Connect with us

Finance

CFPB's latest overreach threatens to nationalize consumer finance

Published

on

CFPB's latest overreach threatens to nationalize consumer finance
The notion that a government agency can more effectively determine the financial products that best serve consumers than the free market itself is radically misguided, writes  Patrick M. Brenner.

rafapress/Rafael Henrique – stock.adobe.com

In a bold move that may reshape the U.S. consumer finance landscape, Rohit Chopra’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued Consumer Financial Protection Circular 2024-01, marking a significant overreach into how Americans access financial services. This circular scrutinizes digital intermediaries, such as comparison-shopping tools and lead generators, dictating how they should operate and penalizing their business models. This step hints at a future where the federal government might not just regulate but effectively dominate the consumer lending sector.

At its heart, this directive places digital intermediaries under intense scrutiny, particularly for prioritizing financial products based on compensation: With the current financial services model, lead generators create a pipeline of potential customers, and these would-be borrowers are “sold” to the highest-bidding lender. At issue is Chopra’s arbitrary determination that this model is allegedly not conducive to the consumer’s best interests.

Under the CFPB’s proposition, the approach risks transforming the federal government into the ultimate decision-maker in consumer banking, molding the CFPB to compete directly with the private sector. Make no mistake: The CFPB is positioning itself to inevitably take the place of the private sector entirely. The federal government would effectively control the entire market by controlling the flow of customers. This unprecedented move could fundamentally alter the dynamics of consumer finance, sidelining the principles of free market competition and stifling the innovation that drives the development of new and effective financial solutions.

Advertisement

Moreover, the CFPB’s expansive definition of “abusive practices” within this circular grants the agency far-reaching power to intervene in the operations of these platforms. Such regulatory overreach is poised to induce a chilling effect across the sector, stifling the innovation and competition that benefit consumers.

Brass tacks: Chopra is explicitly targeting certain financial products or services by attacking the consumer pipeline. This leads to digital platforms scaling back their offerings or becoming overly cautious to avoid regulatory repercussions. The compliance burden and decreased competition force businesses to adjust their pricing models, paradoxically limiting consumer choice and inflating costs. That’s not good for business, and it’s not good for the consumer.

There is also reason to doubt the CFPB’s ability to protect the data the new circular would require companies to report. Last year, when I attempted to file a complaint against the CFPB for a significant data breach — where the personal information of over 250,000 consumers was compromised — my efforts revealed a convoluted and ineffective process, highlighting a glaring accountability gap within the bureau.

This incident not only underscores the CFPB’s challenges in safeguarding sensitive information but also raises serious concerns about its capability to manage the vast amounts of data it seeks to regulate. If the agency struggles to protect consumer data, how can it be entrusted with an even broader mandate to oversee and regulate digital financial intermediaries?

The notion that a government agency can more effectively determine the financial products that best serve consumers than the free market itself is radically misguided. It undermines the consumer’s ability to make informed decisions and the market’s capacity to self-regulate through competition and innovation. By positioning itself as the gatekeeper of consumer financial transactions, the CFPB risks pushing us toward a de facto nationalization of consumer finance, which serves neither the market’s nor the consumer’s best interests.

Advertisement

The CFPB’s latest move represents regulatory overreach and a direct assault on the American economy’s free market principles. It threatens to solidify government control over consumer lending, dampening competition and innovation to the detriment of the consumers it aims to protect. We must reconsider this trajectory and advocate for policies that preserve market dynamics and foster an environment where innovation and consumer choice are paramount.

Finance

Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale

Published

on

Couple forced to live in caravan buy first home as ‘stars align’ in off-market sale
Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, settled on their new home last month. (Source: Supplied)

Natasha Luscri and Luke Miller consider themselves among the lucky ones. The couple recently bought their first home in the northwest suburbs of Melbourne.

It wasn’t something they necessarily expected to be able to do, but some good fortune with an investment in silver bullion and making use of government schemes meant “the stars aligned” to get into the market. Luke used the federal government’s super saver scheme to help build a deposit, and the couple then jumped on the 5 per cent deposit scheme, which they say made all the difference.

“We only started looking because of the government deposit scheme. Basically, we didn’t really think it was possible that we could buy something,” Natasha told Yahoo Finance.

RELATED

Last month they settled on their two bedroom unit, which the pair were able to purchase in an off-market sale – something that is becoming increasingly common in the market at the moment.

Advertisement

Rather perfectly, they got it for about $20-30,000 below market rate, Natasha estimated, which meant they were under the $600,000 limit to avoid paying stamp duty under Victoria’s suite of support measures for first home buyers.

“They wanted to sell it quickly. They had no other offers. So we got it for less than what it would have gone for if it had been on market,” Natasha said.

“We didn’t have a lot of cash sitting in an account … I think we just got lucky and made some smart investment decisions which helped.”

It’s a far cry from when the couple couldn’t find a home due to the rental crisis when they were previously living in Adelaide and had to turn to sub-standard options.

“We’ve managed to go from living in a caravan because we were living in Adelaide and we couldn’t find a rental with our dogs … So we’ve gone from living in a caravan, being kind of tertiary homeless essentially because we couldn’t get a rental, to now having been able to purchase our first home,” Natasha explained.

Advertisement

Rate rises beginning to bite for new homeowners

Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, are among more than 300,000 Australians who have used the 5 per cent deposit scheme to get into the housing market with a much smaller than usual deposit, according to data from Housing Australia at the end of March. However that’s dating back to 2020 when the program first launched, before it was rebranded and significantly expanded in October last year to scrap income or placement caps, along with allowing for higher property price caps.

Continue Reading

Finance

WHO says its finances are stable, but uncertainties loom – Geneva Solutions

Published

on

WHO says its finances are stable, but uncertainties loom – Geneva Solutions

A year after the US exit from the global health body, WHO officials say finances are secure, for now. But amid donor cuts, rising inflation, and future economic uncertainties, will funding be sufficient to meet its needs?

Earlier this month, senior officials at the World Health Organization (WHO) told journalists in a newly refurbished pressroom at the agency’s headquarters that its finances were “stable”. Following a year that saw its biggest donor withdraw as a member, forcing it to cut 25 per cent of its staff, its financial chief said that 85 per cent of its 2026 and 2027 budget had been financed.

“While we are looking at resource mobilisation, we’re also looking at tightening our belts,” Raul Thomas, assistant director general for business operations and compliance, explained, admitting that the WHO “will have great difficulty mobilising the last 15 per cent”.

Sitting at the centre of the press podium, surrounded by his deputies, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO director general, backed up Thomas’s outlook. “We are stable now and moving forward”, since the retreat of the United States from the health body, he said. The Ethiopian noted that the WHO’s financial reform, allowing for incremental increases in state member fees, has been a big plus.

Advertisement

Mandatory contributions have historically accounted for only a quarter of the organisation’s total funding. States have agreed to raise their contributions by 20 per cent twice, in 2023 and in 2025. Further increments are scheduled to be negotiated in 2027, 2029 and 2031 to bring mandatory funding up to par with voluntary donations that the agency relies on. The WHO also reduced its biennial budget for 2026 and 2027 from $5.3 billion to $4.2bn.

“Our financing actually is better,” Tedros emphasised. “Without the reform, it would have been a problem.”

Read more: Nations agree to raise their WHO fees in wake of US retreat

Nonetheless, the director general, now in his final year at the UN agency, warned that member states should not assume that the financial road ahead will be clear. “The future of WHO will also be defined by how successful we are in terms of the assessed contribution increases or the financial reform in general.”

As west retreats, others step in

Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, explains that every year at the WHO, there’s “a non-stop effort” to ensure funding. She says a continued reliance on non-flexible, voluntary funding earmarked for specific projects, as well as donors withholding contributions – sometimes for political leverage – complicates the organisation’s financial plans. Meanwhile, ongoing cuts and predictions of a global economic downturn stemming from the war in the Middle East may further aggravate the situation, as costs rise and member states focus on national spending needs.

Advertisement

Soaring prices driven by the conflict and supply chain disruptions have already affected the WHO’s procurement of emergency health kits for crises, officials at the global health body said. “We are continuing to negotiate at least from a procurement standpoint on how we can bring down a little bit the prices or reduce the increases, but we are seeing it across the board,” said Thomas.

Altaf Musani, WHO director of health emergencies, meanwhile, said aid cuts have already deprived roughly 53 million people in crisis situations of access to healthcare.

Last month, Thomas told the Association of Accredited Correspondents at the UN at the end of April that the agency is looking at non-traditional, or non-western, donors for funding to close the biennial 15 per cent funding gap. “It’s not that we won’t go to the traditional donors, but we’re expanding that donor base.”

Since the dramatic drop in funding from the US, formerly the WHO’s biggest contributor, Moon highlights that there hadn’t been a “sudden jump by non-traditional states to compensate for the US”. Last May, at the World Health Assembly, China pledged $500 million in voluntary funding until 2030, a sharp rise from the $2.5m it contributed over 2024 and 2025.

The WHO did not respond to questions from Geneva Solutions about how much of the pledged amount had been disbursed. China’s mission in Geneva did not respond to questions raised about the funding.

Advertisement

Other countries, particularly Gulf states, have meanwhile been increasing their voluntary contributions to the organisation in recent years. Similarly to “western liberal democracies have in the past”, Moon explains that they may be seeking “to raise their profile and prioritise health as one of the issues that they would like to be known for”. She noted that the shift in the UN agency’s list of top donors may affect how it manages the money.

‘Sustainable’ spending

Amid these financial uncertainties, WHO executives say the organisation is also reviewing its expenditure through “sustainability plans”. This includes working more closely with collaborating centres, including universities and research institutes that support WHO programmes and are independently funded. On influenza, for example, the WHO works with dozens of national centres around the world, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US,

When asked about any plans for further job cuts, Thomas denied that these were part of the WHO’s current strategies, but could not rule them out entirely as a future possibility. Instead, he said, the organisation was “looking at ways to use funding that may have been for activities to cover salaries in the most important areas”.

Meanwhile, WHO data shows that the number of consultants employed by the agency by the end of 2025 decreased by 23 per cent, slightly less than the staff reductions. Global heath reporter Elaine Fletcher explained to Geneva Solutions that consultants continue to represent a significant proportion of the agency’s workforce, at 5,844 – including an overwhelming number hired in Africa and Southeast Asia – compared with regular staff numbering 8,569 in December.

Upcoming donor politics

The upcoming change in leadership will also be a strategic moment for the organisation to boost its coffers.  Moon says the race for the top job at the organisation may attract funding from candidates’ home countries, which could be seen as a strategic opportunity. 

Advertisement

Given the relatively small size of the WHO budget, compared to some government or agency accounts, “you don’t have to be the richest country in the world to dangle a few 100 million dollars, which could go a long way in their budget,” the expert notes.

The biggest ongoing challenge, however, will be whether major donors will announce further aid cuts. In the medium and longer term, “countries will have to  agree on the step up every two years, and there’s always drama around that.”

Continue Reading

Finance

Sports betting should be regulated as a financial product, not gambling, aspiring prediction market provider says

Published

on

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. — Sports betting should be regulated as a federal financial product rather than a state-licensed casino product, two panelists said Thursday.

Appearing at Consensus Miami 2026, Jacob Fortinsky, co-founder and CEO of sports betting platform Novig, said the legacy sportsbook model is structurally broken because it treats winning bettors as cheaters.

“Sports betting is really the only industry in the country that regularly limits and bans their power users,” Fortinsky said. He framed sports event contracts as binary financial instruments that “for so long have been treated as a gambling product and instead should really be treated as a financial product.” Globally, he said, sports betting is “a $2 trillion asset class still dominated by these legacy casinos.”

Adam Mastrelli, founder of 57 Maiden, a firm that builds AI-driven trading strategies for prediction markets, validated the critique with personal experience.

“My partner and I got kicked off of two big sportsbooks within two months of trading because we were sharp,” he said, It’s like “LeBron James getting kicked out of the NBA for being too good,” he added.

Advertisement

Mastrelli said the team turned to Novig, which he said charges no fees and allows traders to create synthetic positions.

Mastrelli said his firm’s edge decayed quickly, and of 154 proposed trading strategies, only three currently run profitably.

“This edge will go away,” he said, “so if you can build systems that can keep up with that edge and that alpha… then it becomes really, really intriguing.” His most profitable season, he said, was the WNBA.

Fortinsky said Novig is on track to transition this summer from a sweepstakes model live in 35 states to a federal DCM framework that will let it operate in all 50 states. An earlier attempt to be regulated at the state level in Colorado, he said, was a wake-up call. “Regulators told us essentially you’re naive if you think we care about consumer protection or innovation or market efficiency. We really just care about our tax revenue,” he said.

The federal-state fight, Fortinsky added, is “going to get to the Supreme Court in the next two or three years,” with 15 pending lawsuits between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Kalshi, Robinhood and various states. Within prediction markets, he argued sports is “counterintuitively actually the safest vertical,” given the bigger insider-trading and manipulation concerns around political and event-driven contracts.

Advertisement

Mastrelli, who said he avoids offshore platforms entirely, compared prediction markets to equities exchanges: “When I see a robust equities market now, this is AQR against SIG. It doesn’t go away.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending