jpd80 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 CFPB structure is unconstitutional, Justice Department says March 17, 2017 @ 6:18 pm Lisa Lambert Reuters The Trump administration took an unusual step on Friday in its efforts to defang the financial consumer watchdog created after the banking crisis, with the executive branch of the federal government telling a court that one of its own agencies is violating the U.S. Constitution. The Justice Department filed a brief opposing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's appeal of a ruling that its single-director structure does not hew to the constitution. The decision that the bureau appealed also said the president should have the power to fire the agency's head at will. Under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law that created the CFPB to protect individuals against fraud in lending, the president can only fire the agency director for cause. Full story at autonews.com........ Hmmm, the Donald want the power to fire department heads at will and not for cause... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 And what does this have to do with Ford? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 19, 2017 Author Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) And what does this have to do with Ford? The CFPB oversees Ford Credit and other financial institutions. With rising subprime lending especially by some of Ford's direct competitors, now is not the time to be winding back the powers of a regulator. This could have serious implications to Ford financing customers if the watchdog is knobbled and other car based lenders are allowed off the chain to be more "creative" with lending... Edited March 19, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Donald Trump has been proclaiming that regulation is the root of all businesses evils for years, this isn't all that surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 The CFPB oversees Ford Credit and other financial institutions. So, basically, nothing that justifies putting it in the Ford Motor Company Discussion section? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 19, 2017 Author Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) A mod will move if they fell it's necessary... Sorry if this strikes a nerve with some people who feel aggrieved for whatever reason... Edited March 19, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 A mod will move if they fell it's necessary... Sorry if this strikes a nerve with some people who feel aggrieved for whatever reason... Welcome to politics in America. You can't say anything anymore without it devolving into a flame war. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 A mod will move if they fell it's necessary... Sorry if this strikes a nerve with some people who feel aggrieved for whatever reason... . Put it in the proper forum in the first place....why drop this decision on the moderators? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Put it in the proper forum in the first place....why drop this decision on the moderators? That's all I'm saying. Ford isn't even mentioned in the OP, so why is an apparently political post in the Ford Discussion area? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probowler Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 I see pros and cons to this... What an odd stoey, but not surprising 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 20, 2017 Author Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) .twintornadoes on 20 Mar 2017 - 12.33 pm said, Put it in the proper forum in the first place....why drop this decision on the moderators? Normally I post Ford stuff here but when I posted this it was late and thought I saw more than was actually there. And now it's not like I can un-post it or move it myself. As non-US based, I'm not across the sensitivity of US politics ATM.... Edited March 20, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 As there was no extended political debate we'll just leave it here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 20, 2017 Author Share Posted March 20, 2017 Thanks, it was actually on the Autonews site and FWIW, my reason for posting was the need for continued oversight on things like subprime lending levels. If that gets wound back are we then inviting Ford's competitors to aggressively pursue more buyers and sign them up to more subprime financing? That's what I'm interested in, not so much the politics, should the director continue to have a free hand in overseeing lending practises? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosetang Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 If you take away the ability to oversee, or force some sort of "council of advisors" onto him/her, you essentially defang it. If you give the President unfettred ability to dismiss the director, you make the position slave to whatever political wind is blowing. There's a reason some of the most effective agency heads, like the FBI director, aren't easy to be rid of once confirmed by the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 Thanks, it was actually on the Autonews site and FWIW, my reason for posting was the need for continued oversight on things like subprime lending levels. Not all of us agree that the Feds should be overseeing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 If you take away the ability to oversee, or force some sort of "council of advisors" onto him/her, you essentially defang it. If you give the President unfettred ability to dismiss the director, you make the position slave to whatever political wind is blowing. There's a reason some of the most effective agency heads, like the FBI director, aren't easy to be rid of once confirmed by the Senate. The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President, meaning he/she can be removed by the President any time, though it is unusual to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President, meaning he/she can be removed by the President any time, though it is unusual to do so. In theory, everybody in the Executive Branch works at the pleasure of the President (just ask MacArthur, the air traffic controllers, and the parade of generals who commanded the Army of the Potomac), although it is rare for Presidents to make wholesale changes below the Cabinet positions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 21, 2017 Author Share Posted March 21, 2017 (edited) Not all of us agree that the Feds should be overseeing that. It needs some oversight, a free market has proven incapable of effective self regulation, the consequences of those shortcomings are self evident n the lead up to the great depression. An uncontrolled market does not remain in the safe zone for too long when players decide to get more "creative". That's where oversight can step in and keep the market in the safer, sustainable zone...... Many thing the market should be allowed to correct itself without intervention, that's fine when the expected correction is small and not masivly detrimental to the well being of the emtire business community. Subprime lending in Automobiles may not seem as widespread as say those property loans that were prepackaged as investment grade stock but you can bet, someone is out there ready to feed a hungry investment market and all those high interest subprime vehicle loans are the next "plum". Edited March 21, 2017 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosetang Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President, meaning he/she can be removed by the President any time, though it is unusual to do so.A president may remove an FBI director with tremendous political cost and scrutiny, which is why removal is exceeeingly rare (has only happened once). The rarity of that removal also weighs on confirmation, since directors have to be considered in the light of being in place across administrations. The CFPB, being a new agency, couldn't have the same precedent weighing on and protecting the position without the the high bar for removal established by Congress. There are other examples of such "artificial" barriers protecting Executive Branch offices, such as the NRC members or the members of the CPSC, established to protect the positions from too much political tampering and to create a higher bar for the confirmation of candidates. Cordray's term expires next year, for the record. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 21, 2017 Share Posted March 21, 2017 If that gets wound back are we then inviting Ford's competitors to aggressively pursue more buyers and sign them up to more subprime financing? If they do so, it will not end well; not because they'll run afoul of the laws, but rather because they'll run afoul of human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 22, 2017 Author Share Posted March 22, 2017 If they do so, it will not end well; not because they'll run afoul of the laws, but rather because they'll run afoul of human nature. So, is this one of those situations that's better managed without a government nanny controlling the amount of new subprime lending? Should we just let the greedy go after as many subprime sales as possible and let them suffer the consequences without intervention? If so, I kind of understand that but wouldn't that drag down the whole industry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jniffen Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 You and I have rules/laws we have to follow. Professional sports has rules and umpires, referees, etc. The 'free market' needs some as well. Not saying this organization is the end all be all for the market, but there needs to be some oversight. There wasn't much oversight in Chicago in the 20's - Hey Al, got a minute... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 No issue as long as the lender retains the risk of default - that makes it self-policing. Allowing companies to make bad loans and then escape the liability is the problem. Also - with mortgages there was big profit in the sale itself - real estate commissions, attorney fees and up front interest. Not so much with car loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 So, is this one of those situations that's better managed without a government nanny controlling the amount of new subprime lending? Should we just let the greedy go after as many subprime sales as possible and let them suffer the consequences without intervention? If so, I kind of understand that but wouldn't that drag down the whole industry? Well, that all depends on how you weigh various factors. On the one hand, the market can sort out bad players somewhat effectively over time; on the other hand, those bad players can get quite large and have quite extensive impacts when they fail, which argues against allowing them to grow and lend without restriction. The CFPB is, at least in my estimate, a toothless wonder. It's like the NCAA: It has to give the appearance of doing something, but none of the people that dictate how it works want it to be capable of effective action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordowner Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 With the ever increasing length of time on these auto loans we might as well consider them mortgages. Seriously though, these extended auto loans have led to the average auto loan being severely underwater for much of the life of the loan. Increased risk taking by a few players that don't have as much to lose or who don't have a long term view puts unfair pressure on Ford. And the performance of Ford's stock price the past few days shows how important Ford's financial unit is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.