CFPB’s authority. The CFPB accepts complaints through its website and by telephone, mail, email, fax, and referral from other agencies. Its U.S.-based contact centers provide services in more than 180 languages and for the hearing- and speech-impaired, via a toll-free telephone number. Information about consumer complaints is available to the public through the Consumer Complaint Database.

Through the Paying for College online tool, the CFPB helps students and their families navigate the college financing process. Students can compare financial aid and college costs for their different prospective schools, understand monthly student loan payments after graduation, and weigh average debt levels at graduation relative to average starting salaries.

Mortgage Rules

Early in 2013, the CFPB issued a number of rules for the mortgage market. It issued loan origination rules to help ensure that mortgage lenders do not steer borrowers into risky and high-cost loans. The CFPB also issued the Ability-to-Repay rule, which implements the requirement under the Dodd-Frank Act that lenders assess whether prospective borrowers have a reasonable ability to repay their mortgage loans. The CFPB also issued mortgage servicing rules that, among other things, establish new protections for homeowners facing foreclosure. These rules ensure that borrowers in trouble get a fair process to try to avoid foreclosure if possible. The CFPB published plain-language guides to help industry compliance with these new rules.

Major Enforcement Actions

The CFPB is authorized to enforce federal consumer financial laws. Using that authority, the CFPB has taken enforcement actions against companies that harmed consumers, including several actions against credit card companies that profited from deceptive marketing practices and, in one instance, discriminated against consumers. In a series of enforcement actions brought together with other regulators, including cases involving Capital One, Discover, and American Express, the CFPB secured $425 million in relief for consumers who were wronged, provided procedures for obtaining refunds, imposed penalties on the companies to deter such activity in the future, and made clear to all market participants that similar practices will not be tolerated.

In June of 2013 the CFPB ordered U.S. Bank and one of its nonbank partners, Dealers’ Financial Services, to return approximately $6.5 million to servicemembers across the country after determining the two companies developed a joint program that engaged in deceptive marketing and lending practices while providing subprime auto loans to tens of thousands of active-duty military members.

Supervisory Authority

The CFPB supervises large banks, thrifts, and credit unions and their affiliates in order to assess compliance with federal consumer financial law and detect risks to consumers and consumer financial markets. The CFPB is also the first federal agency to have supervision authority over nonbanks in the mortgage, payday, and private student lending industries, as well as nonbanks that are larger participants in other consumer finance markets. The CFPB’s supervision authority extends to about 175 debt collectors, which account for over 60 percent of the industry’s annual receipts. In addition, the CFPB became the first federal agency to supervise participants in the consumer reporting market, which includes what are commonly called credit bureaus or credit reporting companies. The CFPB’s supervisory authority applies to about 30 consumer reporting companies, which account for over 90 percent of the consumer reporting market. The CFPB coordinates its supervisory activities with other federal and state agencies to better protect consumers and minimize regulatory burden.

Research and Market Monitoring

The CFPB studies markets for consumer financial products in order to identify risks to consumers. The CFPB has issued reports and whitepapers on a number of these markets. In June 2012, the Bureau released a report on reverse mortgages that cited high consumer awareness of the product but low consumer understanding of particular product features. In July 2012, the CFPB published a report on the private student loan market, detailing market trends, consumer demographics, and recommendations to improve consumer protections. In September 2012, researchers at the CFPB issued a study finding differences in credit scores provided to consumers and those used by lenders during loan underwriting. The CFPB also published a white paper detailing how consumer data and complaints are handled by the credit reporting infrastructure of the three largest U.S. consumer reporting agencies. In 2013, the Bureau released reports critical of many short-term borrowing products including payday loans, deposit advance, and overdraft.

Article Has Become Outdated

This article is about a recently-created agency of the US federal government (which I work for). Because of how quickly the Bureau has grown and expanded, this article has become outdated and incomplete. Another representative of the Bureau has posted new (independently sourced) information about the Bureau that paints a more complete picture of its recent history, powers, and activity, however they do not want to edit this information into the article themselves to avoid a conflict of interest. This information is found below under "Additional Information"

Spinbot editor doesn't know the meaning of the word overview

do you know what the word overview means? It sure doesn't look that way. Spinbot is engaging in edit warring because it does not like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what is going on here but edit warring solves nothing. Someone come to the talk page and propose something. Keep the proposal short. Provide references per WP:V. After discussion the consensus can go into the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Spinbot has been cited before and banned from editing for engaging in edit warring and this instance is no different. It seeks to replace impartial information it does not like with something it does. What I added was almost year old news with a quote from the director of this agency, from a respected publication that enhances the scope of this agency. Spinbot prefers the word manage to control, added speculation, motivation et al or nothing at all to do with the overview of this agency.

There is no reliable source which supports the claim that the CFPB wants to "control" retirement investments. The reliable source (a BusinessWeek article) states that the agency is studying whether it has a role in regulating retirement investments, with an eye toward protecting the elderly from investment scams. The above editor is attempting to introduce a polemic version of this claim supported by nothing more than an opinion blog.

Furthermore, if there is anyone edit-warring here, it is you, anon. Your bold addition has been reverted - it is now *your* responsibility to begin a discussion of the suitability of that material and gain consensus on this talk page for its inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Control and manage are largely synonymous and only in spinbot world is businessweek a respected publication while Forbes is not. It is a fact that private retirement funds are already statutorily regulated by two other federal agencies. It is a fact that the agency does not deny seeking to control the nation's $20trillion in private retirement accounts. Spinbot does not like facts, nor specific words and hence is engaging in edit warring merely because it does not like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they really aren't synonymous. We don't say that the federal government "controls" the auto industry when they issue safety regulations for automobiles. Moreover, the Forbes link is to a personal blog which has never been vetted by an editor - hence, unreliable. It's also a polemic claim in an opinion piece, which makes it further unusable to support a statement of fact.

"It is a fact that the agency does not deny" is a meaningless conspiracy theory phrase. The FCC has never denied forcing radio stations to issue mind control waves over their broadcasts - that doesn't mean they have, either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are largely synonymous, the government does not help people manage their money, they control the means with which it is done. The businessweek article was re-released 8 times as the editor like spinbot did not like. The director was asked directly twice when they were seeking to control the nation's private retirement funds and twice his response was they are looking into it. Spinbot does not like therefore it is engaging in edit warring and not only has spinbot been banned previously for same conduct, it has contempt for IP editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, they aren't. Words have meaning and "manage" is not "control." The article in question says nothing about "control." The word "control" does not appear in the article even once. Your assertion is entirely unsupported. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The government does not help people manage their money, it controls the ways in which the people can do it.

Further, I cannot be engaging in edit warring here. I posted the businessweek link first until I searched further and found an unedited version which said absolutely nothing about protecting senior citizens. I posted both links, did not include any of the polemic material from the second link, unlike spinbot that included speculation about motivations and so forth, who posted a lot more biased material from the businessweek article than I had originally. I would have to be edit warring with myself.

The bureau’s core concern is that many Americans, notably those from the retiring Baby Boom generation, may fall prey to financial scams. Directly from the article. Third paragraph. That's another thing you're wrong about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• We are not talking about much content here. Someone post the content here with a source. Instead of talking about this abstractly put it here and if there is anything to challenge, it should be either the source itself or the interpretation of the source. Also, what is spinbot? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Spinbot" appears to be the anon's derogatory name for me. Cute, isn't it? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What's derogatory about it? Maybe the next edit should include the agency seeks to control the nation's private retirement funds oh but some liberals contend that they are really going to help people manage them instead even though they don't help people manage their retirement funds in any real world example, they merely control what they can and cannot be invested in. Nothing deragatory there either right? New game of spinbot nation-post accoprding to conservative as if it is some radical notion while posting the completely incongruent with reality liberal version as if that is some kind of mainstream truth. What spinbot did here is edit warring 101-it brought nothing new to the site and merely cherry picked amongst the sources I provided to best suit it's likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.88.4.211 (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I posted the article, I know what it said, I know what I posted, I know what you edited. I also know what the original article said.

I'll make this extremely simple. I can list many ways the government is currently controlling the way american's can invest their private retirement money. The biggest way is that it is very easy to invest it in listed securities, bonds, most financial instruments that are heavily regulated, while making it very difficult to invest it in non-listed assets such as: art, real estate, physical commodities et al. That is the government controlling the ways in which the citizens can invest their private retirement funds, that is not the government helping people to manage their retirement money.

Although largely synonymous control is more accurate in this context than manage. Surely, spinbot has plenty of examples of the government helping people manage their retirement money and not controlling it. Since it has been edit warring over it.

Likewise it is a fact that the private retirement money is already regulated by the SEC and The Department of Labor. Why did businessweek leave that out while forbes kept it in? Why shouldn't be included on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We are not talking about much content here. Yes, it is very ironic as the underlying topic involves $20trillion in private retirement accounts, a dead broke government and a guy in charge of a federal agency talking about linking one up with the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone can explain how spinbot get's to revert pages ad infinitum without being blocked? If you blocked the anon editor for three reverts and spinbot's revert is the last one-guess what unless you failed math he violated the 3rr rule too.