Talk:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Court Order Denied

Unlock the page and place Mick Mulvaney as Director. This charade is over.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/28/temporary-restraining-order-to-stop-trumps-pick-for-cfpb-is-denied.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6B45:6F00:C9CA:1B1D:DBF2:7BEC (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added Mulvaney as presumptive Acting Director, but noted he's still disputed. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, English plans to appeal. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Fake News. Fake Wikipedia. Trump Derangement Syndrome on full display. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6B45:6F00:5C97:A290:7D8F:F1BF (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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.

• In a bid to make this edit request a bit more manageable, I'm striking out any parts which are already adequately covered by the article.—Neil 03:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the above to make the references visible on the page. It appears that having the {{reflist}} within the <blockquote>...</blockquote> prevented them from appearing. — Makyen (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurBA (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: To other people responding to this edit request: The "#Additional information" appears to be above this request, not below. I'm not nitpicking. When we follow a link to this edit request the page is displayed with the edit request at the top. It then says look below, we do and there is no information.

Suggestion: Consider breaking the edit request into smaller chunks which can be verified by reading a relatively small number of references. I am not suggesting reducing the number of references. I am suggesting reducing the total volume of change requested at one time. At least for me, when I got to this page I eventually found the #Additional information section and realized that what was being requested were dramatic changes with a large number of references. It is not a bad thing to desire to have these changes made. However, any editor coming in to perform the edits should be verifying that the references are WP:RS, that they support the text desired and that the article does not contain valid references which contradict with those provided. As it is, the request looks like multiple hours of work to perform a diligent job of verifying the information and performing the edit. With this amount of work involved many editors will just move on to the next request. This is probably one of the things contributing to this request languishing unperformed for several months. — Makyen (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC); fix links to #Additional information 21:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I am here too. I am a bit confused about what ought to be done but yes, if this were broken down I would help integrate this and I want to participate. Could someone recommend a first step? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not done for now: Since there seems to be a lot of changes and some of them fairly large in scale, I'm declining this mass request as is. I suggest you start a new request below, broken into much smaller chunks (as previously suggested above by Makyen) and we can go from there. This will allow the uncontroversial chunks to get handled right away and the rest of it can be appropriately discussed and have a consensus formed. I look forward to your broken up (broken down) requests below. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131107063404/http://www.mckinsey.com/app_media/reports/financial_services/improving_p_c_regulation.pdf to http://www.mckinsey.com/App_Media/Reports/Financial_Services/Improving_P_C_Regulation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Role in Equifax security breach?

I didn't find anything in the article about how the CFPB could help consumers concerned about the July security breach that Equifax announced on September 7. If CFPB offers any relevant services it would be nice to know what they are. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming fight over who is the real CFPB director

Trump has appointed Mick Mulvaney to be the next CFPB director [1] [2] [3], which sets up a clash over interpretation of 1011(b)(5) of the Dodd-Frank Act as it relates to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998: there is a dispute over whether this means Leandra English or Mulvaney is the next director. Does anyone know how to handle this from the perspective of Wikipedia (infobox officeholder, etc)? —cnzx (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Since this is a very young dispute (taking effect less than two hours ago), I think it would be prudent to wait and see how next week plays out Nevermore27 (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should list Mulvaney as acting director. The Bureau's website shows English as Deputy Director, and says nothing about an acting director. john k (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I also don't think English should be listed as Acting Director either however. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

As of now, both pages say "acting" director, although they also have "disputed" next to that in their infoboxes. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)\

Due to a current court case surrounding the dispute, I believe the the position of Acting Director should be kept as disputed. Rainclaw7 (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• FYI, I'm slightly editing Mulvaney's intro, because someone has HEAVILY over-interpreted the FVRA provision they cite to get the outcome they want. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved, the law is clear: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-responds-to-lawsuit-against-trump-for-naming-cfpb-acting-director/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.220.248.90 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It will be "resolved" after the courts make their determination. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

They just have. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/28/judge-rules-mick-mulvaney-remain-interim-headin-leadership-fight-consumer-financial-protection-burea/902173001/ Frevangelion (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, there we have it. Unless it could be stayed pending any appeal? Otherwise, if the decision is final, we have our answer. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The top lawyer for the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has concluded that President Donald Trump has the authority to name its acting director, three sources familiar with the matter said on Sunday, rejecting an effort by her former boss at the agency to name his immediate successor.

The office of CFPB General Counsel Mary McLeod has prepared a memo concurring with the opinion of the U.S. Justice Department that Trump has the power to appoint his budget chief, Mick Mulvaney, as temporary leader of the federal watchdog agency, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.220.248.90 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/11/27/cfpb-top-lawyer-trumps-right-know/

And a different lawyer filed a lawsuit against that and the case is heading to court, where it will be decided. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(Plus, hotair.com really is just hot air. They're not an impartial source.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Does Reuters count as a legitimate news source in your world? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cfpb-memo/exclusive-u-s-consumer-finance-agency-lawyer-sides-with-trump-over-succession-sources-idUSKBN1DR05A

These are prima facie interpretations from lawyers inside the DoJ and CFPB, they do not mean the matter is "resolved". The executive branch does not interpret the law, the judicial branch does. —cnzx (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I thing Dodd-Frank is clear it says is section x

"(5) Deputy director.--There is established the position of

Deputy Director, who shall--

(A) be appointed by the Director; and

(B) serve as acting Director in the absence or

unavailability of the Director."

which in normal english means that when the director is not there or indisposed than the deputy is the acting director there is nothing there about who is acting director in the case of a vacancy so when cordray resigned ::FVRA kicked in AmYisroelChai (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we on Wikipedia are legally qualified to decide this. Even if we were, it doesn't matter: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- we'll write the preliminary interpretation of the Federal District Court for DC tonight, not our own interpretations. —cnzx (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

If the matter is not resolved, who is sending emails, and who is sitting in the Director's Office? More Fake News from the left, next it will be Russia who interfered with the CFPB. Seriously, the "we" on Wikipedia are all being as too obvious and insane as the fake news media. Agendas. Zero neutrality.

From Mikebreakrun3: This is ridiculous! Did gays get married just because suits were filed? No, the legal status stood until it was *overturned*. I just spent time objectively editing that page with current citations and they are being completely ignored and selectively reverted. Do you get to go back to work just because you filed your discrimination lawsuit? Of course, not. From where does all the magical, wishful thinking expressed above come? Lock the page, lock the page for the same reason you lock the knife drawer when you have little kids. Sheesh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebreakrun3 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fake news from the left!" This is clearly a good way to engage in discussion!

Or maybe we can consider the fact that it is clearly under dispute as a judge decides whether or not to issue an emergency restraining order. Pesky facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed Tag Status

There has been no further discussion of this tag on the talk page. According to this wiki page, lack of discussion is reason for removal of the tag. Additionally, the lack of consensus identified in the original edit explanation appears to have been rectified by acknowledging the dispute between Mulvaney and English. Rainclaw7 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It would be POV to support either English's or Mulvaney's claim. I'm removing the tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Name of Bureau

Someone made a revision to this article to refer to the CFPB as the BCFP. Before we change the name of a government agency, shouldn't there be a discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.117.127 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's OK to make a bold change. However, I have undone the edit - the change to the Bureau's name has been discussed, but not yet implemented in any meaningful way. See cfpb.gov for example.

Any idea what is going on here?--2601:642:C301:119A:D15B:8ACB:DC3D:CE6F (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems like Mr. Mulvaney is trying to make a point. However, the attempt to re-brand doesn't appear to be sticking, certainly not for Wikipedia purposes.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Dead link

The history section mention of Warren cites to a deadline of The Business Lawyer, “The First Year of the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau: An Overview” (2013) by Mogilnicki and Malpass. The Jstor preview shows it drew from “Unsafe at Any Rate”, (2007) by Warren availableDemocracyJournal.org ... Should the mention just cite the Warren article, or is another third party source preferred ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Third party sources are generally preferable, but they are less helpful if the link is dead. Perhaps we can cite both?--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a Great Citation

For this: "The CFPB was designed to consolidate its employees and responsibilities from a number of other federal regulatory bodies, including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration and even the Department of Housing and Urban Development.[5]"

The citation leads simply to a blog index page at the New York Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.149.129 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Article and Chart are not in agreement

The article clearly states that the first director was after the bill passed into law and was a recess appointment by Obama to overcome GOP objections and filibuster threats.

Why are Elizabeth Warren and Raj Date listed in the Directors table? Neither was a Director of the agency, at any point. They were merely aides to Obama charged with helping create the thing, as is well explained in the article.

It is quite misleading to include them in the table, and seems to be an effort to give Warren a title she did not actually ever have, yet another sad example of her inflated biographical details. Now that her run for POTUS is over maybe we can correct this. I assume during the campaign her staffers were probably paid to maintain this fiction.

Payday lending research manipulation charge, add?

A former economist at the CFPB accused Trump’s appointees of manipulating the bureau’s research to justify reversing payday lending rules. On his final day of work at the nation’s consumer finance watchdog agency, Jonathan Lanning detailed several attempts by his political appointees that he considered legally risky and scientifically indefensible, including pressuring staff economists to water down their findings on payday loans and using statistical gimmicks to downplay the harm consumers would suffer if the payday restrictions were repealed.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/business/cfpb-payday-loans-rules.html

X1\ (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. It's reliably sourced, but I would prefer to wait to see if the story gets wider coverage or the underlying criticism is corroborated by more than one person. The previous complaints about racism/sexism at the CFPB came from multiple staffers, which adds a little more weight to the criticism.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know anything about Jonathan Lanning one-way-or-the-other, but this is something to keep an eye on; which appears to be in agreement with you, Mojo Hand. X1\ (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

He appears to taken a new position as Senior Policy Economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. I agree we keep an eye on this to see if anyone corroborates his claims or if the story gets picked up by other reliable sources.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

non-primary source for CFPB regulations

In this August 14, 2024 edit of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the listing of regulations under the CFPB is marked as "non-primary source needed".

I think we would be wasting our time attempting to find a non-primary source. (Arguably more to the point, the list of regulations that's presumably from the primary source is authoritative.) As per the "non-primary source needed" markup and in the absence of a suitable secondary source, I support summarily deleting the list of regulations. Fabrickator (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should just keep the regulations that have their own wikipedia articles and delete the others - presumably those are the most notable and have secondary sourcing Superb Owl (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)