Connect with us

Business

Opinion: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has irked billionaires, but it serves the public well

Published

on

Opinion: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has irked billionaires, but it serves the public well

The billionaire Elon Musk and the California venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have started a debate about the role of government that we should be having — but it might not go the way they would hope. They don’t like government agencies that stop corporations like theirs from ripping off consumers.

They especially hate the 14-year-old Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But most voters in both major parties support its work.

Musk and Andreessen recently made their case publicly. “Delete CFPB,” was Musk’s pithy policy position on X. Andreessen spun a conspiratorial tale on “The Joe Rogan Show” about how Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) uses the bureau to take away the bank accounts — “debank” — of anyone who doesn’t agree with her, especially Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.

Attacks by the two men resemble what Wall Street banks and predatory lenders have said since before the bureau came into existence in 2010. JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon tried to strangle it in the crib during the congressional debate over its creation and now audaciously paints his $4-trillion, very profitable bank as a victim of regulation. Payday lenders took a case to the Supreme Court in an attempt to defund the agency (they lost). Most financial institutions belong to lobby groups that have sought to eviscerate the bureau.

These industries dislike the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau intensely because, bluntly, it does its job. Congress gave the bureau enforcement powers to stand up for consumers, and companies run or influenced by Musk and Andreessen have been on the receiving end. In one example from 2016, the agency sued a startup backed by Andreessen, Oakland-based LendUp, after it flouted federal law. Ultimately the bureau shut the company down in 2021 following repeated violations that included changing the terms of existing loans.

Advertisement

Andreessen is also an investor in San Francisco-based Synapse, a bank-like company that wiped out people’s life savings, as reported last month. No charges have been filed — yet.

PayPal, with which Musk was closely involved, has also faced sanction by the bureau.

Tech moguls might hold a grudge when justice is done, but the 118,101 LendUp customers who received more than $40 million of their money back thanks to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau surely feel differently. Those people are not alone.

Since its creation, the agency has recovered more than $21 billion in restitution and canceled debts for tens of millions of consumers. Recently, in just one week, the bureau returned $1.8 billion to 4 million consumers who had been scammed by a group of credit repair companies scattered across the western United States. Bureau-created protections barring unfair fees, charges and terms for financial products have saved billions more.

So yes, Andreessen might have felt a little salty after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau shuttered LendUp. And yes, companies that defraud clients are justifiably more likely to be shut down or “debanked,” if Andreessen wants to use that term. But the bureau also stands up for consumers who actually are debanked, like people who are suddenly cut off from their accounts because of race or ethnicity.

Advertisement

Not every case involves, as with “Black Panther” director Ryan Coogler, a call to the cops for banking while Black. The bureau works the much more insidious cases, like when companies systematically close accounts for discriminatory reasons, with no outward evidence of misdeeds. In fact, after the agency received numerous complaints about account closures and freezes, it created a rule — which will go into effect soon — to oversee digital payment apps and stop illegal debanking.

Indeed, the bureau’s director, Rohit Chopra, has explicitly called for a banking system that does not penalize identity or speech. On the podcast Organized Money, Chopra recently said: “We have to do more to stop debanking and make sure that people really have a right for all of their law-abiding activities to freely flow through the banking system.”

Musk’s attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hinges on his new role as one of President-elect Donald Trump’s go-to guys for shrinking government. In theory, that agenda appeals to an anti-bureaucratic, libertarian strain in American politics — a sentiment that has ebbed considerably since its high point in the Reagan years, given what Americans have learned from the savings-and-loan debacle, the predatory practices of credit card companies, payday lenders, and of course, the 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession. Voters like government agencies that work well and work for them. There’s a reason proposals to change Social Security are known as the third rail of American politics; the public relies on this program just as we rely on consumer protection rules.

My organization has researched what voters think of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s mission and found support among Republicans, independents and Democrats. Standing up to Wall Street and predatory lenders and wrangling back ill-gotten gains on behalf of the little people is very popular. Other surveys confirm this finding.

In the coming months and years, the new president, his appointees and congressional Republicans are likely to try to kneecap a government institution that has done remarkable things for millions of families.

Advertisement

Musk and Andreessen are the leading edge of a false populism that hides an agenda that will unfold over the next four years designed to benefit the wealthy at everyone else’s expense. They can launch a campaign against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but they can’t change the facts or draw the battle lines: On one side are a handful of Wall Street bankers, payday lenders and Silicon Valley billionaires, who make money by breaking the rules. On the other side are the vast majority of Americans, who benefit from and value the bureau’s crucial work — but don’t have a billionaire’s megaphone.

Christine Chen Zinner is senior policy counsel at Americans for Financial Reform.

Business

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Published

on

Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan

Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.

In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”

“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”

Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.

In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.

Advertisement

The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.

“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.

Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.

The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.

Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.

Advertisement

Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.

Continue Reading

Business

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

Published

on

Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes

A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.

The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.

The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.

Advertisement

It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.

However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.

Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.

Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.

“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.

Advertisement

In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”

The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.

“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.

Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.

Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.

Advertisement

Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.

The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.

But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.

Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.

A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.

Advertisement

“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .

Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.

Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.

Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Published

on

How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner

Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.

Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.

But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.

While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.

Advertisement

“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.

It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”

Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.

“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.

The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.

Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”

Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.

Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.

“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”

Advertisement

For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.

“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending