An official website of the United States Government
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Be a Part of Our Supervision Team

Be a Part of Our Supervision Team

By

We’re looking for highly motivated individuals who want to make a difference and be part of an important mission: helping consumers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a brand-new 21st century agency with responsibility for making markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans. To help carry out that mission, we will supervise the largest and most complex banks, thrifts, and credit unions in the country, along with different types of non-bank consumer financial services companies. CFPB examiners will be responsible for conducting examinations at these organizations to ensure that they comply with Federal consumer financial protection laws and regulations – including laws prohibiting unfair, deceptive, abusive, or discriminatory acts or practices – and that they operate their compliance management programs responsibly.

While we are still in the process of making final determinations about how many examiners we will eventually bring on board, here are some things you should know:

Where will the examiners work?

Examiners will travel to conduct on-site examinations. Since they are frequently on the road, they are generally allowed to live wherever they like. Other work will be conducted from an examiner’s home and at the CFPB’s regional hub locations. We will be particularly interested in candidates from the areas of New York, San Francisco, and Chicago, as these will be our regional hubs. There will also be opportunities at our headquarters office in Washington, D.C.

What are the qualifications?

We are looking for a broad range of skills and experiences. The most important attributes will be strong analytical and communication skills, a strong work ethic, and a commitment to consumer protection. We encourage everyone from seasoned examiners to recent graduates to apply.

Where can someone apply?

Interested candidates should visit our Jobs page to learn more and submit their resume.

Peggy Twohig is Assistant Director for Nonbank Supervision. Steve Antonakes is Assistant Director for Large Bank Supervision.

  • Get A Job

    This is asinine.

    You state in your blog the following:

    “CFPB examiners will be responsible for conducting examinations at these organizations to ensure that they comply with Federal consumer financial protection laws and regulations – including laws prohibiting unfair, deceptive, abusive, or discriminatory acts or practices – and that they operate their compliance management programs responsibly.”

    This is a duplication of effort and a waste of our taxpayer dollars.

    The organizations that you are preparing to examined are already examined by many other governmental agencies.

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) examines a large number of state chartered banks.

    The Federal Reserve Bank examines a large number of state chartered banks and all bank holding companies.

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency examines all national banks.

    The National Credit Union Association examines all federally chartered credit unions.

    Each state has a department of banking that also examines state chartered banks.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development has the power to investigate and examine banks for certain activities.

    Most states have human rights commissions or other organizations to investigate discrimination claims.

    Someone please explain to me how adding the CFPB is going to make anything better. It just adds one more examiner, additional confusion, and additional expense to the taxpayer.

    Sure, it is a job creation tool. The CFPB will hire hundreds of persons and spend over $300 million annually to peform its function, whatever that function is.

    But as for making things more efficient, less costly, or more understandable, let’s stop fooling ourselves. Better yet, I wish the CFPB would stop this attempt to fool Americans into believing that they going to make our financial lives easier.

    The only thing I can see the CFPB doing is making it harder for me to obtain credit, and more expensive to do so. The CFPB, if it has its way, will reduce the choices I have for financial products.

    Other regulators are not going to go away when the CFPB springs into action. It will add costs to our nation’s financial providers. Financial providers will simply pass the additional costs of compliance, more lawyers, etc. onto consumers. In the end, I will be paying for these new examinations, not the financial companies themselves.

    Please folks, voice your concerns and let’s stop this train.

    Please CFPB, stay out of my wallet.

    • Anonymous

      And how well did that list of regulators do in preventing deceptive financial practices and taking undue risks? The CFPB is a significantly different form of regulator in an ever increasingly complex environment.

      • Get A Job

        Please enlighten me on how the “CFPB is a significantly different form of regulator”. I would sincerely like to understand how the CFPB is significantly different.

        Thank you.

        • The Mortgage Guy

          As I see it, prior regulation has been aimed at overseeing the activities of various lender types, but have simply worked with them to assure they met the letter of the law. The CFPB is charged with overseeing all of these other agencies, with an emphasis on assuring what they do is in the consumers’ best interests.

          The “significant difference” is the focus of the task: Don’t work with the lenders, etc., to assure they continue to make money and meet the letter of the law; work with consumers to assure they understand what they are being asked to take on, while overseeing the other agencies and lenders to assure the information and products they offer are consumer-friendly.

          • Get A Job

            Dear Mortgage Guy,

            The following statement came directly from the CFPB web site:

            “The CFPB will supervise banks, credit unions, and financial companies, and it will enforce Federal consumer financial laws.”

            So, you see, they will be working with lenders, etc. to make sure they adhere to the law. There is nothing on the CFPB website, or the law that created the CFPB, that reference any authority to oversee other agencies.

            From my understanding, the CFPB will not supervise other supervision-type agencies, but will rather supervise the providers directly.

            I can see absolutely nothing to indicate to me why the CFPB is going to be any different than the Federal Reserve Bank, FDIC, OCC, HUD, FTC, or any other federal agency. Just more expense, more paperwork, more complications.

          • Get A Job

            Dear Mortgage Guy,

            The following statement came directly from the CFPB web site:

            “The CFPB will supervise banks, credit unions, and financial companies, and it will enforce Federal consumer financial laws.”

            So, you see, they will be working with lenders, etc. to make sure they adhere to the law. There is nothing on the CFPB website, or the law that created the CFPB, that reference any authority to oversee other agencies.

            From my understanding, the CFPB will not supervise other supervision-type agencies, but will rather supervise the providers directly.

            I can see absolutely nothing to indicate to me why the CFPB is going to be any different than the Federal Reserve Bank, FDIC, OCC, HUD, FTC, or any other federal agency. Just more expense, more paperwork, more complications.

        • The Mortgage Guy

          As I see it, prior regulation has been aimed at overseeing the activities of various lender types, but have simply worked with them to assure they met the letter of the law. The CFPB is charged with overseeing all of these other agencies, with an emphasis on assuring what they do is in the consumers’ best interests.

          The “significant difference” is the focus of the task: Don’t work with the lenders, etc., to assure they continue to make money and meet the letter of the law; work with consumers to assure they understand what they are being asked to take on, while overseeing the other agencies and lenders to assure the information and products they offer are consumer-friendly.

      • Get A Job

        Please enlighten me on how the “CFPB is a significantly different form of regulator”. I would sincerely like to understand how the CFPB is significantly different.

        Thank you.

    • Anonymous

      And how well did that list of regulators do in preventing deceptive financial practices and taking undue risks? The CFPB is a significantly different form of regulator in an ever increasingly complex environment.

    • TheMortgageGuy

      Get A Job, you make some very good points. There are a number of agencies already overseeing the various financial lending institutions. The CFPB may reduce the number of financing choices you and other Americans now have. However, having worked in the residential mortgage industry for the past 12 years, I would argue there is a need for both of these changes to be made.

      It is obvious the current system is not working to protect the average American. It is also way too obvious to me that the current overseers have NO IDEA how to fix the mortgage problem or protect the American consumer from it continuing ad nauseum. Call me naive, but in the CFPB I see an organization which may just be able to separate itself from these other overseers and actually represent the consumer. With Elizabeth Warren at its head, at least we have someone who scares the banks and isn’t afraid to tell them they have to change; someone who actually speaks up for the average consumer and their needs.

      There has to be something done to help the consumer against the big banks. I, for one, am willing to give this new Bureau a chance. If it does not result in dramatic changes in how the large financial institutions treat us, the American consumer, then there will be no argument–you were right and the American government will have failed us once again. I hope you are wrong this time.

    • TheMortgageGuy

      Get A Job, you make some very good points. There are a number of agencies already overseeing the various financial lending institutions. The CFPB may reduce the number of financing choices you and other Americans now have. However, having worked in the residential mortgage industry for the past 12 years, I would argue there is a need for both of these changes to be made.

      It is obvious the current system is not working to protect the average American. It is also way too obvious to me that the current overseers have NO IDEA how to fix the mortgage problem or protect the American consumer from it continuing ad nauseum. Call me naive, but in the CFPB I see an organization which may just be able to separate itself from these other overseers and actually represent the consumer. With Elizabeth Warren at its head, at least we have someone who scares the banks and isn’t afraid to tell them they have to change; someone who actually speaks up for the average consumer and their needs.

      There has to be something done to help the consumer against the big banks. I, for one, am willing to give this new Bureau a chance. If it does not result in dramatic changes in how the large financial institutions treat us, the American consumer, then there will be no argument–you were right and the American government will have failed us once again. I hope you are wrong this time.

    • Steve

      And how many of these present ‘offices’, ‘corporations’, agencies and commissions have as their singular focus – the consumer? You outlined the problem quite nicely by mentioning many of the players and the lack of focus that they all bring.

    • Steve

      And how many of these present ‘offices’, ‘corporations’, agencies and commissions have as their singular focus – the consumer? You outlined the problem quite nicely by mentioning many of the players and the lack of focus that they all bring.

    • CollectionsBuster

      You seem nervous and jumpy. Are you guilty of something? Are they coming to get you? If you hate this site so much then stay off it. Are you one of those bank executives that they are after? If so, don’t sleep lightly. You go get a job, stupid. Elizabeth Warren is doing hers. She is going to get the likes of you.

    • CollectionsBuster

      You seem nervous and jumpy. Are you guilty of something? Are they coming to get you? If you hate this site so much then stay off it. Are you one of those bank executives that they are after? If so, don’t sleep lightly. You go get a job, stupid. Elizabeth Warren is doing hers. She is going to get the likes of you.

  • Get A Job

    This is asinine.

    You state in your blog the following:

    “CFPB examiners will be responsible for conducting examinations at these organizations to ensure that they comply with Federal consumer financial protection laws and regulations – including laws prohibiting unfair, deceptive, abusive, or discriminatory acts or practices – and that they operate their compliance management programs responsibly.”

    This is a duplication of effort and a waste of our taxpayer dollars.

    The organizations that you are preparing to examined are already examined by many other governmental agencies.

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) examines a large number of state chartered banks.

    The Federal Reserve Bank examines a large number of state chartered banks and all bank holding companies.

    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency examines all national banks.

    The National Credit Union Association examines all federally chartered credit unions.

    Each state has a department of banking that also examines state chartered banks.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development has the power to investigate and examine banks for certain activities.

    Most states have human rights commissions or other organizations to investigate discrimination claims.

    Someone please explain to me how adding the CFPB is going to make anything better. It just adds one more examiner, additional confusion, and additional expense to the taxpayer.

    Sure, it is a job creation tool. The CFPB will hire hundreds of persons and spend over $300 million annually to peform its function, whatever that function is.

    But as for making things more efficient, less costly, or more understandable, let’s stop fooling ourselves. Better yet, I wish the CFPB would stop this attempt to fool Americans into believing that they going to make our financial lives easier.

    The only thing I can see the CFPB doing is making it harder for me to obtain credit, and more expensive to do so. The CFPB, if it has its way, will reduce the choices I have for financial products.

    Other regulators are not going to go away when the CFPB springs into action. It will add costs to our nation’s financial providers. Financial providers will simply pass the additional costs of compliance, more lawyers, etc. onto consumers. In the end, I will be paying for these new examinations, not the financial companies themselves.

    Please folks, voice your concerns and let’s stop this train.

    Please CFPB, stay out of my wallet.

  • A. Burnt Consumer

    I see the comments below are critical of the CFPBs intent at oversight. One writer claims there is already oversight. Maybe so, but I know from personal experience that it is not adequate.

    I consider myself a highly informed consumer. I served throughout the 1960′s and 70′s as a Researcher, Associate Producer and Field Producer on numerous consumer oriented expose documentaries such as The Poor Pay More, and Banking and the Poor to name just a few. Nevertheless, I recently lost a great deal of money in the Indymac meltdown. On the advice of an Indymac customer service person, I made a change to my account over the phone in order to obtain higher interest. He changed my account but never switched over the In Trust For designation for my two children. Therefore, when the bank failed, my account was only insured by FDIC for a single person. I had no way of knowing this. In addition, the bank never had a signed signature card on file from me. I never signed off on the new account or received any information regarding my In Trust designation. So, were the auditors who are currently charged with oversight actually checking to see if my account was authorized by me or was this not part of their job? The lack of supervision then and probably still ongoing could if so desired, allow a bank employee to transfer accounts at will. The FDA, when auditing a clinical investigational site, requires that all informed consents for study subjects be signed and dated. The auditor inspects every patient entered in the study for compliance. Is any auditor either internal or governmental doing this at banking institutions? Based on my experience, it would appear not to be the case. I’ve spoken to the FDIC and I was told this was not part of their oversight. So, who is doing this?
    I also believe that since there is no existing legal requirement, the banks often change money market rates at will. One could equate the advertising of a rate that changes within weeks of the opening of a MM account to the old consumer ploy of bait and switch. I believe banks ought to have a required, defined time (perhaps 3 months from date of opening) whereby they must maintain the advertised interest rate before making a rate change. If I’m required to maintain a specific amount of money for a particular length of time, shouldn’t banks be held to a similar timeline? In addition, I believe it also should be mandatory that the bank inform the customer in writing or by e-mail the day the MM rate changes. Unless a consumer contacts their bank daily to ascertain the current daily MM rate, it isn’t until a statement arrives that one learns of the rate change. Should this really be allowed to continue as acceptable behavior on the part of financial institutions? And…to those who would contend it would be too costly for banks to provide the latter information, I say hogwash!. It easily could be achieved with a simple program modification that is part of an account set up when the account is opened.

    These comments and suggestions may seem insignificant, but to the average consumer such as myself, these changes could make a significant impact on finances.

    • Get A Job

      Dear Burnt Consumer:

      First, lets address your issue with Indy Mac Bank.

      It sounds as if your issue with Indy Mac Bank is not one that is related to a consumer compliance law or regulation. It sounds as if it is a customer service error on the part of an Indy Mac employee.

      The CFPB would have no oversight or jurisdiction over the errors made by customer service personnel when it comes to changing of an account type and failing to properly carry over the account title.

      I am sorry to hear of your plight with Indy Mac Bank and the mistake they made. I do believe if they made the mistake, the bank should be held accountable for the error. However, this is not an area that regulators oversee.

      Next, lets talk about money market accounts.

      Almost all money market accounts I have seen give the bank the ability to change the rate of interest on a daily basis. In all of these cases, the banks clearly disclose at account opening that the rate can change as often as daily.

      Banks do not normally change the rate on a money market account on a daily basis. They typically change the rates when market rates move significantly.

      If a bank discloses to a customer up front that the rate can change daily, I don’t understand what the problem is when a bank does what it disclosed.

      If you want the bank to guarantee a rate on your deposit for a specified period of time, then you should choose to place your funds in a certificte of deposit. These instruments typically last from seven days to five years – you choose the time frame.

      Banks give customers many options. Money market are one of them. Money markets give a customer the flexibility to withdraw their funds at any point in time – including daily.

      Banks invest these funds according to the time periods for which they are obligated to pay a certain rate of interest. On money market deposits, banks cannot invest these funds into long term assets. Why? Because the depositor has the ability to withdraw them on a moment’s notice. This also translates into the need for the bank to change the rate daily as the bank likely only invests those funds into assets that are short term in nature – typically overnight investments.

      If you would like a three month rate guarantee I suggest you choose a three month certificate of deposit.

      Unfortunately, it is not reasonable for you to think that you can have your cake and eat it too. You cannot demand that a bank guarantee your money market rate for three months and also give you the right to withdraw your money at any time.

      There are thousands of banks. If your bank’s money market product doesn’t suit your needs, simply go to another bank. This is the beauty of our financial system. One size doesn’t fit all. The choices we have give each of us the ability to find a product or service that meets our invidual needs.

      To force banks to offer a narrow set of vanilla products would be the equivalent of financial socialism.

      And to your comment on the expense of notification each time an interest rate is modified on an account, it is very expensive. Postage on the mailing alone would be $0.42. Add the cost of an envelope, a notice, and the time necessary to pay someone to print, fold, stuff and seal the notice and soon you are up to approximately $1.00 or more.

      Now you say, “well, what is a dollar”? In today’s low interest rate environment, a dollar is actually a lot.

      On a $1,000 money market account, if the rate is .5%, this would equate to interest of approximately 42 cents per month. I know, the low rate environment makes it difficult to earn any type of return on our money – but that is a topic unrelated to the regulation of banks. But, back to the example, to add $1.00 to the cost would essentially increase the cost of the account to the bank 2.5 times.

      Again, a money market gives you the ability to withdraw your money at any time. If your bank isn’t meeting your need, withdraw your money and move it somewhere else.

      I just performed a quick search on the internet for money market specials at banks. Within thirty seconds I found a bank paying a rate of 1.25% on a money market account and they are guaranteeing the rate for ten months.

      Just because many Americans are too lazy to shop and compare products, we should not take choices away and place the responsiblity with the federal government. I would like to make my own financial choices, thank you very much.

      I suggest you get an attorney and sue Indy Mac Bank. Further, I suggest you perform the same internet search I did and find the bank offering the ten month money market guarantee. Finally, I suggest that we not allow the federal government interfere with our financial choices.

      Get out of my wallet.

    • Get A Job

      Dear Burnt Consumer:

      First, lets address your issue with Indy Mac Bank.

      It sounds as if your issue with Indy Mac Bank is not one that is related to a consumer compliance law or regulation. It sounds as if it is a customer service error on the part of an Indy Mac employee.

      The CFPB would have no oversight or jurisdiction over the errors made by customer service personnel when it comes to changing of an account type and failing to properly carry over the account title.

      I am sorry to hear of your plight with Indy Mac Bank and the mistake they made. I do believe if they made the mistake, the bank should be held accountable for the error. However, this is not an area that regulators oversee.

      Next, lets talk about money market accounts.

      Almost all money market accounts I have seen give the bank the ability to change the rate of interest on a daily basis. In all of these cases, the banks clearly disclose at account opening that the rate can change as often as daily.

      Banks do not normally change the rate on a money market account on a daily basis. They typically change the rates when market rates move significantly.

      If a bank discloses to a customer up front that the rate can change daily, I don’t understand what the problem is when a bank does what it disclosed.

      If you want the bank to guarantee a rate on your deposit for a specified period of time, then you should choose to place your funds in a certificte of deposit. These instruments typically last from seven days to five years – you choose the time frame.

      Banks give customers many options. Money market are one of them. Money markets give a customer the flexibility to withdraw their funds at any point in time – including daily.

      Banks invest these funds according to the time periods for which they are obligated to pay a certain rate of interest. On money market deposits, banks cannot invest these funds into long term assets. Why? Because the depositor has the ability to withdraw them on a moment’s notice. This also translates into the need for the bank to change the rate daily as the bank likely only invests those funds into assets that are short term in nature – typically overnight investments.

      If you would like a three month rate guarantee I suggest you choose a three month certificate of deposit.

      Unfortunately, it is not reasonable for you to think that you can have your cake and eat it too. You cannot demand that a bank guarantee your money market rate for three months and also give you the right to withdraw your money at any time.

      There are thousands of banks. If your bank’s money market product doesn’t suit your needs, simply go to another bank. This is the beauty of our financial system. One size doesn’t fit all. The choices we have give each of us the ability to find a product or service that meets our invidual needs.

      To force banks to offer a narrow set of vanilla products would be the equivalent of financial socialism.

      And to your comment on the expense of notification each time an interest rate is modified on an account, it is very expensive. Postage on the mailing alone would be $0.42. Add the cost of an envelope, a notice, and the time necessary to pay someone to print, fold, stuff and seal the notice and soon you are up to approximately $1.00 or more.

      Now you say, “well, what is a dollar”? In today’s low interest rate environment, a dollar is actually a lot.

      On a $1,000 money market account, if the rate is .5%, this would equate to interest of approximately 42 cents per month. I know, the low rate environment makes it difficult to earn any type of return on our money – but that is a topic unrelated to the regulation of banks. But, back to the example, to add $1.00 to the cost would essentially increase the cost of the account to the bank 2.5 times.

      Again, a money market gives you the ability to withdraw your money at any time. If your bank isn’t meeting your need, withdraw your money and move it somewhere else.

      I just performed a quick search on the internet for money market specials at banks. Within thirty seconds I found a bank paying a rate of 1.25% on a money market account and they are guaranteeing the rate for ten months.

      Just because many Americans are too lazy to shop and compare products, we should not take choices away and place the responsiblity with the federal government. I would like to make my own financial choices, thank you very much.

      I suggest you get an attorney and sue Indy Mac Bank. Further, I suggest you perform the same internet search I did and find the bank offering the ten month money market guarantee. Finally, I suggest that we not allow the federal government interfere with our financial choices.

      Get out of my wallet.

    • Get A Job

      The CFPB has no authority or jurisdiction over an alleged mistake in the titling of an account on a signature card.

      We certainly do not need the micromanagement of a federal agency overseeing bank employees and whether they complete data entry fields completely and correctly.

      Your issue sounds as if you need to seek legal counsel to explore remedies against IndyMac for the alleged negligence of its employee. Unfortunately, you are caught in the trap that IndyMac no longer exists so your ability to recover if you do receive a judgment against IndyMac may be limited.

      Regarding guaranteeing rates on money market accounts – please stop whining. When you opened your account, you were given a set of disclosures. Look at Regulation DD on the Federal Reserve Bank’s website. You will find the regulation that outlines the disclosures that customers are given when opening deposit accounts.

      Your disclosure informed you that the rate on your money market account could change as often as daily. With this disclosure, and with your permission, you opened the account and placed your money into it.

      If you are unhappy with the account, you may certainly withdraw your funds and take them to another bank. I did a quick internet search and found many banks that are offering over 1.00% on money market accounts and will guarantee it up to six months.

      That is the beauty of our financial democracy. Many competitors with many choices. Choices that we can customize for our personal needs.

      Just because a consumer is too lazy to read disclosures, shop around, or move when dissatisfied is not justification for a new government regulator to perform these tasks for us.

      And, just so you know, money market rates don’t change very frequently. And since you are getting a statement each month, your information on the current rate is less than thirty days old.

      Stop whining and get a job.

  • A. Burnt Consumer

    I see the comments below are critical of the CFPBs intent at oversight. One writer claims there is already oversight. Maybe so, but I know from personal experience that it is not adequate.

    I consider myself a highly informed consumer. I served throughout the 1960′s and 70′s as a Researcher, Associate Producer and Field Producer on numerous consumer oriented expose documentaries such as The Poor Pay More, and Banking and the Poor to name just a few. Nevertheless, I recently lost a great deal of money in the Indymac meltdown. On the advice of an Indymac customer service person, I made a change to my account over the phone in order to obtain higher interest. He changed my account but never switched over the In Trust For designation for my two children. Therefore, when the bank failed, my account was only insured by FDIC for a single person. I had no way of knowing this. In addition, the bank never had a signed signature card on file from me. I never signed off on the new account or received any information regarding my In Trust designation. So, were the auditors who are currently charged with oversight actually checking to see if my account was authorized by me or was this not part of their job? The lack of supervision then and probably still ongoing could if so desired, allow a bank employee to transfer accounts at will. The FDA, when auditing a clinical investigational site, requires that all informed consents for study subjects be signed and dated. The auditor inspects every patient entered in the study for compliance. Is any auditor either internal or governmental doing this at banking institutions? Based on my experience, it would appear not to be the case. I’ve spoken to the FDIC and I was told this was not part of their oversight. So, who is doing this?
    I also believe that since there is no existing legal requirement, the banks often change money market rates at will. One could equate the advertising of a rate that changes within weeks of the opening of a MM account to the old consumer ploy of bait and switch. I believe banks ought to have a required, defined time (perhaps 3 months from date of opening) whereby they must maintain the advertised interest rate before making a rate change. If I’m required to maintain a specific amount of money for a particular length of time, shouldn’t banks be held to a similar timeline? In addition, I believe it also should be mandatory that the bank inform the customer in writing or by e-mail the day the MM rate changes. Unless a consumer contacts their bank daily to ascertain the current daily MM rate, it isn’t until a statement arrives that one learns of the rate change. Should this really be allowed to continue as acceptable behavior on the part of financial institutions? And…to those who would contend it would be too costly for banks to provide the latter information, I say hogwash!. It easily could be achieved with a simple program modification that is part of an account set up when the account is opened.

    These comments and suggestions may seem insignificant, but to the average consumer such as myself, these changes could make a significant impact on finances.

  • Anubis10

    Elizabeth: Yiour Herculean efforts are appreeciated. Hang in there to take on the bloviating Senators from Citi Bank etc. What can I and others do ,on a volunteer basis, to help you help us.

  • Anubis10

    Elizabeth: Yiour Herculean efforts are appreeciated. Hang in there to take on the bloviating Senators from Citi Bank etc. What can I and others do ,on a volunteer basis, to help you help us.

    • Get A Job

      “Hurculean” efforts?

      Please.

      The administration has yet to allow Ms. Warren to go through the Senate confirmation process. Why not? What is there to hide? If the CFPB is to be totally transparent, then why not go through the required process to confirm her as the leader of the organization?

      The CFPB does not yet have any powers. Ms. Warren has not been confirmed by the Senate.

      Herculean?

      It looks more like a Herculean effort to skirt the rules of confirming the leaders of this nation’s federal agencies. If Ms. Warren wants to require full and clear disclosures from financial providers, she needs to put her money where her mouth is and to fully disclose herself to the American people.

    • Get A Job

      “Hurculean” efforts?

      Please.

      The administration has yet to allow Ms. Warren to go through the Senate confirmation process. Why not? What is there to hide? If the CFPB is to be totally transparent, then why not go through the required process to confirm her as the leader of the organization?

      The CFPB does not yet have any powers. Ms. Warren has not been confirmed by the Senate.

      Herculean?

      It looks more like a Herculean effort to skirt the rules of confirming the leaders of this nation’s federal agencies. If Ms. Warren wants to require full and clear disclosures from financial providers, she needs to put her money where her mouth is and to fully disclose herself to the American people.

  • Emlakka

    Great post, this is always a subject that requires more attention to understand, and sometimes we stay all
    confused by all this complicated thing, but you´ve this a little easy to understand, thanksss

  • Emlakka

    Great post, this is always a subject that requires more attention to understand, and sometimes we stay all
    confused by all this complicated thing, but you´ve this a little easy to understand, thanksss

  • Eat Crow

    You must be rich.

  • Reader

    Just a little bit of cherry picking, there, Get A Job, you left out a portion you obviously want to obscure.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a brand-new 21st century agency with responsibility for making markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans. To help carry out that mission, ….

    then the small piece you quoted. If read in it’s entirety, it is understood that the “examination” is a tool to carry out the responsibility which is to “make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans.” Not “work for bankers” or “work for shareholders” who, in some cases might also be Americans, I’ll agree, before you snap at me.

  • Reader

    Just a little bit of cherry picking, there, Get A Job, you left out a portion you obviously want to obscure.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a brand-new 21st century agency with responsibility for making markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans. To help carry out that mission, ….

    then the small piece you quoted. If read in it’s entirety, it is understood that the “examination” is a tool to carry out the responsibility which is to “make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans.” Not “work for bankers” or “work for shareholders” who, in some cases might also be Americans, I’ll agree, before you snap at me.

  • Concerned

    Close down “Citifinancial” lonesharking institutions! Or at least make it difficult for them to profit off of decent Americans whom they swindle and then take their homes. I was lucky! When Citifinancial foreclosed on my property in 2004, I was able to sell it for much more than I had paid for it ten years prior. The amount Citifinancial claimed I owed them (and I paid it) was actually more than what they had loaned me, after I made ten years worth of paymets! How is that possible? Maybe you can explain it to me! No just shut them down!

  • Concerned

    Close down “Citifinancial” lonesharking institutions! Or at least make it difficult for them to profit off of decent Americans whom they swindle and then take their homes. I was lucky! When Citifinancial foreclosed on my property in 2004, I was able to sell it for much more than I had paid for it ten years prior. The amount Citifinancial claimed I owed them (and I paid it) was actually more than what they had loaned me, after I made ten years worth of paymets! How is that possible? Maybe you can explain it to me! No just shut them down!

  • Nancy_ayres

    Will you be doing anything with the FICO credit score system that truely has made us all numbers and not people.

  • Nancy_ayres

    Will you be doing anything with the FICO credit score system that truely has made us all numbers and not people.

  • Jsmitty305

    Your effort is misdirected! The people most ripped off by the credit card companies are the low income people who don’t qualify for a card. They indirectly pay a surcharge on every purchase because the sellers have to increase their prices to make up for the discount given to the credit card companies. Even the people who shop with food stamps are being ripped off. The higher price means they are getting less food for their stamp. This is made even worse by the companies that return 1 or 2% to the card holder. When credit cards were first issued, there was a yearly charge for the convenience of the service. This is how it should be. Morally and legally this is the way it should be. The person who receives the benefit should pay for it. NOTE: I am not skilled on the net or computers. I am not sure how to identify my self to you so that my comment is properly. John Smith or jsmith305@comcast.net

    I firmly believe the one thing that is most important for CFPB to do is require the cardholders to pay for the service they are getting. Thank you for your time to read my comment. SMITTY

    • Jsmith305

      Even my comment needs editing—the first paragraph should end with—my comment is properly evaluated

    • Jsmith305

      Even my comment needs editing—the first paragraph should end with—my comment is properly evaluated

  • Jsmitty305

    Your effort is misdirected! The people most ripped off by the credit card companies are the low income people who don’t qualify for a card. They indirectly pay a surcharge on every purchase because the sellers have to increase their prices to make up for the discount given to the credit card companies. Even the people who shop with food stamps are being ripped off. The higher price means they are getting less food for their stamp. This is made even worse by the companies that return 1 or 2% to the card holder. When credit cards were first issued, there was a yearly charge for the convenience of the service. This is how it should be. Morally and legally this is the way it should be. The person who receives the benefit should pay for it. NOTE: I am not skilled on the net or computers. I am not sure how to identify my self to you so that my comment is properly. John Smith or jsmith305@comcast.net

    I firmly believe the one thing that is most important for CFPB to do is require the cardholders to pay for the service they are getting. Thank you for your time to read my comment. SMITTY

  • Help

    change is good sometimes

  • Help

    change is good sometimes

  • Wittness from a distance

    I have read many blogs and postings concerning who, in the author’s opinion, is responsible for this recent fiasco and how to cure the economic turmoil, punish the guilty, and protect all the people within all the categories from future harm. What I am marginally able to determine is that many people don’t truely understand what happened to cause this “economic downturn”. Many people only feel their own loss, discomfort, pain, and related issues and connect it to things they are connected to. At many times, the commentors appear to be having a contest as to who can boast the greatest ignorance and blame. What I generally see, read, hear, is that many feel the responsibility falls to a select group, and usually not the group they affiliate with. And this selected guilty group needs to be put in it’s place, and maybe even reimburse everyone for their losses. What I rarely see, read, or hear is any real understanding of what happened, why it happened, and what could be done if the there was true cooperation among everyone. I don’t pretend to have an answer or resolution to cure much of anything. What I do propose as the foundation of these problems lies in human nature among all of us, from the poor, uneducated masses to the wealthy beyond imagination. We are a greedy and selfish creature. That characteristic lies ajmong us all. Individuals wanted what they couldn’t afford, loan originators wanted more fee income, realtors wanted more commissions, appraisers wanted more fees, lenders wanted more fee and interest income, brokers wanted more fees and commissions, investors wanted more gains, shareholders wanted more dividends and value, executives accross the board wanted more money, power, and influence. And as long as we got what we want, it didn’t really matter if someone else lost all they had. And now that there are many bodies of influence trying to take control and credit for the cure, again it’s at their gain, their political party’s gain, their industry’s gain, their agency’s gain, and on and on. Everyone else is wrong, and if they would just listen to me, and do what I want done, they would just see that I have all the answers.

  • Wittness from a distance

    I have read many blogs and postings concerning who, in the author’s opinion, is responsible for this recent fiasco and how to cure the economic turmoil, punish the guilty, and protect all the people within all the categories from future harm. What I am marginally able to determine is that many people don’t truely understand what happened to cause this “economic downturn”. Many people only feel their own loss, discomfort, pain, and related issues and connect it to things they are connected to. At many times, the commentors appear to be having a contest as to who can boast the greatest ignorance and blame. What I generally see, read, hear, is that many feel the responsibility falls to a select group, and usually not the group they affiliate with. And this selected guilty group needs to be put in it’s place, and maybe even reimburse everyone for their losses. What I rarely see, read, or hear is any real understanding of what happened, why it happened, and what could be done if the there was true cooperation among everyone. I don’t pretend to have an answer or resolution to cure much of anything. What I do propose as the foundation of these problems lies in human nature among all of us, from the poor, uneducated masses to the wealthy beyond imagination. We are a greedy and selfish creature. That characteristic lies ajmong us all. Individuals wanted what they couldn’t afford, loan originators wanted more fee income, realtors wanted more commissions, appraisers wanted more fees, lenders wanted more fee and interest income, brokers wanted more fees and commissions, investors wanted more gains, shareholders wanted more dividends and value, executives accross the board wanted more money, power, and influence. And as long as we got what we want, it didn’t really matter if someone else lost all they had. And now that there are many bodies of influence trying to take control and credit for the cure, again it’s at their gain, their political party’s gain, their industry’s gain, their agency’s gain, and on and on. Everyone else is wrong, and if they would just listen to me, and do what I want done, they would just see that I have all the answers.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_27NK6AXCJQOHOKF4EVSZ2EEPBM Texas Rebel

    END THE FED! ABOLISH THE IRS!

    OBLITERATE THE SO-CALLED CONSUMER FINANCE “PROTECTION” BUREAU (that reports to the FED)!!!!

    SUMMARY: Just quit scamming Americans like the spineless, parasitic, no-good thieves that you are! WE, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND IT!

    Once upon a time, a certain king in a land of ease wished to settle accounts. Usurers who owed billions were brought to him. The Usurers had bribed the gullible into burdensome loans they knew the debtors could not repay. Floundering beneath the loans, the debtors scoured nickels and dimes to pay what they could. Since the debtors could pay neither quickly nor substantially, the Usurers added new fees and even higher rates of interest.

    When small lenders worked kindly with those seeking loans, the Usurers anted up their bribes and squelched the small lenders. They even bought out the loans of the small lenders, forcing those who had avoided the Usurers into debt with them anyway. Before long, most of the citizens of the land were indebted to the Usurers.

    Eventually, the burdens of the debtors were so great, they crashed. They could pay no more. The Usurers’ game had boomeranged back to them and they were no longer winning the game they had invented. Seeing their own debtors’ prison before them, their eyes grew wide with terror.

    So the Usurers went before the king and said, “Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.” And the king felt compassion on the Usurers and bailed them out. But the Usurers went and found their debtors who owed thousands and seized them and began to choke them, saying, “Pay back what you owe.”

    So the debtors fell down and began to entreat the Usurers, saying, “Have patience with me and I will repay you.” The Usurers were unwilling, however, and went and took their houses, their cars, and all their belongings, and threw them out into the street.

    For a time, the king permitted the Usurers to mistreat the debtors and did not require that their bailed out new wealth trickle down to the debtors. So the Usurers returned to their bribes, and they lured in new debtors. And the process started all over: the Usurers grew rich again, the debtors floundered again, and they stopped paying again, but now, the Usurers owed trillions.

    But this time, the king, who had been paid by the indebted citizens, was also broke. For a time, he had a magician make money under a funny euphemism no one could pronounce. But it sounded something like “calculating easier,” and, naturally, everyone in the land of ease liked the sound of that. Eventually, the people discovered the euphemism only meant that the king’s money was worthless, so his wealth and his coveted bail-outs came to an end. Many had loved the land of ease and, when the ease turned against them, they met with despair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_27NK6AXCJQOHOKF4EVSZ2EEPBM Texas Rebel

    END THE FED! ABOLISH THE IRS!

    OBLITERATE THE SO-CALLED CONSUMER FINANCE “PROTECTION” BUREAU (that reports to the FED)!!!!

    SUMMARY: Just quit scamming Americans like the spineless, parasitic, no-good thieves that you are! WE, THE PEOPLE, DEMAND IT!

    Once upon a time, a certain king in a land of ease wished to settle accounts. Usurers who owed billions were brought to him. The Usurers had bribed the gullible into burdensome loans they knew the debtors could not repay. Floundering beneath the loans, the debtors scoured nickels and dimes to pay what they could. Since the debtors could pay neither quickly nor substantially, the Usurers added new fees and even higher rates of interest.

    When small lenders worked kindly with those seeking loans, the Usurers anted up their bribes and squelched the small lenders. They even bought out the loans of the small lenders, forcing those who had avoided the Usurers into debt with them anyway. Before long, most of the citizens of the land were indebted to the Usurers.

    Eventually, the burdens of the debtors were so great, they crashed. They could pay no more. The Usurers’ game had boomeranged back to them and they were no longer winning the game they had invented. Seeing their own debtors’ prison before them, their eyes grew wide with terror.

    So the Usurers went before the king and said, “Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.” And the king felt compassion on the Usurers and bailed them out. But the Usurers went and found their debtors who owed thousands and seized them and began to choke them, saying, “Pay back what you owe.”

    So the debtors fell down and began to entreat the Usurers, saying, “Have patience with me and I will repay you.” The Usurers were unwilling, however, and went and took their houses, their cars, and all their belongings, and threw them out into the street.

    For a time, the king permitted the Usurers to mistreat the debtors and did not require that their bailed out new wealth trickle down to the debtors. So the Usurers returned to their bribes, and they lured in new debtors. And the process started all over: the Usurers grew rich again, the debtors floundered again, and they stopped paying again, but now, the Usurers owed trillions.

    But this time, the king, who had been paid by the indebted citizens, was also broke. For a time, he had a magician make money under a funny euphemism no one could pronounce. But it sounded something like “calculating easier,” and, naturally, everyone in the land of ease liked the sound of that. Eventually, the people discovered the euphemism only meant that the king’s money was worthless, so his wealth and his coveted bail-outs came to an end. Many had loved the land of ease and, when the ease turned against them, they met with despair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_27NK6AXCJQOHOKF4EVSZ2EEPBM Texas Rebel

    Once upon a time, a certain king in a land of ease wished to settle accounts. Usurers who owed billions were brought to him. The Usurers had bribed the gullible into burdensome loans they knew the debtors could not repay. Floundering beneath the loans, the debtors scoured nickels and dimes to pay what they could. Since the debtors could pay neither quickly nor substantially, the Usurers added new fees and even higher rates of interest.

    When small lenders worked kindly with those seeking loans, the Usurers anted up their bribes and squelched the small lenders. They even bought out the loans of the small lenders, forcing those who had avoided the Usurers into debt with them anyway. Before long, most of the citizens of the land were indebted to the Usurers.

    Eventually, the burdens of the debtors were so great, they crashed. They could pay no more. The Usurers’ game had boomeranged back to them and they were no longer winning the game they had invented. Seeing their own debtors’ prison before them, their eyes grew wide with terror.

    So the Usurers went before the king and said, “Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.” And the king felt compassion on the Usurers and bailed them out. But the Usurers went and found their debtors who owed thousands and seized them and began to choke them, saying, “Pay back what you owe.”

    So the debtors fell down and began to entreat the Usurers, saying, “Have patience with me and I will repay you.” The Usurers were unwilling, however, and went and took their houses, their cars, and all their belongings, and threw them out into the street.

    For a time, the king permitted the Usurers to mistreat the debtors and did not require that their bailed out new wealth trickle down to the debtors. So the Usurers returned to their bribes, and they lured in new debtors. And the process started all over: the Usurers grew rich again, the debtors floundered again, and they stopped paying again, but now, the Usurers owed trillions.

    But this time, the king, who had been paid by the indebted citizens, was also broke. For a time, he had a magician make money under a funny euphemism no one could pronounce. But it sounded something like “calculating easier,” and, naturally, everyone in the land of ease liked the sound of that. Eventually, the people discovered the euphemism only meant that the king’s money was worthless, so his wealth and his coveted bail-outs came to an end. Many had loved the land of ease and, when the ease turned against them, they met with despair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_27NK6AXCJQOHOKF4EVSZ2EEPBM Texas Rebel

    Once upon a time, a certain king in a land of ease wished to settle accounts. Usurers who owed billions were brought to him. The Usurers had bribed the gullible into burdensome loans they knew the debtors could not repay. Floundering beneath the loans, the debtors scoured nickels and dimes to pay what they could. Since the debtors could pay neither quickly nor substantially, the Usurers added new fees and even higher rates of interest.

    When small lenders worked kindly with those seeking loans, the Usurers anted up their bribes and squelched the small lenders. They even bought out the loans of the small lenders, forcing those who had avoided the Usurers into debt with them anyway. Before long, most of the citizens of the land were indebted to the Usurers.

    Eventually, the burdens of the debtors were so great, they crashed. They could pay no more. The Usurers’ game had boomeranged back to them and they were no longer winning the game they had invented. Seeing their own debtors’ prison before them, their eyes grew wide with terror.

    So the Usurers went before the king and said, “Have patience with me, and I will repay you everything.” And the king felt compassion on the Usurers and bailed them out. But the Usurers went and found their debtors who owed thousands and seized them and began to choke them, saying, “Pay back what you owe.”

    So the debtors fell down and began to entreat the Usurers, saying, “Have patience with me and I will repay you.” The Usurers were unwilling, however, and went and took their houses, their cars, and all their belongings, and threw them out into the street.

    For a time, the king permitted the Usurers to mistreat the debtors and did not require that their bailed out new wealth trickle down to the debtors. So the Usurers returned to their bribes, and they lured in new debtors. And the process started all over: the Usurers grew rich again, the debtors floundered again, and they stopped paying again, but now, the Usurers owed trillions.

    But this time, the king, who had been paid by the indebted citizens, was also broke. For a time, he had a magician make money under a funny euphemism no one could pronounce. But it sounded something like “calculating easier,” and, naturally, everyone in the land of ease liked the sound of that. Eventually, the people discovered the euphemism only meant that the king’s money was worthless, so his wealth and his coveted bail-outs came to an end. Many had loved the land of ease and, when the ease turned against them, they met with despair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_27NK6AXCJQOHOKF4EVSZ2EEPBM Texas Rebel

    Obama fails at “having the most transparent government!’ You won’t even post my comments complaining about how this “consumer protection bureau” actually reports to the FED! What a sham you are! That goes for the whole Federal Government! Bunch of lazy parasites!!!!!

The CFPB blog aims to facilitate conversations about our work. We want your comments to drive this conversation. Please be courteous, constructive, and on-topic. To help make the conversation productive, we encourage you to read our comment policy before posting. Comments on any post remain open for seven days from the date it was posted.