'Bye, Felicia': Comments of the week
June 15, 2018 8:21 AM
Sergey Nivens - stock.adobe.com
Readers respond to a bill designed to modernize the anti-money-laundering rules, applaud the acting head of the CFPB’s decision to fire the members of the bureau’s advisory councils, opine on when a bank ought to communicate it has been hacked and more.
Zach Gibson/Bloomberg
On the decision by the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Mick Mulvaney, to dismiss the members of three advisory councils:
“Mulvaney has the right to restructure the boards as he sees fit. Why should he tolerate a group which was undoubtedly undermining his efforts to restructure the agency.”
Related:Mulvaney’s rationale for firing advisory boards doesn’t hold water
Related:
Duncan Andison/duncanandison - stock.adobe.com
On a personal account of getting fired from the CFPB's Consumer Advisory Board:
“I agree with Arjan that the current board was becoming more diverse than the boards originally constituted by Cordray. Unfortunately, a very vocal minority of the Board thought their job was to bully the acting director instead of advise him. Also, unfortunately, the acting director chose to throw them all out instead of considering each individual member’s potential contribution. Regardless, it clears the field for a new permanent director to make their own choices.”
Related:I was on the CFPB’s Consumer Advisory Board. Until Mulvaney fired me
Related:
Chris Titze/Chris Titze Imaging - stock.adobe.com
A reader reacts to a personal account about being fired from a CFPB advisory panel:
Ray - stock.adobe.com
Another reader reacts to Mulvaney firing members of the bureau’s Consumer Advisory Board:
“Your so called advisory board was ineffective in stopping the greatest overreach of government power in recent history by the previous dictator Cordray. Nothing personal to you but you were on the wrong side of the war or at the very least understandable collateral damage.”
Related: I was on the CFPB’s Consumer Advisory Board. Until Mulvaney fired me
Related:
Zach Gibson/Bloomberg
On Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., calling for legislation to end “corporate capture of the regulatory process":
“It should be obvious (even to Senator Warren) that these regs have stifled new market entrants, reduced competition, and benefited the bottom line of the big banks she claims to be against.”
Related: #Warren2020 gains steam with sweeping pitch for new regs
Related:
On how fast a bank ought to let the market know this it has been hacked:
“Great question! As soon as possible for transparency but not until you have the facts” (via Twitter ).”
Related:Your bank's been hacked. How soon should investors be told?
Related:
jdoms - stock.adobe.com
On the need for bank guidance related to providing banking services to pot companies:
“This is what happens when government officials CHOOSE which laws and regulations they will enforce. Thanks to that choice by President Obama and US AG Holder, we have this mess on our hands in which states have passed laws in conflict with federal law. The fact that federally insured and regulated depository institutions decline to do business directly with marijuana businesses is hardly unexpected. Congress is the only entity that can resolve this, sadly.”
Related:Pot banking comes with little guidance, lots of liability
Related:
