Slideshow ‘Hogs get slaughtered’: Comments of week

Published
  • June 30 2017, 8:30am EDT
8 Images Total

Readers criticized a credit union securitization proposal, weighed in on scaling back the CFPB’s complaint database, debated the need for banks to examine gender-based salary comparisons, and more.

On the National Credit Union Administration’s lawyers drafting an opinion that paves the way for credit unions to securitize and sell loans:

“Note to NCUA: Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.”

Related article: Credit unions cleared to securitize loans, amplifying threat to banks

Content Continues Below


Another reader reacts to the NCUA’s “safe harbor” opinion:

“Fine. Give them all the power banks have, including the power to pay taxes. For mutually owned banks this will further erode our competitive position versus large tax exempt credit unions. An already unlevel playing field will tilt further in favor of those who compete against us utilizing taxpayer subsidies.”

Related article: Credit unions cleared to securitize loans, amplifying threat to banks

On what happened after marketplace lenders first set out to disrupt the bank model by offering a tech-driven product to an underserved market:

“Then reality hit and they realized that if you don't factor risk into the equation you lose. The higher-risk loans should have a better reward (think interest rate) for the entity taking the risk. It is not rocket science.”

Related article: How marketplace lenders’ efforts to be more banklike could backfire

A commenter pointed out a specific downside of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s complaint database:

“One of the unintended consequences of the database is the use of it by fraudsters to commit fraud. Specifically, in our case, we sometimes place preventive holds on suspicious credit card accounts. In several cases, ‘customers’ used the CFPB database to [lodge a] complaint against such holds. In response, we sometimes eliminated the hold and subsequently, our initial suspicions became real (it was a fraudulent account) and realized a higher loss.”

Related article: The downside of scaling back the CFPB complaint database

Content Continues Below


Another reader who favors scaling back the CFPB complaint database said:

“There is no downside to correcting a wrong. The CFPB is a gestapo-styled agency that, by placing complaints in public view, has resorted to what, in any other case, would be considered ‘cyber bullying.’ However, when it impacts ‘big bad business,’ the left applauds it.”

Related article: The downside of scaling back the CFPB complaint database

On banks resisting calls for them to issue reports on gender-based salary comparisons:

“Financial institutions like startups (see Uber) will find out that allowing gender based discrimination is a) bad for their company internally and b) bad for business: some people won't want to work for your company or use your products if the company won't provide transparency around pay equity. Are banks ready to forgo the best talent because pay policies aren't fair — and transparent?”

Related article: U.S. banks are behind the global curve on gender pay equity

Others were skeptical about the need to examine the gender-based wage gap:

“The facts around the difference in the pay between men and women are primarily based on choice. Statistically, men are more likely to apply for roles that involve more risk, as such the pay for those positions is higher. If you took and compared the actual job and time in the position you would find that if there is a difference in pay between men and women it is closer to 7%.”

Related article: U.S. banks are behind the global curve on gender pay equity