Our Take
CFPB is on thin ice but consumer protection laws are still on the books. Although Secretary Bessent is nominally taking on a second role, it appears that his responsibilities – as well as those of most CFPB staff – will be significantly limited. Industry critics of the CFPB, including the financial institutions it supervises, have cheered the agency’s activities coming to a standstill. However, behind those cheers the sudden cessation of enforcement raises numerous questions about how banks should proceed with compliance activities and implementation of programs to comply with pending rulemaking. While banks will make their own legally-informed choices on how to proceed, there are several factors to consider. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) gave rulemaking and enforcement authority for consumer protection laws to the CFPB along with the mandate to educate consumers, conduct research, and collect consumer complaints. This statute remains on the books, as do the consumer protection laws the CFPB is charged with enforcing, which largely predate the DFA. Laws in place before the CFPB’s existence were previously enforced by other agencies including the Fed, OCC, FDIC and NCUA, along with state attorneys general and through civil litigation. It is increasingly likely that Republicans will succeed in cutting CFPB funding through budget reconciliation, but it would take a further act of Congress to revert consumer protection rulemaking, as well as full examination and enforcement authority, to other agencies. In the meantime, banks are still required to comply with consumer protection laws and the question on enforcement of those laws is a matter of who and when, not if.
Banks are not off the hook. In addition to banks having a continued obligation to comply with existing laws, it is also important to remember that actions by financial institutions and new CFPB leadership are subject to both actual courts and the court of public opinion. Consumers alleging harm can sue financial institutions and consumer groups may file a suit against the order to freeze CFPB activities. There have also been prominent cases of consumer harm hitting the headlines and damaging the reputations of financial institutions as well as receiving criticism from both sides of the aisle. With all of these factors in play, the CFPB freeze does not mean that banks are free to abandon their consumer protection compliance programs. They should still maintain policies, procedures and controls to minimize the risk of consumer harm as pausing, deferring or eliminating compliance activities could increase both legal and reputational risk. Although the ultimate fate of rules that are not yet effective and undergoing legal challenge remains to be seen, those that are a statutory requirement of the DFA may survive with modifications.
1. Congress can attach policy changes to budget bills that pass with a simple majority through the reconciliation process.
Our Take
Debanking not debunked. The hearings featured rare bipartisan agreement on the existence of debanking on top of Acting Chairman Hill releasing documents to back up claims of supervisors discouraging banks from working with crypto companies. There is also bipartisan agreement that banks need clearer guidelines for legitimate reasons to deny services, such as AML risk and connections to illegal activity. Given the momentum around this issue from Congress and President Trump, it is likely that we will see new guidance and directives emerge, whether it is from legislation or policies instituted by new agency leadership. With bipartisan support, chances of amendments to AML rules are even higher – and they may be combined with fair access legislation to get Democrats on board. As legislators and regulators consider formal fair access rules, banks will likely comment on the necessity of acknowledging their strategic prerogative to approve or deny customers as they see fit.
Banks still need to manage risks and make careful decisions on customer acceptance. While waiting for new regulatory guidance, banks should review both operational processes and risk assessment standards to ensure that acceptance processes and assessment criteria are objective, consistent across the organization, and clearly tied to the risk presented by a particular customer segment or transaction type. They should also keep in mind that the renewed attention on debanking shows that banks can be “named and shamed” for refusing services to certain customers. However, this does not mean that banks cannot decline to work with customers that present heightened AML, credit, legal, or other risks. Effective consideration of these risks can be managed through a comprehensive framework that incorporates applicable risk categories, including any reputational risk of granting or denying services. Assessments following such a framework need to be thoroughly documented with objective reasons for declining services beyond the customer’s business profile.
The STABLE Act would establish a similar framework to the GENIUS Act with the addition of a two year moratorium on endogenously collateralized stablecoins (i.e., those backed by an internal source or algorithm rather than a fiat currency).
Our Take
Stablecoins lead the way for bipartisan legislation. After several years of stops and starts on stablecoin legislation despite bipartisan agreement on the need for regulatory clarity and codified standards, these new efforts offer renewed hope. A structured regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers with clear standards for reserve requirements, licensing and interoperability would clear the way for both traditional financial institutions and nonbanks to advance new stablecoin products and services. Even with bipartisan support, it will take time to negotiate the final details of both Senate and House versions of a bill and for ensuing regulations to be implemented. In the meantime, comments from Hill, Powell, Sacks and Peirce send a signal that financial institutions will not have to wait too long for a more permissive posture towards crypto activities from their current primary regulators. However, it is important to note that regulators will still expect and call for thorough consideration of financial resources supporting stablecoins’ liabilities as well as controls to manage risk and protect consumers.
These notable developments hit our radar recently:
Fed releases 2025 stress test scenarios. On February 5th, the Fed released the scenarios for its 2025 stress test and exploratory analysis. This years scenario, which will apply to 22 banks, features 5.9% increase in unemployment to a peak of 10%, severe market volatility, widening of corporate bond spreads, a 33% decline in house prices and 30% decline in commercial real estate prices. The increase in unemployment and declines in prices are less severe than those in the 2024 scenarios. Eight banks with large trading operations will also be tested against a global market shock component that stresses their trading and certain other fair-valued positions and 10 banks with substantial trading or custodial operations will be tested against the default of their largest counterparty. The exploratory analysis, which does not affect capital requirements, includes nonbank credit and liquidity shocks as well as the failure of five large hedge funds for the largest banks.
OCC leadership change. On February 7th, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent announced his intention to appoint former NCUA Chairman Rodney Hood as First Deputy Comptroller, resulting in him becoming Acting Comptroller of the Currency.
CRA resolution to roll back OCC bank merger review update. On February 4th, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to roll back the OCC’s September 2024 update to its procedures for reviewing bank merger applications.
Hawley and Sanders introduce bill to cap credit card interest rates. On February 4th, Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced bipartisan legislation to cap credit card interest rates at ten percent. If passed, the bill would immediately cap rates for five years.
Powell scheduled to testify to Congress. Fed Chair Powell is scheduled to testify in both chambers of Congress on the semi-annual monetary policy report that was published on February 7th. Chair Powell will appear before the Senate committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs on February 11th and the HFSC committee on February 12th.
Treasury nominations announced. On February 5th, Secretary Bessent announced the nomination of Luke Pettit, a senior adviser to Senator Hagerty (R-TN), to be Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions and Wall Street veteran Jason De Sena Trennert to be Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets.
Deferred resignation offer deadline delayed. On February 6th, the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts granted a temporary restraining order forcing the Trump Administration to delay the deadline of its deferred resignation offer to midnight on February 10th.
The following chart is an approximate projection of financial services agency appointments and term lengths.
2. Michael Barr will step down as VCS on February 28th, 2025 but will remain on the Fed Board as a Governor. President Trump will need to choose another existing Governor as the new VCS or move them to a position at another agency to create a vacancy at the Fed.
3. The Comptroller of the Currency and CFPB Director are members of the FDIC Board. Because FDIC bylaws prohibit more than three members of one party on the Board, the Vice Chair and Internal Director cannot be Republicans if Trump’s nominees to lead the OCC and CFPB are Republicans. Jonathan McKernan’s term technically expired in May 2024.
4. Johnson’s and Goldsmith Romero’s terms have expired but they may remain on the Commission until their replacements are confirmed.