Skip to main content

Speech at the Bipartisan Policy Center By Kathleen L. Kraninger, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Thank you to our hosts for the invitation, and to all of you for coming today. I’m particularly honored to be at a forum focused on bringing people together from across the political spectrum to forge commonsense solutions for the pressing issues facing our Nation. That’s the approach I am taking to advance consumer protection and mature the Bureau to meet that mission. I want to specifically thank Jason Grumet, President of the Bipartisan Policy Center as well as BPC staff Shai Akabas, and John Soroushian. BPC has supported dialogue on myriad issues, including the CFPB mission.

As demonstrated by my introduction, I’m no stranger to public service. I started in the Peace Corps and served in the legislative branch and several cabinet agencies, where I also supported several government “startups.” While my positions have largely been “political” appointments, I learned early on in my career the responsibility and duty to carry out public service as a public trust.  

I worked under Secretary Mineta, a former Democratic congressman and Clinton commerce secretary, who served as President Bush’s Secretary of Transportation. He liked to say there are no Democratic roads or Republican highways. While being mindful of the political environment and considerations, we focused on developing and promoting the right policies for the American people. We also engaged in robust and transparent discourse on what those right policies were – both internally and externally with the many stakeholders who cared about those policies. I have adopted that model in my career and am bringing that to my leadership of the CFPB.   

On my first day on the job last December, I launched a three month listening tour. Over that time, I met with well over 400 consumer groups, state and local government officials, faith leaders, military personnel, academics, non-profits, financial institutions, former and current members of the Bureau’s advisory committees, and consumers. I have also met with and heard from the Bureau’s talented staff at headquarters and across the country. 

During these discussions, I heard a broad range of diverse views about the Bureau, its work, and its future. I can tell you there is no shortage of opinions! Here are a few areas of consensus amongst the viewpoints I heard: 

  • The CFPB’s mission and the agency itself are critical to our economy and are not going away.  
  • A level playing field amongst financial services providers is an important goal.
  • Bad actors harm consumers and undermine the integrity of markets; they should be held accountable.
  • All stakeholders expressed a strong interest in protecting consumers, though they differ on the best way to accomplish that mutual interest.

I want to thank everyone who shared their perspectives. These viewpoints have been indispensable in shaping my approach to executing the important mission of consumer protection. Today, I will lay out that approach and what it means for the Bureau and our partners. Notably, a continued commitment to engagement with all of our stakeholders is a key part of that approach.

Utilization of All Tools to Prevent Consumer Harm 

In the wake of the financial crisis, Congress had a robust debate over splitting safety and soundness from consumer protection. Ultimately, Congress, through the Dodd-Frank Act, created the CFPB to be singularly focused on consumer protection in the market for financial products and services.  Indeed, Congress clearly articulated the purpose and objectives of the CFPB. In summary, the Act states, “The Bureau shall seek to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that [those] markets… are fair, transparent, and competitive.”  

Congress gave significant powers and tools to the Director to carry out that mission. Those tools include education, regulation, supervision, and enforcement, each of which serves an important component in the Bureau’s execution of its mission. As Director, I believe that the best application of these tools is to focus on prevention of harm to consumers. I will be talking about each of these tools in turn and how we will use them going forward to prevent harm to consumers. After that, I will briefly address the challenge of measuring success in preventing harm as well as our commitment to transparent, productive public discourse.

Empowering Consumers and Turning Financial Education into Action

Our first tool is education. Congress specifically charged the Bureau with conducting financial education programs and ensuring consumers receive timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions. The Bureau cannot be everywhere, with everyone, at every transaction – nor should it try to be. Therefore, empowering consumers to help themselves, protect their own interests, and choose the financial products and services that best fit their needs is vital to preventing consumer harm and building financial well-being.  

With the multitude of public and private sector entities engaged in consumer financial education, I also want to ensure the Bureau uses its education tool where it is uniquely positioned to add value and provide leadership. Through the listening tour, I sought feedback from stakeholders about the value of our educational materials and how they are used. I listened to Bureau staff and other experts describe the approaches we have taken to financial education. 

Specifically, the Bureau recognized a gap and conducted extensive research to develop a consumer-centric definition of financial well-being that goes beyond income and credit score. It captures a person’s sense of financial security and financial freedom of choice in the present and the future. Core to that security is control over day-to-day and month-to-month personal finances as well as the capacity to absorb financial shocks. We have also found that consumers can experience financial well-being – or lack of it – across a wide range of incomes. It is tied to financial skills and confidence in those skills. 

Today’s consumers need these skills more than ever. For example, fewer than half of Americans set aside money for their children’s college education. More and more people reach retirement with incomes and savings that simply won’t meet their needs. Perhaps most distressing to me was the Federal Reserve report that found 40 percent of Americans would turn to credit to cover a $400 emergency.

That last statistic in particular caught my attention. I have talked with non-profits engaged in financial well-being education, fintech companies developing apps around savings, media personalities, members of our advisory committees, and CEOs of financial institutions, among others, about this report. They share the same concern.

As we collectively support Americans building financial well-being, tackling emergency savings is a logical place to focus. It is a key element as people address the broader issues in their financial lives around attaining and retaining good credit, managing their debt, and maintaining a healthy habit of savings. To promote effective approaches to savings and particularly emergency savings, the Bureau recently launched our Start Small, Save Up initiative. It offers tips, tools and information to help consumers build a basic savings cushion and develop a savings habit. Later this year, we will be launching a savings “boot camp,” a series of videos, and a very readable, informative booklet that serves as a roadmap to a savings plan. I encourage you to find out more about Start Small, Save Up at the CFPB website.

Let me be clear, however, the ultimate goal for the Bureau is not to produce booklets and great content on our website. The goal is to move the needle on the number of Americans in this country who can cover a financial shock, like a $400 emergency. I am committed to bringing together partners from across sectors to develop and execute a strategy to achieve this outcome. The collective investment in financial education in this country is substantial, and I believe we can increase the level of emergency savings by bringing these efforts together. 

I am willing to listen, to promote the best practices of others, and to share or give credit, because this is not about promoting the Bureau or any individual. I believe with the right coalition putting our energy and talents toward this goal, we can significantly increase the level of emergency savings across the country resulting in consumers taking control of their financial futures. I am challenging all of you listening today to take this on with the CFPB.

Ensuring Clear Rules of the Road

Our second tool for preventing consumer harm is rulemaking and guidance where appropriate – articulating clear rules of the road for regulated entities that promote competition, increase transparency, and preserve fair markets for financial products and services. Where Congress directs the CFPB to promulgate rules or address specific issues through rulemaking, we will comply with the law. Where the Bureau has discretion, we will focus on preventing consumer harm by maximizing informed consumer choice, and prohibiting acts or practices which undermine the ability of consumers to choose the products and services that are best for them.

To develop the best possible rules, the CFPB must use the best possible process. Because rules are general standards, they are not best articulated on a case-by-case basis through enforcement actions. Rather, they should be developed through a rulemaking process that is transparent; that allows stakeholders to submit comments; that reflects rigorous economic and market analysis; and that provides for judicial review. Ultimately, I don’t believe anyone benefits from rules that are rushed out the door after having gone through a flawed process. Under my leadership, the CFPB will proceed deliberately and transparently in its rulemakings.

Let me give you a concrete example of where all stakeholders have been seeking clearer rules of the road and a CFPB rulemaking is designed to do exactly that. In the coming weeks, the Bureau will release proposed rules to implement the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). As many of you know, the Act was passed in 1977. This was the same year that Steve Jobs introduced the world to the idea of a personal computer with the design of the Apple II. Phone booths were on almost every corner and cell phones were not even imaginable. And though there have been many advances in communications technologies since 1977, the FDCPA has not been updated to reflect our use of such technologies. 

The Bureau will propose clarifying rules to better enable the use of modern communications technology in collections activity. The proposed rules also would protect consumers with clear, bright-line limits on the number of calls they may receive from debt collectors on a weekly basis.  We will propose to provide clarity on how collectors may communicate via newer technology such as email or text messages. We will propose that collectors provide consumers with more and better information at the outset of collection to help them identify debts and understand their options, including their rights in disputing debts or paying them. As the CFPB moves to modernize the legal regime for debt collection, we are keenly interested in the views of stakeholders and look forward to engagement with you.

Given the prospective nature of rules combined with the unpredictable pace of change in technologies and markets, it is imperative that the CFPB be vigilant in evaluating the rules the agency has issued. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, within five years of the effective date of a significant rule, the CFPB must submit a report assessing the effectiveness of the rule in meeting the purposes and objectives of Title X and the goals stated by the Bureau. I believe Congress had great foresight in requiring the CFPB to determine whether our rules are working in the real world. 

Early in my tenure, the CFPB issued assessment reports addressing the Mortgage Servicing and ATR-QM Rules. We have more such efforts in the pipeline and have been discussing the best way to approach these assessments even in the initial development of a rule.  It is important to have baseline information for comparing data after the rule takes effect to understand whether the rules are protecting consumers and to evaluate the costs and benefits. Further, the Bureau welcomes comment on our assessments to support stakeholder input over the effectiveness of our rules.

I take seriously our responsibility under the law to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden and to consider the impact of rulemaking on regulated entities and consumers. The CFPB must acknowledge that the costs imposed on regulated entities absolutely affect access to, and the availability of, credit to consumers. To that end, the Bureau continues to sift through the comments from the call for evidence last year, particularly organizing roughly 1,750 separate issues related to rulemaking. I have pledged to stakeholders that we will share our reaction to those comments through our development of the regulatory agenda and engage in a robust discourse on the relevant topics.

Ensuring a Culture of Compliance through Supervision

The Bureau’s work is not finished after educating consumers to help them protect themselves, and writing rules that clearly articulate the legal requirements for institutions. The Bureau also has supervision authority that can prevent violations of laws and regulations from happening in the first place. To quote one of the Bureau staff in New York – people act differently when they know there is a regulator who will be checking their work. 

Bureau examiners can review compliance management systems at an institution to assess whether the institution is taking its obligations seriously, and whether it has a culture of compliance that tries to prevent harm in the first instance. Supervision can uncover inattention to compliance and other internal controls that, if unaddressed, might lead to future violations. We can then suggest ways the institution can make improvements that might stop this from happening.  

In fact, traditional banking institutions and nonbank lenders alike have noted the value of the exam process in supporting their compliance efforts – I heard it repeatedly in my conversations over the listening tour. Heading trouble off at the pass may not grab big headlines, but it will prevent a lot of headaches for the consumers we serve.

Just a few weeks ago, I visited an exam team onsite at a bank. Bureau examiners walked me through the systems they use, the information requests they sent, the data they received back, and the steps they take to evaluate whether an institution is complying with its legal obligations. They talked about how they review an institution’s compliance management systems. I was encouraged to hear their focus on working with the institution to prevent consumer harm, and I will encourage and expect this productive focus going forward.

Over the past few months, I have met many of the Bureau’s examiners and had the opportunity to hear their perspectives on the work they do and how we support them at headquarters. 

I have reiterated my view that supervision is the heart of this agency – particularly demonstrated by the percentage of our personnel and resources dedicated to conducting exams. I am focused on ensuring we use this tool as effectively and efficiently as possible to prevent consumer harm. It is also imperative that the Bureau ensure consistent application in the use of our supervision tool. 

Focused on these goals for supervision, I have challenged the staff to take a fresh look at the entire process – the prioritization and frequency of exams, the size of the exam teams, the days spent onsite, the systems and job aids that support the work, the time it takes to complete an exam and deliver a report, and how we empower examiners to provide input on the exam process, among other things. From a substantive standpoint, to ensure a culture of compliance means working confidentially in a back-and-forth process with a financial institution to prevent consumer harm until the institution demonstrates that process won’t work for them. That institution needs to self-examine, self-report, and provide restitution where appropriate. 

Given the pace of the world today, that institution – and consumers – expect agility from the Bureau in terms of how quickly we can adjust to address changing risks, including how promptly we acknowledge that actual or potential harm has been addressed. 

It is also important for us to keep in mind that the Bureau is not the only government regulator supervising any given entity. Financial institutions in this country are subject to myriad laws and regulations, all while being examined by a variety of federal and state regulators. In my short tenure, I have gotten to know my federal counterparts and am building strong relationships with them. I have also prioritized meeting and speaking with state attorneys general and commissioners at every opportunity. I recently assumed the chair of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, a group of federal and state agencies that regulate financial institutions. As Chair, my focus will be on strengthening coordination and collaboration with our sister regulators who review the same or similar information at the same institutions, albeit for different reasons. 

It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we do not impose unmanageable burdens while performing our duties. A more efficient and effective deployment of resources toward monitoring and addressing the risks will help all agencies do their jobs better, and will help the Bureau to prevent harm to consumers and address violations where they occur.

Holding Bad Actors to Account and Deterrence through Enforcement

Fourth, enforcement. Let me state emphatically my view that enforcement is an essential tool Congress gave the Bureau – particularly because education, rulemaking, and supervision will not prevent every violation. There will always be bad actors who don’t comply with the law. Ensuring that justice is served in the public interest – that is our goal in using the enforcement tool. Further, a purposeful enforcement regime can foster compliance, help prevent consumer harm, and right wrongs.  

My point about the importance of education is relevant as we think about enforcement – even if we applied all the Bureau’s resources to enforcement, the Bureau still could not investigate every potential violation, file a suit against every bad actor, or make every harmed consumer whole. For that reason, purposeful enforcement is about utilizing robust resources most effectively to focus on the right cases to reinforce clear rules of the road and prevent harm by making sure bad actors know they will be held to account. Public, decisive action against wrongdoers sends a clear message to the marketplace that should deter unlawful behavior and support a level playing field – all while reaching a just outcome for harmed consumers in those particular actions.

Enforcement is often a more deliberate tool in the Bureau’s toolkit. It may take many months or years to investigate and identify violations, develop reliable evidence, build a case, and reach a resolution through a settlement or litigation. I hope that our emphasis on prevention will mean that we need our enforcement tool less often. But when we do discover violations, enforcement is essential to hold wrongdoers to account, make things right for consumers, and deter future violations. 

I am committed to ensuring that enforcement investigations proceed carefully and purposefully to ensure a fair and thorough evaluation of the facts and law. And I am also committed to ensuring that we move as expeditiously as possible to resolve enforcement matters, whether through public action or a determination that a particular investigation should be closed. 

To understand and evaluate this aspect of the Bureau’s work, I have asked enforcement staff a number of questions in my many interactions with them over the past few months. I am digging in deeper to understand how potential violations come to enforcement, what challenges they face in obtaining information necessary for the investigation, how they quantify consumer harm, how they collaborate with state and federal partners, what the interactions are like with entities of interest and third parties, how the cases develop to reach my desk through a sue or settlement decision, and the time and resources applied to our investigations and litigation.

I have experience working with law enforcement and can say that at the Bureau as elsewhere, each case is truly fact and circumstance specific. Many factors are weighed to determine the precise mix of restitution, penalties, and injunctive relief appropriate in each case. At the center of that effort is serving justice in the public interest. 

As in the use of our other tools, the Bureau has a strong history of working with state and federal partners on its enforcement actions. This partnership is important to execution of justice, and I am pleased that state attorneys general and bank supervisors have commended the work we have done together on enforcement actions.

Outcomes and Transparency

I want to take a moment to talk about how to measure success given a focus on prevention of harm.  I’ll be frank – we’re still working on that. Because it’s hard. But I’ll posit that the measures I have heard touted by others are not particularly satisfying either. They don’t tell us much out of context. 

All too often, agencies tend to judge themselves by their outputs:  for example, how many complaints did they handle, how many cases did they bring, how much money did they recover?  But what do these types of metrics truly mean for the consumer financial system overall?  If we succeed in fostering a culture of compliance and preventing harm, we would expect the number of complaints – and the number of meritorious complaints – to decline. We would likewise expect the number and size of the cases that are brought to shrink as well. Or, a reduction in the number of cases filed could mean we are focused on more complex cases that take longer to develop.

These questions underscore the challenges of focusing on outcomes, and also demonstrate the incomplete lens of outputs. The Bureau’s work must be measured by how well we use all of our tools to prevent consumer harm. In the coming years, we will be working within the Bureau and with stakeholders to develop the most appropriate ways to measure progress in preventing harm.

Before closing, I want to reiterate my commitment to engagement with all the Bureau’s stakeholders. All of you want to prevent consumer harm and see consumers have access to fair, transparent, and competitive markets. The Bureau cannot achieve that outcome alone. That means ensuring transparent processes, fostering relationships and communication, valuing the expertise that others bring, supporting productive public discourse. There are a number of outstanding, challenging issues the Bureau is facing – some of which Congress directed us to address. I believe that the best way to address these issues is with proactive dialogue. 

To that end, I am announcing that the Bureau will proactively convene a symposia series over the coming year on a variety of topics related to the Bureau’s mission. This is building on the approach we took last year in convening experts on access to credit issues and credit invisibles. These types of proactive efforts are precisely how we intend to engage. 

The first topic for the symposia series will be around clarifying the meaning of abusive acts or practices under Section 1031 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Congress gave the Bureau authority to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination – a fundamental and critical responsibility. Whereas unfairness and deception doctrines have been substantially developed under the FTC Act, abusiveness does not have the same record. While the statute defines abusive, some clarification, particularly with regard to reasonableness standards, may be useful. In last fall’s Unified Regulatory Agenda, the Bureau stated it is “considering whether rulemaking or other activities may be helpful to clarify the meaning of abusiveness.” We are now taking the next step to explore this issue. 

Our symposia series will facilitate a robust discussion by experts on the given topic in a public forum. As the Bureau has an open mind on where the process will go, any appropriate next steps would come after the Bureau has had time to digest the discussion at the given symposium. 


I want to end where I began – by thanking all of you and the BPC for giving me the opportunity to share my approach to the mission of the Bureau – my interest in effectively and efficiently using all of the tools Congress gave the Bureau to prevent consumer harm. As Benjamin Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” If we can keep harm from falling upon consumers, we will be doing our job.  It is my hope that this focus on prevention will drive us toward that outcome. And to protect America’s consumers, we will use all the tools Congress gave us, all of this agency’s energy and expertise, and all our measured judgment, applied with humility and without fear or favor.