Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund sent a letter to banking regulators opposing a proposal that would make the resolution planning process substantially less stringent than it currently is, and raising concerns over the safety and soundness of individual banks and the effect on U.S. financial stability.
Regulatory agencies purport to “tailor” prudential rules, but they are severely undermining capital and liquidity requirements for foreign banks operating in the U.S.
The 22 community, housing, civil rights, consumer and other organizations believe that HUD must carefully assess the risks and benefits of the Opportunity Zone investments. The Opportunity Zone program poses substantial risks to lower-income households and households of color that already face rapidly rising housing costs and a declining availability of affordable housing options
Given the unfortunate demise of the Department of Labor (DOL) Fiduciary Rule and the glaring deficiencies in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Regulation Best Interest, we greatly appreciate states such as New Jersey that are willing to step in to fill the regulatory void by providing the protections investors need and expect.
Even within our broad coalition, it is exceedingly rare for so many organizations to come together and to speak with one voice. The tremendous outpouring of opposition to high-cost, short-term loans that put people in a cycle of debt, whether issued by banks or nonbanks, illustrates the importance of this issue to people across the country.
24-Group Organizational letter on the need to collect data on Opportunity Zone tax break that could reduce affordable housing options, displacing lower-income families of color.
AFR Education Fund comment on the need to collect data on Opportunity Zone tax break that could reduce affordable housing options, displacing lower-income families of color.
Letter to HUD asking for delay of ANPR until note sale data is released
The Proposal—a plainly outcome-driven, 47-page exercise in grasping for straws—has offered no reasonable basis to rescind that Rule. Based on a distorted focus on the Rule’s “dramatic impacts” on lenders’ ability to engage in a predatory practice, rather than on the need to protect consumers, the Proposal claims that the evidence must somehow be “more robust.” If the Rule requires significant changes for payday and vehicle title lenders, it is because the harm to consumers is dramatic. The Bureau’s new approach would ignore its consumer protection mandate and require the agency to hesitate when consumer harm is the most severe.
We, the undersigned 429 civil rights, consumer, labor, faith, veterans, senior, business, and community organizations from 46 states plus the District of Columbia write to vehemently oppose the proposed rescission of the common sense ability-to-repay requirements of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the Bureau)’s 2017 payday and vehicle title loan rule (“Ability-to-Repay Rule” or “Rule”).