in the past, money that the CFPB collected would either go back to harmed consumers or go to a fund to finance consumer education and empowerment. The Trump Admin has both (nearly) stopped suing to recover money for harmed consumers and is also shutting down the education fund.

This new proposal would put that to an end - allowing auto lenders to operate without oversight and meaning the 1.36M customers that were helped in the past are way less likely to receive help in the future. Read more here: bettermarkets.org/wp-content/u...

The result is that in the PAST, the CFPB has sued a ton of subprime auto lenders and recovered money for individuals and families. They can do that, in part, because they supervise these entities and can stop problems early.

Subprime auto lenders also target rural customers and servicemembers, and may be more likely to be non-complaint with laws that protect military borrowers.

Why does this matter? Well, subprime auto lenders are more likely to offer cars priced higher than book values. Interest rates are higher, payment plans come with more traps, and car repossessions happen more frequently.

For auto lenders, the CFPB since 2015 has supervised companies that make > 10K auto loans per year.

This new proposal suggests raising that threshold 105x up to 1,050,000! Raising the level that high would ensure that ZERO lenders that serve subprime customers would be covered.

After the 2008 crisis, Congress ordered the CFPB to supervise non-bank companies like auto lenders, debt collectors and credit reporting bureaus that play an outsized role in whatever market they operate in. These are called "larger participant" rules.

🚨@bettermarkets.bsky.social analysis found that the CFPB proposal would exempt auto lenders where the Bureau previously recovered nearly $75 million in restitution & penalties affecting 1.36M including more than 50,000 servicemembers

Paul Benda of the American Bankers Association calls for more regulation of data brokers to combat fraud and scams.

That’s strange… When the CFPB proposed just that, ABA opposed it.

www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/new...

www.aba.com/advocacy/pol...

Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(1) prohibits the misuse of material nonpublic information in derivative markets.

Since Polymarket declared itself a “futures exchange” instead of a gambling house, this proposal by Ackman is indeed very illegal!

She’s too busy but I would love 800 words from @tressiemcphd.bsky.social on this

today for whatever reason I'm reminded of that