Kraninger pushes for axing policy intervention
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Kathy Kraninger emphasized the need for cost benefit analysis when it comes to solid policymaking Thursday ahead of a series of panel discussions focused on behavioral economics. In her opening remarks, she also emphasized the need to preserve consumer choice when developing policies and rulemakings.
NAFCU supports fair and transparent consumer protections but believes that government intervention in markets for financial products and services should be limited and only considered after a complete cost benefit analysis has been conducted.
Before the panel last week, Kraninger explained how the CFPB crafts consumer protection policy: by adhering to its statutory objectives to ensure consumer access to fair, transparent, and competitive markets; and by articulating clear rules to follow so the CFPB can achieve those objectives.
“It is also generally well understood—and there is overwhelming evidence that demonstrates this – that markets allocate resources more efficiently than government agencies,” Kraninger said. “That is why the presumption should be in favor of the market and the onus should be on government to demonstrate it can improve the status quo. For consumer protection policy specifically, the Bureau generally seeks to empower consumers to make the best decisions for themselves.”
NAFCU has long advocated for regulatory relief, calling for credit unions to be exempt from various CFPB rulemakings, including its remittance rule, and has defended credit unions’ use of responsible overdraft programs.
Thursday’s symposium was the second in a series, and NAFCU Director of Regulatory Affairs Ann Kossachev provided a detailed recap of the previous one – focused on the "abusive" prong of the unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices provision – in a post on the association's member-only Compliance Network.
Kraninger most recently addressed hundreds of credit unions at NAFCU’s Caucus and gave a keynote where she stressed the need for regulatory clarity when it comes to supervision and government intervention.