Slideshow 'Hats off to Mulvaney’: Comments of the week

Published
  • January 18 2018, 10:00pm EST

Readers react to Mick Mulvaney launching a public review of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, weigh in on the Senate’s bill to ease some Dodd-Frank rules, opine on how the wave of GOP departures will affect banks and more.

On Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the CFPB, launching a public review of the agency's enforcement, supervision, rulemaking, market monitoring and education activities:

“Mulvaney's project will be met, I'm sure with weeping and gnashing of teeth; however, it is reasonable and prudent for a new manager to take objective stock of their unit. This allows identification of what works, what doesn't, what changes are needed, and what the employees like/dislike about current operations, necessary due the state of CFPB employee relations. Hats off to Mulvaney for bringing a business approach to the CFPB.”

Related: Mulvaney launches public review of entire CFPB

Content Continues Below


On Leandra English, the deputy director of the CFPB, filing an appeal in her battle to oust acting CFPB Director Mulvaney:

“When is enough enough for Ms. English? At some point, and I think we are way past it, her efforts can only be described as vexatious, at best, and malicious, at worst. It’s not like she’s a whistleblower, so I would think her actions could be termed gross insubordination to support firing her. We deserve an answer to [the] question as to who is footing the bill for her efforts. Or do Ms. English’s claims of CFPB independence mean independence even from taxpayers?”

Related: CFPB deputy files appeal in battle to unseat Mulvaney

On an op-ed arguing the Senate reg relief bill isn’t gutting Dodd-Frank like some people assume it is:

“Thank you Mr. Blackwell for trying to tame the reflex on the left to oppose anything that appears to help some portion of the banking industry. The Senate bill is a solid and fair compromise. Sen. Warren and Brown know as much. For them, this is all about positioning for the next election. Ditto for the majority of Dem Senators that will feel compelled to follow them. Thank goodness the moderate wing of the party still stands and Sen Crapo is willing to work with them.”

Related: No, the Senate reg relief bill isn’t destroying Dodd-Frank

On an argument that there are still ways for banks to service marijuana-related businesses:

"The risk was unreasonable before the rescission of the Cole memo and is even more so now. All the ideas the author provided have huge price tags for banks on top of the regulatory risk. I wouldn't bank an MRB without have an entire department devoted to it which in turn would cost the MRB around 10 to 15k a month minimum and I don't know any willing to pay that much so the volume requirement to offset the cost isn't there."

Related: Banks shouldn’t give up on pot banking just yet

Content Continues Below


On what House Republicans exiting Congress means for banking:

“After the last 18 months, the fact that people still feel remotely confident in predicting political outcomes is amusing. Many of the GOP representatives getting out now have been there too long already. However, they aren't leaving because they fear becoming the minority. Their once-cozy existence no longer exists. Trump is as likely to go to war with his own party as the opposition. Also... don't sleep on what a strong stock market, low unemployment, and tax breaks will do in 2018.”

Related: How the wave of GOP departures will affect banks

On Mulvaney requesting no money from the Federal Reserve to fund the CFPB in the second quarter:

“I like this guy!!”

Related: Mulvaney requests 'zero' money for CFPB

Another reader reacts to Mulvaney using reserves to fund the CFPB:

"Of course, begs the question, What did the previous director of the Bureau storing up such a large reserve for, given the direct access to Fed funding provided by the Dodd-Frank Act? Is that another piece of evidence as to why subjecting the Bureau and its funding to Congressional review--and public scrutiny--is needed and appropriate for good government?"

Related: Mulvaney requests 'zero' money for CFPB