Podcasts about Equal Credit Opportunity Act

Explore strategies to strengthen your finances and get smart answers to common home buying and mortgage questions. When you're looking to buy your next home, should you pay off your current mortgage or save more for a down payment? How does mortgage recasting work? Hosts Sean Pyles and Elizabeth Ayoola answer several questions from listeners about home buying and renting. But first, they talk with NerdWallet experts Amy Knight and Sara Rathner about how people are navigating today's financial challenges, from rising costs to career interruptions. They explore practical ways to strengthen your money habits, with tips and tricks on using side hustles for independence, turning money talks into regular “money dates,” and saving for the future even in small amounts. Then, mortgage Nerd Holden Lewis joins Sean and Elizabeth to answer a series of listener questions about home buying. Topics include weighing the pros and cons of saving vs. paying off a mortgage, whether to put a rental property in a trust, what to expect when recasting a mortgage, and how to stand out when buying in a competitive housing market like New York City.  Use NerdWallet's free mortgage calculator to estimate your monthly mortgage payments and annual amortization: https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/mortgage-calculator  In their conversation, the Nerds discuss: how women can build financial independence, motherhood penalty and finances, side hustles for single moms, investing as a single mom, financial independence for women, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, gender pay gap and retirement, credit card rules for stay-at-home spouses, home buying in a tight market, mortgage recasting explained, pros and cons of putting a house in a trust, trusts vs LLC for rental property, buying a home in New York City, how to buy in a competitive housing market, how much to save before buying a house, how to improve home buying offer, home inspection tips for buyers, why rent is cheaper than buying, how to calculate mortgage payments, NerdWallet mortgage calculator, money dates for couples, budgeting as a single parent, how to avoid the motherhood penalty, flexible home buying offers, asset protection for rental homes, how to build credit as a stay-at-home parent, financial planning for women, and the financial impact of caregiving. To send the Nerds your money questions, call or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373 or email podcast@nerdwallet.com. Like what you hear? Please leave us a review and tell a friend. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our podcast show being released today is Part 2 of our two-part series featuring two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. Part 1 of our two-part series was released last Thursday, June 12.  The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future?11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.” During this part of the podcast show, we discussed the fact that the CFPB has entered into agreements with a few companies that had previously entered into consent agreements with former Director Chopra. After the recording of this podcast, the Federal District Court that presided over the Townstone Financial enforcement litigation involving alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act refused to approve the rescission or undoing of the consent agreement based on Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because of the strong public policy of preserving the finality of judgments.

Let's take a moment to explore the powerful and often overlooked history of women and money in America. This journey has been marked by bold shifts, surprising setbacks, and undeniable progress. The path has been anything but linear from the 1862 Homestead Act to women now leading Fortune 500 companies.   This isn't just a look back; it's a reminder that your wealth-building journey is part of something bigger. When we understand the laws that shaped us, like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, and celebrate pioneers like Madam C.J. Walker, we begin to see that financial independence isn't just about money. It's about power, legacy, and rewriting the future.   Why does this matter now? I believe every woman deserves the financial power to walk away from any job or relationship that isn't serving her. This episode is a reminder that we're not just chasing wealth, we're building freedom.   Let's keep learning, investing, valuing ourselves, and enjoying the journey together.   01:15 – Before 1974: Needing a man's permission to open a bank account 04:30 – The Homestead Act and the start of women's property rights 06:15 – Madam CJ Walker's legacy of empowerment 07:45 – The 19th Amendment and why voting is part of wealth-building 10:00 – The Equal Pay Act: Progress and reality 12:45 – Janet Yellen and the rise of women in economic leadership 14:00 – From one female CEO in 1972 to over 50 today    

Let's take a moment to explore the powerful and often overlooked history of women and money in America. This journey has been marked by bold shifts, surprising setbacks, and undeniable progress. The path has been anything but linear from the 1862 Homestead Act to women now leading Fortune 500 companies.   This isn't just a look back; it's a reminder that your wealth-building journey is part of something bigger. When we understand the laws that shaped us, like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, and celebrate pioneers like Madam C.J. Walker, we begin to see that financial independence isn't just about money. It's about power, legacy, and rewriting the future.   Why does this matter now? I believe every woman deserves the financial power to walk away from any job or relationship that isn't serving her. This episode is a reminder that we're not just chasing wealth, we're building freedom.   Let's keep learning, investing, valuing ourselves, and enjoying the journey together.   01:15 – Before 1974: Needing a man's permission to open a bank account 04:30 – The Homestead Act and the start of women's property rights 06:15 – Madam CJ Walker's legacy of empowerment 07:45 – The 19th Amendment and why voting is part of wealth-building 10:00 – The Equal Pay Act: Progress and reality 12:45 – Janet Yellen and the rise of women in economic leadership 14:00 – From one female CEO in 1972 to over 50 today    

Ralph welcomes Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, whose group has filed eight lawsuits that have significantly slowed the Trump/Musk cabal's attempt to dismantle the government. Then, our resident Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein reports on Public Interest Law Day at Harvard Law School and how important it is for law schools in general to step up to meet this constitutional crisis. Plus, Ralph answers listener questions!Robert Weissman is a staunch public interest advocate and activist, as well as an expert on a wide variety of issues ranging from corporate accountability and government transparency, to trade and globalization, to economic and regulatory policy. As the President of Public Citizen, he has spearheaded the effort to loosen the chokehold corporations and the wealthy have over our democracy.The efforts in the courts are really vital to stem the illegal, unconstitutional actions of the administration, but also to show that there's a way to fight back. In these early days and months of the administration, there's been a sense that Trump is inevitable and unstoppable. And the actions in the courts, I think, have been really critical to illustrating that that's not true.Robert WeissmanIt's open season for the polluters. And of course, they're also promoting in a variety of ways a rush towards climate catastrophe by undoing the positive measures that have come recently from the Biden administration to deal with the climate crisis.Robert WeissmanIf you pull back all the enforcement rules, and you say we're not going to enforce the rules that are left over, corporations get the message. And they're going to bemore reckless, and it's a near certainty that we're going to have many more serious industrial disasters as a direct result of what they're doing at EPA and other agencies.Robert WeissmanBruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.If we don't inform the public (with the law students as well as others in the lead), we're not going to have rule of law and Harvard Law School will become an irrelevancy. It will be a museum piece.Bruce FeinI think the country and the law students are going to pay a price. They're being very narrow and myopic with regard to their immediate preoccupation with their trade school, where they're going to work the next day, and very little given to the fact that if we don't have a country anymore, they aren't going to have a legal career.Bruce FeinIt's a more cowardly, timid type of law school whose explanations are still ready to be discovered. It's a real puzzle…because they have tenure, they have status, they have wealth, and they have the ability to defend themselves because they're skilled lawyers.Ralph NaderNews 4/2/251. Our top stories this week are on the topic of corporate crime. First, the American Prospect reports that the Trump administration is seeking to reverse a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case against Townstone, a mortgage brokerage firm that blatantly discouraged potential Black borrowers. According to the Prospect, Townstone's owners Barry Sturner and David Hochberg vigorously promoted their firm though “personal-finance call-in infomercials,” on Chicago's WGN radio station. During these infomercials, which generated 90 percent of Townstone's business, Sturner and Hochberg “characterized the South Side of Chicago as a ‘war zone,' downtown Chicago as a ‘jungle' that turned on Friday and Saturday into ‘hoodlum weekend,'” and so on. As the Prospect notes, if Sturner and Hochberg were simply airing these views that would be perfectly legal, however unsavory. Instead, this program is “an informercial, which generates 90 percent of the brokerage's leads, which the brokerage pays WGN to air, presumably punctuated at regular intervals by some phrase along the lines of ‘an equal housing lender.'” Therefore, this rhetoric was determined to have violated the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act. The remarkable thing about this case is that it was brought by the Trump administration's CFPB between 2017 and 2020. Townstone eventually settled the case for a little over $100,000. Yet, just last week, the Trump administration 2.0 returned the money to Townstone posting “a long press release about how ‘abusive' and ‘unjust' the whole case had been.” This episode highlights just how much more extreme the new Trump administration is, even compared to the old one.2. Another outrageous case of corporate criminal leniency comes to us from Rick Claypool, a corporate crime expert at Public Citizen. For background, CNBC reports that Trump has “pardoned three co-founders of the BitMEX global cryptocurrency exchange, as well as…a former high-ranking employee.” As this piece explains, the co-founders received criminal sentences of probation…and were ordered to pay civil fines totaling $30 million,” after “Prosecutors accused the men of effectively operating BitMEX as a ‘money laundering platform' …[and] ‘a sham.'” But Trump went beyond pardoning the corporate criminals involved. As Claypool noted, “the crypto corporation pled guilty and was sentenced in January to two years' probation,” leading Claypool to wonder whether Trump would pardon the corporation itself. His question was answered on March 29th when Law360 reported that yes, Trump pardoned the business entity. This is the logical endpoint of regarding corporations as people. Not only will individual crooks be let off the hook, the whole crooked enterprise will come out unscathed.3. New evidence confirms the redistribution of wealth from working people to the capitalist class. A February 2025 RAND Corporation study titled “Measuring the Income Gap from 1975 to 2023” finds that, “the bottom 90 percent of workers would have earned $3.9 trillion more with..more even growth rates [since 1975],” resulting in a “cumulative amount of $79 trillion.” This study extends prior estimates by factoring in “inflation, growth in inequality, and a longer time frame.” And even more recently, an April 2025 article in the Journal of Political Economy, titled “How the Wealth Was Won: Factor Shares as Market Fundamentals,” finds that “40% of [the increase in real per capita value of corporate equity, which grew at an annual rate of 7.2% between 1989 and 2017]…was attributable to a reallocation of rewards to shareholders in a decelerating economy, primarily at the expense of labor compensation.” This study estimates “Economic growth accounted for just 25% of the increase,” and compares this period to the preceding era, “1952–88, [which] experienced only one-third as much growth in market equity, but economic growth accounted for more than 100% of it.” Taken together, these studies starkly illustrate an American economic machine built to make the rich even richer and the poor ever poorer.4. On the other end of the criminal penalty spectrum, the Department of Justice announced on Tuesday that they will seek the death penalty for alleged UnitedHealthcare assassin Luigi Mangione, the BBC reports. The first Trump administration saw the resumption of the federal death penalty after a 16-year hiatus; the Biden administration then issued a new moratorium and commuted the sentences of most federal death row prisoners. Since returning to power, Trump has aggressively pursued federal executions once again.5. In more positive legal news, NBC reports French far-right leader Marine Le Pen was found guilty Monday of embezzling over €3 million of European Union funds. The National Rally party leader was sentenced to four years in prison (with two on house arrest and two suspended), a €100,000 fine, and a ban on holding political office for five years – making her ineligible for the 2027 French presidential election, which polls showed her leading. Her party will, for the time being, be led by her protégé 29-year-old Jordan Bardella. It is unclear if he will enjoy the same popularity Ms. Le Pen held. She announced that she plans to appeal the verdict, but will remain ineligible for public office unless and until she wins that case.6. In more international news, British police last week executed a shocking raid on a congregation of the Quakers. The Guardian reports, “More than 20 uniformed police, some equipped with Tasers, forced their way into the Westminster meeting house…[and] seized attenders' phones and laptops.” In a statement, Paul Parker, the recording clerk for Quakers in Britain, said “No one has been arrested in a Quaker meeting house in living memory… This aggressive violation of our place of worship and the forceful removal of young people holding a protest group meeting clearly shows what happens when a society criminalises protest.” The stated charge is the absurd “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.” A report on the incident in Church Times adds a statement from Oliver Robertson, head of witness and worship for Quakers in Britain, who said “This raid is not an isolated incident. It reflects a growing trend of excessive policing under new laws brought in by the previous government, which are now being enforced by the current administration.” Even former Tory minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, criticized the raid, stating “There has long been a tradition in this country…that religious spaces should not be invaded by the forces of law and order unless absolutely necessary.”7. Of course, the outrageous use of lawfare on Israel's behalf continues in the halls of Congress as well. In a letter, Congressmen Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Brian Mast – famous for his role as an American volunteer for the IDF – have announced their intention to investigate activist groups critical of the Israeli government – within Israel. According to the Jerusalem Post, these NGOs are being investigated to, “ascertain whether funding they allegedly received from the Biden administration was utilized for the judicial reform protests in 2023.” These groups include the Movement for Quality Government in Israel and Blue and White Future, among others.8. The government's use of brute force to muzzle criticism of Israel continues to rock academia. At Harvard, the Crimson reports 82 of Harvard Law School's 118 active professors have signed a letter which “accused the federal government of exacting retribution on lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by President Donald Trump…described Trump's threats as a danger to the rule of law…[and] condemned the government for intimidating individuals based on their past public statements and threatening international students with deportation over ‘lawful speech and political activism.'” The letter reads, in part, “we share a conviction that our Constitution, including its First Amendment, was designed to make dissent and debate possible without fear of government punishment. Neither a law school nor a society can properly function amidst such fear.” This letter stands in stark contrast to the recent statement by Harvard President Alan Garber, in which he pledged to “engage” with the federal government's demands in order to protect the university's $9 billion in federal funding.9. Last week, we reported on the “lynching” of Hamdan Ballal, the Palestinian co-director of the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land – and how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences dithered before ultimately releasing a milquetoast statement decrying violence against “artists for their work or their viewpoints,” with no mention of Palestine or even Ballal's name. This caused so much uproar among Academy members that nearly 900 of them signed a letter “denouncing the Academy's silence,” per Variety. The letter and full list of signatories can be found here. Shamed, the Academy leadership was forced to issue a follow-up statement expressing their “regret that we failed to directly acknowledge Mr. Ballal and the film by name.” This statement continues “We sincerely apologize to Mr. Ballal…We abhor the suppression of free speech under any circumstances.”10. Finally, speaking of shame, the Hill reports that the shame of Congressional Republicans is giving Democrats a golden opportunity. According to this piece, “House Democrats are ramping up their aggressive strategy of conducting town halls in Republican-held districts, vying to exploit the GOP's advised moratorium on the events to make inroads with frustrated voters, pick up battleground seats, and flip control of the House in next year's midterms.” One Democrat, Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign co-chair Ro Khanna, has held three town halls in Republican-held districts, whose main takeaway was “People are mad.” Republicans who have bucked the GOP leadership and held town halls anyway, such as Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman and Indiana congresswoman Victoria Spartz have found themselves looking down the barrel of constituents furious at the conduct of the administration in general and DOGE in particular. This, combined with the upset Democratic victories in recent special elections, has the GOP on a defensive backfoot for the first time in months. Could we be looking at the beginning of a Democratic tea party? Only time will tell.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

About the Guest(s):Amy IrvineAmy Irvine is the CEO and founder of the Rooted Planning Group, a financial planning firm dedicated to helping individuals and families cultivate a thriving financial future. With extensive experience in the finance industry, Amy is a respected voice in personal finance, often highlighted for her unique insights and practical advice aimed at improving financial literacy. As a passionate advocate for financial equality, she frequently contributes to discussions on contemporary financial issues, especially those impacting women.Episode Summary:In this insightful episode of Money Roots, host Amy Irvine delves deep into the intertwined history of women and money, while also exploring foundational concepts of the money supply. Released during Women's History Month, this episode provides a timely reflection on how historical gender biases have shaped financial opportunities and challenges for women over centuries. From elucidating the definitions of M1, M2, and M3 money supplies to detailing landmark legislative changes that aimed to rectify gender-based financial inequalities, Amy delivers a wealth of information meant to empower and educate listeners.Throughout the episode, Amy Irvine sheds light on the significant historical milestones that have shaped women's financial rights and opportunities. With a nod to landmark legislation such as the Married Women's Property Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, listeners are guided through two centuries of evolution in women's financial rights. Highlighting the persistent wage gap, which has seen stagnant improvement since 2003, Amy calls for continued education and advocacy, emphasizing the role of allies in supporting financial gender equality. By understanding the past, Amy believes, we pave a clearer path for a future where financial parity can be realized.Key Takeaways:Understanding Money Supply: Amy introduces listeners to the basic concepts of money supply, categorized into M1, M2, and M3, explaining their roles in economic growth and inflation.Historical Gender-Based Financial Inequality: The episode tracks the timeline of female financial rights, revealing the extent of historical discrimination that women faced in terms of property ownership, credit access, and professional opportunities.Legislative Milestones: Key legislative acts such as the Married Women's Property Act and the Title IX are highlighted, portraying their impact on women's rights and financial autonomy.The Persistent Gender Wage Gap: Despite progress, there remains a significant gap in earnings between women and men, citing statistics that reveal women earn approximately 85% of what men do.Call to Action for Financial Equality: Encouragement is given to allies—parents, partners, and friends—to support women in achieving financial literacy and independence.Notable Quotes:"The reason that I'm bringing this up is because we've been having a lot of conversations with people about money supply in general.""If you can't vote, you have no say over what does and doesn't happen to you.""So technically, women at that point in time, if they got pregnant prior to that, you could lose your job, you could lose your way of supporting yourself.""There's still a lot that we need to do to continue to bring parity to the way that women earn money, get paid, our relationship with money, all of that.""For Women's History Month, if you have a daughter, if you have a niece, if you have a wife, support her in the way that, you know, promotes this continued direction towards parity of pay."Resources:Rooted Planning Group:

The ratification of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA, 50 years ago marked the end of illegal lending practices that discriminated against borrowers based on their race, sex, age, religion, national origin, marital status, and source of income. Financial inequality, however, is still a persistent issue in the United States. One solution to this ongoing issue is closing the education gap when it comes to topics surrounding financial literacy. In this special episode, we sit down with Courtney Pettway, CEO and Co-Founder of KidVestors, and Ashley Leftwich, CEO of Rock the Street, Wall Street. These organizations are two of the 50 projects supporting women's financial independence that were awarded funds as part of the SoFi Give Her Credit Program. Both organizations seek to empower young people by teaching them the fundamentals of saving and budgeting, the benefits of growing their wealth through investing, and exposing them to female role models in math and finance. Kidvestors is an award-winning educational platform that teaches kids about money and finance tops in fun, accessible ways. Rock the Street, Wall Street is a non-profit organization that teaches the fundamentals of investing and finance to high school girls and undergraduate women. For more, read Liz's column every Thursday at On The Money by SoFi, sign up for the On The Money newsletter, and follow Liz @LizThomasStrat. Notable mentions in the episode: 00:00 Introduction 02:11 The idea behind KidVestors 03:48 KidVestors target age groups 06:03 Making learning finance fun 07:24 Drawbacks to not teaching kids about money 13:31 The mission of Rock the Street, Wall Street 16:04 When intervention is critical for girls 19:17 Importance of female role models in STEM and finance 22:12 Value of early financial literacy education 31:49 The confidence gap between men and women 34:45 How corporations benefit from employee financial wellness 44:00 The importance of DEI for closing the wealth gap 47:40 What should change about how we teach financial literacy today 54:17 Closing Thoughts Additional resources: On The Money: Sign up for SoFi's newsletter for intel, insights, and inspo to help you get your money right. Investing 101 Center: At SoFi, we believe investing is for everyone — which is why we've created a hub with info for beginners and experts alike. Start exploring to get investment education, advice, resources, and more. Wealth Investing Guide: Information you need to know to make your money work harder for you. This podcast should be used for informational purposes only and not deemed as a recommendation. Our Automated investing is via SoFi Wealth LLC, and is a registered investment advisor. Our Active investing is via SoFi securities LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. For additional disclosures related to the SoFi Invest® platforms, please visit www. SoFi.com/Legal. ©2024 Social Finance, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

In 1974, a dozen women became the first female Morehead-Cain Scholars at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the same year the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was passed, granting women the right to open a bank account without a husband's signature.This past fall, eight members of the class of 1979 reunited to celebrate their 45th anniversary. During their visit, they shared memories and insights with current scholars at a coffee chat. Afterward, they sat down with Catalyze co-host Allyson Horst '27 to reflect on their groundbreaking experiences.We're sharing these conversations today in honor of Women's History Month.Music creditsThe episode's intro song is by scholar Scott Hallyburton '22, guitarist of the band South of the Soul.How to listenOn your mobile device, you can listen and subscribe to Catalyze on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. For any other podcast app, you can find the show using our RSS feed. You can let us know what you thought of the episode by finding us on social media @moreheadcain or you can email us at communications@moreheadcain.org. 

In this episode of the Healthy Love & Money podcast, I'm thrilled to welcome Rachel Lawrence, a leader in financial planning and founder of Reverie Wealth. We explore the emotional side of money, share practical tips for couples, and discuss how authenticity transforms financial planning.Quotes:“The beauty of financial planning isn't just about the numbers—it's about uncovering your story, breaking free from shame, and building a life that feels authentic to you.”-Rachel LawrenceKey Moments:[3:15] The meaning behind “Reverie Wealth” and the role of vivid daydreaming in financial planning[6:45] How Monarch's “tagging” feature helps reduce emotional triggers in couple money conversations[10:30] How Monarch Money helps couples manage cashflow and reduce money conflicts[18:45] Rachel's personal journey: growing up in a financially tight household and its lasting impact[22:10] The historical impact of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its ongoing relevance in financial equality[28:20] Tools and strategies for creating safe, loving money conversations[33:40] Investing in community as an alternative retirement strategy[36:10] Rachel's insights on breaking free from societal and systemic financial pressures[41:15] Rachel's experience with Rapid Transformation Therapy (RTT) and reframing money beliefs[45:00] The intersection of financial planning and personal growth: making decisions that enhance quality of life[50:30] Recognizing the difference between “toxic helping” and “healthy helping” in financial adviceResources & Links:Monarch Money – Manage your personal finances with ease: MonarchMoney.comReverie Wealth – Explore Rachel's wealth management firm: ReverieWealth.comConnect with Rachel on Instagram: @RachelFPFollow Monarch Money on Reddit: Monarch Money on RedditConnect with Ed Coambs:Website: HealthyLoveandMoney.comInstagram: @HealthyLoveAndMoneyLinkedIn: Ed CoambsSubscribe & ShareIf you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe and leave a review. Share this episode with your friends, family, or partner to help us reach our goal of impacting millions of lives through financial and relational health. Let's grow together!Healthy Love & Money Podcast Disclaimer This podcast is designed for educational and informational purposes only. The content shared here reflects my personal and professional experiences as a financial therapist and Certified Financial Planner™. It is not a substitute for professional financial, legal, or mental health advice specific to your situation. While I aim to provide helpful insights, each individual and relationship is unique, and the topics discussed may not fully apply to your personal circumstances. I encourage you to seek personalized guidance from a qualified financial, legal, or mental health professional. By listening to this podcast, you acknowledge and accept that neither I, Ed Coambs, nor the Healthy Love & Money Podcast is liable for any decisions or actions you take based on the content shared. Your financial and relational well-being are deeply personal, and I'm here to support your journey with compassion and care. Thank you for listening, and remember: healthy love and money go hand in hand!

Many women today take for granted the ability to apply for a credit card or mortgage in their own name. Yet, as recently as 50 years ago, this was not the case. It wasn't until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in the 1970s that women were legally allowed to access credit without a husband or father's signature. Behind this groundbreaking legislation was Margaret Heckler, a trailblazer whose tireless work reshaped the landscape for women's rights and equality. On the Your Radical Truth podcast, host Margaret Mary O'Connor sat down with Kimberly Heckler, author of the upcoming book A Woman of Firsts: Margaret Heckler, Political Trailblazer. The conversation revealed Margaret Heckler's extraordinary contributions to politics, health, and veterans' affairs, painting a vivid picture of a woman who fought relentlessly for justice and equality. From Lawyer to Political Pioneer Margaret Heckler's journey to political prominence was nothing short of groundbreaking. As one of the first women to graduate from Boston College Law School, she was undeterred by rejection from male-dominated institutions like Harvard Law. Her legal career laid the foundation for her entry into politics, where she defied odds to become a congresswoman, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), and U.S. ambassador to Ireland. Her role in securing women's financial independence through the Equal Credit Opportunity Act is just one example of how Heckler used her position to challenge societal norms. At the time, Heckler was one of only 11 women in Congress, and she worked tirelessly to bring her male colleagues—and even skeptical female peers—on board with her vision for gender equality. The Inspiration Behind A Woman of Firsts Kimberly Heckler's personal connection to Margaret Heckler inspired her to write A Woman of Firsts. Married to Margaret's son, John, Kimberly first encountered Margaret during her tenure as ambassador to Ireland. Over years of Sunday dinners and heartfelt conversations, Kimberly gained insight into the life of a woman whose accomplishments had shaped the course of history. “I realized these stories must be shared with the world, not just kept within the confines of the Heckler family,” Kimberly explained. After seven years of research and writing, including combing through hundreds of boxes of Margaret's personal and professional records, Kimberly completed the biography to honor Margaret's legacy. Full post at: www.YourRadicalTruth.com/024-Kimberly-Heckler

Set up a call:https://calendly.com/cuexamsolutions/talk-to-mark-about-any-exam-topic?month=2024-10Check out our website:https://calendly.com/cuexamsolutions/talk-to-mark-about-any-exam-topic?month=2024-10Are you worried about an NCUA exam in process or looming on the horizon? Don't face it alone!We're ex-NCUA insiders with decades of experience, ready to guide you to success. Our team understands the intricacies of NCUA examinations from the inside out.Hire us and gain:• Peace of mind during your exam process• Insider knowledge of NCUA procedures and expectations• Strategies to address potential issues before they become problems• Continuous access to our extensive subject matter expertiseWith our access retainer, you'll have on-demand support from former NCUA experts. We're here to ensure your credit union passers its exam with flying colors in its next examination.Contact Credit Union Exam Solutions today to learn more about our services and how we can help your credit union succeed.## Episode SummaryIn this episode of With Flying Colors, host Mark Treichel welcomes back Joe Goldberg, a veteran attorney with 40 years of experience and former NCUA official. They dive deep into the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its significance in fair lending practices for credit unions.## Key Points Discussed- The purpose and significance of ECOA and Regulation B- NCUA's increased focus on fair lending examinations- Coverage of ECOA across various forms of credit- The nine prohibited bases for discrimination in lending- Specific examples of potential ECOA violations in credit union practices## Highlighted Quotes- "ECOA requires creditors to make decisions related to providing credit and the terms of credit based solely on credit related factors." - Joe Goldberg- "NCUA has increased its focus on fair lending in the last several years. They even started when I was there. I left there at the end of 2021, but that's still true. And, in fact, the agency is expanding its fair lending examination program." - Joe Goldberg## Important Takeaways for Credit Unions1. Review policies and procedures for potential age or marital status discrimination2. Be aware of the expanding fair lending examination program at NCUA3. Understand the nuances of the nine prohibited bases for discrimination4. Consider the risks associated with Department of Justice referrals for ECOA violations## Next EpisodeTune in for Part 2 of this discussion, where Mark and Joe will continue their exploration of ECOA, including special purpose credit programs and the referral process to the Department of Justice.## About the GuestJoe Goldberg is a former NCUA official who led the division responsible for HMDA, fair lending, and consumer compliance. With 40 years of experience as an attorney, he now works as a consultant in the credit union industry.## Resources Mentioned- NCUA Letter to Credit Unions: 22-CU-04 (February 2022)- Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)- Regulation B## Get in TouchFor more information on achieving success with NCUA, visit [marktreichel.com](https://marktreichel.com).

Learn how your spending compares to others in your generation using insights from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' annual Consumer Expenditure Survey. How does your spending compare to other people your age? Are you saving enough compared to others in your generation? Hosts Tess Vigeland and Anna Helhoski are joined by NerdWallet's Senior Economist Elizabeth Renter to break down the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey. They dive into how income and spending patterns shift across generations, from Gen Z to the Silent Generation, and discuss average income peaks, the changing ratio of spending to income, and how generational differences in housing, healthcare, and food expenditures reflect larger economic trends. Enter your monthly after-tax income into NerdWallet's free budget calculator to create a suggested budget: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/nerdwallet-budget-calculator Then, Tess and Anna touch on key money headlines from the week, including updates to IRS tax brackets and deductions for 2025, the CFPB's action against Apple and Goldman Sachs over Apple Card customer service failures, and the 50th anniversary of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which gave women the right to access credit without a man's signature. In their conversation, the Nerds discuss: Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, generational spending habits, income-to-spending ratio, peak earning years, fixed income for retirees, healthcare spending by generation, food spending across generations, retirement savings trends, Gen Z spending habits, baby boomer financial challenges, millennials saving for retirement, housing costs by generation, transportation spending, food away from home trends, discretionary spending, debt in retirement, social security income, average income by age group, and generational wealth. To send the Nerds your money questions, call or text the Nerd hotline at 901-730-6373 or email podcast@nerdwallet.com. Like what you hear? Please leave us a review and tell a friend.

In this week's episode, Chloe dives into the 50th anniversary of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a landmark legislation that transformed the financial landscape for women.Chloe explores the significance of this law, reflecting on its impact on women today and why it remains crucial to understand its history. Today we are celebrating progress, while highlighting the work still to be done for the women after us as well. Purchase the Deeper Than Money book HERE: https://www.deeperthanmoney.com/deeperthanmoneythebookLearn more about The Wealth Accelerator HERE: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdBp_6SAOK1Tk4BBKdozLsK2-ySvVLDZzSune1JEeGSFiPqxA/viewform

3 words... Kaylee. Is. Back. We re-cap our best/worst dogs, take a deep dive into the insane amount of cash flowing through Halloween 2024, and the trendy costumes that come with it! We round out the episode by discussing the 50th Anniversary of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act!

Half a century has passed since the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was enacted, guaranteeing women equal access to credit. In this episode, we look back on gender-based credit discrimination and discuss other forms of lending bias that still exist today. Plus: What’s at stake for Boeing as machinists vote on a tentative contract, the tipped minimum wage is on the ballot and the value of the U.S. dollar goes under the microscope during corporate earnings season.

Half a century has passed since the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was enacted, guaranteeing women equal access to credit. In this episode, we look back on gender-based credit discrimination and discuss other forms of lending bias that still exist today. Plus: What’s at stake for Boeing as machinists vote on a tentative contract, the tipped minimum wage is on the ballot and the value of the U.S. dollar goes under the microscope during corporate earnings season.

Half a century has passed since the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was enacted, guaranteeing women equal access to credit. In this episode, we look back on gender-based credit discrimination and discuss other forms of lending bias that still exist today. Plus: What’s at stake for Boeing as machinists vote on a tentative contract, the tipped minimum wage is on the ballot and the value of the U.S. dollar goes under the microscope during corporate earnings season.

As Florida residents recover from hurricanes Milton and Helene, experts say the damage will likely worsen the home insurance crisis in the state and could lead to higher rates nationwide. CBS News business analyst Jill Schlesinger explains how climate-driven events could impact you.Around 100 hostages remain trapped in Gaza. Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an American, was among those killed in captivity since Hamas' Oct. 7 attack. His parents spoke to CBS News' Elizabeth Palmer about grief and why they feel their son should still be alive.A new survey reveals that 25% of U.S. adults suspect they have undiagnosed ADHD, but only 13% have discussed it with a doctor. CBS News medical contributor Dr. Céline Gounder explains the importance of seeking professional help.Nima Momeni's murder trial began this week in San Francisco. He's accused of stabbing Cash App founder Bob Lee to death in April 2023. Momeni pleaded not guilty to first degree murder last spring.Tennis star Venus Williams is partnering with SoFi for a new campaign to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which marked a major turning point in women's financial independence. She tells "CBS Mornings" more about the campaign, financial lessons she's learned throughout her career and more. Sponsored by Sofi. www.sofi.com/givehercreditZoe Saldaña, known for her roles in "Avatar" and "Guardians of the Galaxy," stars in and executive produces season two of "Lioness" on Paramount Plus. The series follows undercover CIA operatives working to assassinate terrorists.Kathy Bates opens up about playing Madeline Matlock in the CBS reboot, tackling ageism and being an executive producer.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Frodo becomes invisible when he puts the Ring on his finger. Well, at banks in the 1970s, this is basically what happened when a woman put a wedding ring on her finger. Her credit cards would no longer work, and the banks wouldn't count her income as part of the household income. This led to a fight for women's financial independence that gave rise to the landmark Equal Credit Opportunity Act (or ECOA) and the creation of the first women's banks. In honor of the 50th anniversary of ECOA becoming law, we're looking back at a time when women had to have their husband or father cosign on a credit application. What did it take to pass this landmark legislation? And how did it improve women's lives in America?  Guests: Rachel Seidman, curator at the Smithsonian Anacostia Community Museum; curatorial consultant to the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum Emily Card, PhD, author of Staying Solvent: A Comprehensive Guide to Equal Credit for WomenElizabeth Babcock, director of the Smithsonian American Women's History MuseumJeanne Hubbard, former CEO of The Adams National Bank

In this episode Megan and Lesley talk about how freaking hot they are in the way that only mid-century old women can. Hear reflections on the death of Donald Sutherland, Menopause and the "Take a Fan" suggestion and memorable live-action superhero's from the 70s and 80s.  GenX Women are Sick of This Shit Love us? Hate us? Let us know!  Want to continue the conversation?  Sign up for our newsletter! HERE Join the original Facebook group! GenX Women are Sick of Your Shit Tell us your own 5 MInutes of Fame story! Join us for Meet-Ups and Expert led Discussions Get your hands on our MERCH!!! This episode was recorded on June 22, 2024 and released on July 6th, 2024.  Sources:  International Menopause Society The North American Menopause Society Dr. Jen Gunter The Band Orleans (Image Refrence) Orleans Album Cover Donald Sutherland IMDB Donald Sutherland Wiki Isis IMDB Wonder Woman IMDB Electra Woman and Dyna Girl IMDB Electra Woman Theme (Cyndi Lauper and YOU'RE WELCOME) Electra Woman Theme Original Buffy The Vampire Slayer - TV Buffy The Vampire Slayer - Movie Paul Rubins death scene: Buffy The Vampire Slayer Equal Opportunity Act of 1972 Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974:  JStore Daily -  from JSTORE, Nonprofit Library for the Intellectually Curious: A Bank of Her Own "The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 gave every American woman, married or not, the right to open her own bank or credit account. It outlawed discrimination by both sex and race in banking. It is easy to forget today that this right has existed nationally for fewer than fifty years." National Women's History Alliance The History Channel - Women's History  

Did you know federal law aims to curb discriminatory lending? Ed Hill from IDFPR's Division of Banking breaks down the Community Reinvestment Act and how it works to increase lending to underserved communities in our latest episode of the Making Cents of Money podcast! Show Notes: • Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) via Federal Reserve Board - https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/cra_about.htm o CRA Ratings via FFIEC - https://www.ffiec.gov/craratings/default.aspx • Housing Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act via HUD - https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_overview • Equal Credit Opportunity Act via FTC - https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/equal-credit-opportunity-act • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act via FFIEC - https://ffiec.cfpb.gov/ • Illinois Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) via IDFPR - https://idfpr.illinois.gov/admin/cra.html

In this episode of Money Talks News, the podcast explores the history and importance of financial independence, particularly for women, with special guest Jannese Torres. Jannese shares her personal journey from a toxic marriage to financial independence and discusses her award-winning podcast 'Yo Quiero Dinero,' which aims to educate women about financial literacy. The conversation covers effective financial strategies, side hustle ideas, the significance of legal agreements like prenups and postnups, and the psychological benefits of paying yourself as an entrepreneur. Jannese also introduces her new book, 'Financially Lit,' designed to guide Latinas through various financial challenges. 00:00 Introduction to Financial Independence 00:26 Meet Janice Torres: From Toxic Marriage to Financial Freedom 00:46 The Accidental Personal Finance Educator 01:28 The Birth of 'Yo Quiero Dinero' Podcast 02:30 Why Financial Independence is Crucial for Women 03:51 Practical Tips for Financial Freedom 04:46 Overcoming Bad Money Habits 07:07 Exploring Side Hustles and Income Streams 12:04 Success Stories and Entrepreneurship 17:26 Overcoming Public Speaking Anxiety 18:41 Building a Freelance Writing Career 19:58 Understanding Social Media Marketing 22:27 Financial Management for Entrepreneurs 24:31 The Importance of Prenups and Postnups 31:23 Conclusion and Final Thoughts You can download the episode wherever you get your podcasts: Listen on Apple Podcasts Listen on Google Podcasts Listen on Spotify Don't forget to check out our podcast page for more episodes designed to help you make the most of your money. Building a business to improve your money choices Did you know that a woman's right to get a credit card without the signature of a man is only 50 years old? It's true. Until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in 1974 financial institutions could discriminate against women who didn't have a male cosigner. The right for women to get a business loan without a male cosigner is even later—1988.  For women, having money can be especially important, but everyone can benefit from starting a business for income stability and a shot at a better life. Owning your own business can also facilitate: Leaving a bad job or just getting a better job Walking away from a toxic relationship Moving to a better situation Build an emergency fund Even if you don't plan to use a business to replace a day job, having a side business or other type of income diversity can expand your choices. It can be part of your financial independence journey. Regardless of where the money comes from, our article on building a financial plan for the life you want can help you figure out how to establish your priorities and make money choices that work for you. Tips for building a successful business This episode includes practical tips for building and protecting your business. For more ideas on getting started, check out our podcast episode on how one man built a business empire by selling lipstick and bras. Jannese shares some of her best tips for getting started, including: Understanding what you have to offer potential customers and clients Focusing on going to where those who need you actually are, including being choosy about which social media platforms you spend time on Choose your advertising strategy based on where customers and clients are likely to be Create compelling content Don't forget about business planning, including planning for taxes and creating a separate bank account to handle business income and expenses Look into different legal insurance, business insurance or other insurances you need to protect your business If you're planning on getting married, get a prenup that protects your business assets and preserves them for you in the event of a divorce Consider a postnup if you start your business after getting married Don't be afraid to talk about money We also talk about the difference between a coach and a consultant, and how figuring out where to get the right advice for you is also part of growing a successful business. We also talk about Miranda's book, Confessions of a Professional Blogger, and how it serves as another income source for Miranda, as well as a practical book for those who want to get started with the business of freelancing. Meet this week's guest, Jannese Torres Jannese Torres is an award-winning Latina Money Expert. She became an accidental entrepreneur after a job loss inspired her to turn her food blog into a six-figure business. Throughout the years, her passion for entrepreneurship led her to notice a gap in the conversation around money. Inspired by the J. Lo and Cardi B song "Dinero," in 2019, she decided to start teaching marginalized communities about entrepreneurship, investing, and financial independence through her 5X award-winning personal finance podcast and platform, "Yo Quiero Dinero." Jannese is an expert in the areas of digital entrepreneurship, content creation, financial independence, creating multiple income streams and passive income. With over a decade of experience in digital entrepreneurship, content creation and multicultural marketing, she is now a highly sought-after business coach who helps her clients monetize their skills and pursue financial independence. Website Book Twitter Instagram TikTok Don't listen to podcasts? A podcast is basically a radio show you can listen to anywhere and anytime, either by downloading it to your smartphone, or by listening online. They're awesome for learning stuff and being entertained when you're in the car, doing chores, jogging or riding your bicycle. You can listen to our latest podcasts here or download them to your phone from any number of places, including Apple, Spotify, RadioPublic, Stitcher and RSS. If you haven't listened to our podcast yet, give it a try, then subscribe. You'll be glad you did!Become a member: https://www.moneytalksnews.com/members/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this podcast episode, Dean and Len discuss the timely issue of appraisal discrimination and bias within the context of Fair Lending. Dean highlights the FFIEC's recent guidance on mitigating risks related to discriminatory practices in property valuations and ensuring credible appraisals. Appraisal bias, which can result in minorities receiving lower property valuations, affects credit access and terms and violates anti-discrimination laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act. The guidance is relevant for both financial institutions and examiners, emphasizing the importance of internal controls and compliance to avoid legal risks and ensure fair lending practices. Dean provides practical suggestions for lenders, including thorough vendor due diligence, risk assessments, training on bias red flags, and establishing clear processes for appraisal reviews and complaints. Both hosts stress the necessity for financial institutions to address and mitigate appraisal bias actively. Brought to you by GeoDataVision and M&M Consulting

In this episde, Lindsay and I talk about our impressions of Trump and the evangelical reponse. This is an informal conversation filled with impressions, obersavations and feeling and thus is not to be listened to as a “record of what happened,” rather, it's more appropriate to think of it as being included in one of our post dinner or early morning conversations, as we tend to do. I have tried to include relevant links that you can click through as topics come up in the conversation to give more color (and more importantly, accuracy) to our conversation.Editorial Corrections The shooting mentioned was in Charleston (June 2015, not Charlotte) and the event mentioned in question was in Charlottesville (August, 2017) regarding our house church prayer. I (Robert) was wrong, the Bible was right side up: Did Trump Hold the Bible Upside Down?Digging DeeperIntro The year was 2015 YouTube Link Make Like a Tree and Get Outta Here! YouTube Link Trump launches 2015 presidential bid atop the Trump Tower escalator YouTube LinkCharacter Matters The Deeper Reason Trump's Taco Tweet Is Offensive NPR.org Link The Real Record of the Reagans on Gays and AIDS Slate.com Link How Trump talks about women - and does it matter? BBC.com Link National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey PDF Donald Trump criticised for mocking reporter with disability BBC.com Link Donald Trump: I could “shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters” CBS News Link Peanuts? YouTube Link How Trump talks about his faith: ‘God is the ultimate' YouTube LinkWas America Great? The Newsroom Speech by Jeff Daniels YouTube Link Jim Crow Laws end in 1954 Britannica.com Link The Equal Credit Opportunity Act Department of Justice Link (When women could apply for a credit card.) List of things prohibited to women in the US USAToday.com Link Marital rape in the United States Wikipedia.org Link Donald Trump's long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2020 Vox.com Link Fidel Castro Britannica.com Link Trickle-down economics Wikipedia.org LinkWomen's Issues Single women were given the right to birth control 50 years ago today (Mar 22, 2022) TheHill.com Link 7 in 10 Women Who Have Had an Abortion Identify as a Christian LifeWay Research Link Percentage distribution of U.S. women obtaining abortions in nonhospital settings and of all U.S. women aged 15-44, and abortion index, by selected characteristics, 2014 and 2008 Guttmacher Institute PDF Can Endometriosis Increase Your Risk for Miscarriage? Endofound.org Link Did Trump Claim Credit for Overturning Roe v. Wade? Snopes.com LinkGuns, Violence Civil War (2024) IMDb.com Link Gun Laws in Florida Pensacola News Journal Inside the Capitol Riot: An Exclusive Video Investigation NYTimes.com LinkCommunity Connection:How about you? What was your first impression of Trump? Did you have similar experiences? As always, feel free to discuss this episode on our community forums.

Double Indemnity (1944) is, shall we say, "loosely based" on the real life murder of one Albert Snyder by his wife, Ruth, and her lover, Judd Gray. At the time the murder in 1927, this was labeled "The Crime of the Century" and was relentlessly pursued by the press which, shockingly, brought all sorts of twists and misrepresentations into the case.  Join the Rebeccas as they take a deeper dive into what actually happened with the case, how Hollywood and the press distort it, and how all this relates to the to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed in 1974.   Comments or Questions? Or have an idea for future episodes - #pitchtothepod? Email us tourguidetellall@gmail.com Support Tour Guide Tell All: • Want to send a one off donation to support the podcast team? We have a venmo @tourguide-tellall • Check out our STORE for Tour Guide Tell All podcast paraphernalia from tote bags to stickers - https://tour-guide-tell-all.myshopify.com/   Want some more info? We found these links to be helpful: American Heritage article History.com   Murderpedia IMDb page for Double Indemnity Smithsonian Magazine Article (with pictures of Ruth, including THAT picture)     You're Listening To: Rebecca Fachner and Rebecca Grawl The Person Responsible for it Sounding Good: Dan King Technical & Admin Work Done During Toddler Naptime: Canden Arciniega Intro/Outro Music: Well-Seasoned from Audio Hero

NCUA Chairman Todd M. Harper's Written Testimony Before the House Financial Services CommitteeNCUA Chairman Todd M. Harper testifying before the House Financial Services Committee in 2023.Chairman McHenry, Ranking Member Waters, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the work of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).The NCUA insures deposits at federally insured credit unions, protects credit union members, and charters and regulates federal credit unions. The NCUA also protects the safety and soundness of the credit union system by identifying, monitoring, and managing risks to the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund). In my testimony today, I will discuss the state of the credit union system, recent efforts by the agency to strengthen the system, and several legislative requests.State of the Credit Union SystemThe credit union system over the last year has remained largely stable in its performance and relatively resilient against economic disruptions. However, during the last few quarters, the NCUA has seen growing signs of financial strain on credit union balance sheets and in household budgets. Economists are also forecasting an economic slowdown as the lagged effects of elevated interest rates take hold. Each of these developments could affect credit union performance in the coming quarters.Over the same period, the NCUA has also seen growing stress within the system because of a rise in interest rate and liquidity risks. In fact, this financial stress is reflected in the increasing number of composite CAMELS code 3, 4, and 5 credit unions.1 Assets in composite CAMELS code 3 institutions increased sizably in the second quarter, especially among those complex credit unions with more than $500 million in assets. Such increases may well continue in future quarters. We have additionally seen more credit unions fall into the composite CAMELS code 4 and 5 ratings during the second quarter.Credit Union System PerformanceAs of June 30, 2023, the system's net worth ratio stood at 10.63 percent. There was continued year-over-year growth in assets and lending, with system assets surpassing $2.2 trillion and outstanding loans at more than $1.5 trillion. Although insured shares and deposits decreased slightly compared to the previous quarter, they stood almost 2 percent higher than one year earlier.Second quarter data also demonstrate some indications of growing consumer financial stress. The delinquency rate for loans rose slightly to 63 basis points, although it remains below historic averages. Credit cards and automobile loans, however, show increased delinquency levels at 154 and 67 basis points, respectively. Additionally, net charge-off levels have risen over the last year, returning to pre-pandemic averages.Additionally, funding costs for credit unions have increased significantly in the rising interest rate environment. Credit unions have increased their issuances of time deposits, leading to total interest expenses growing substantially over the year. However, the industry's return on average assets remains sound at 79 basis points. Together, these numbers show the credit union system continues to rest on a solid footing.External Factors Affecting the SystemThe NCUA is closely monitoring the financial markets and the economy as the current environment has created challenges for some consumers and credit unions. Inflation and interest rates are affecting household budgets, which could lead to an increase in credit risk in future quarters. In addition, the prevalence of hybrid work environments has placed pressure on commercial real estate lending. While the credit union system overall has modest exposure to this type of lending, the NCUA is closely monitoring individual credit unions with material exposure to commercial real estate.The rise in interest rates has also increased liquidity and interest rate risks in the credit union system, including at several of the 421 federally insured credit unions with more than $1 billion in assets. Accordingly, the NCUA has emphasized the importance of liquidity risk management and contingency planning in its industry communications and will continue to ensure credit unions conduct liquidity and asset-liability management planning to address current challenges and future uncertainties.With respect to all these risks and to protect the Share Insurance Fund against potential losses, the NCUA will continue to vigilantly monitor credit union performance through the examination process, offsite monitoring, and tailored supervision. The NCUA will also, when appropriate, take action to protect credit union members and their deposits.Share Insurance Fund PerformanceBacked by the full faith and credit of the United States, the Share Insurance Fund provides insurance coverage for individual accounts at federally insured credit unions up to $250,000.2 As of June 30, 2023, the Share Insurance Fund insured $1.7 trillion in deposits and shares. Notably, the Share Insurance Fund protects nearly 92 percent of total share deposits in the credit union system. In comparison, uninsured shares and deposits equaled approximately $160 billion in the second quarter or 8 percent of total share deposits.The Share Insurance Fund continues to perform well, with no premiums currently expected. As of June 30, 2023, the Share Insurance Fund reported a year-to-date net income of $79 million, a net position of $20.3 billion, and an equity ratio of 1.27 percent.3 The NCUA projects that the equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund will end the year at 1.27 percent, which is sufficient but below the 1.33 percent normal operating level target set by the NCUA Board.Given the liquidity events in 2023, economic conditions, and the growing stress in the credit union system from liquidity and interest rate risks, the NCUA Board decided to build up the liquidity position of the Share Insurance Fund to a targeted amount of $4 billion. The Share Insurance Fund reached that target in September. The NCUA Board continues to monitor liquidity in the Share Insurance Fund.State of the Central Liquidity FacilityThe COVID-19 pandemic, inflationary pressures, interest rate volatility, and liquidity risk have all underscored the importance of the NCUA's Central Liquidity Facility (CLF).4 The CLF is an important tool and acts as a shock absorber when unexpected liquidity events occur.Under the NCUA's regulations, credit unions with assets more than $250 million must have access to a federal emergency liquidity source as part of their contingency funding plans. This federal emergency liquidity backstop can be the CLF, the Federal Reserve's Discount Window, or both. Credit unions with less than $250 million in assets are not required to have membership with a contingent federal liquidity source; however, they must identify external sources as part of their liquidity policy.5As of September 30, 2023, the CLF had 399 consumer credit union members, providing $19.8 billion in lending capacity. These credit unions range in asset size from less than $50 million to more than $10 billion. Their access to the CLF helps protect approximately $360 billion in credit union members' assets.The more members the CLF has, the more effective it is as a liquidity facility. As of December 2022, the CLF had a much greater total membership of 3,673 consumer credit unions with a combined $537 billion in member assets and a lending capacity of $27.5 billion. This rapid decline in membership assets followed the expiration of the temporary statutory enhancements that: Increased the CLF's maximum legal borrowing authority; Permitted access for corporate credit unions, as agent members, to borrow for their own needs; Provided greater flexibility and affordability to agent members to join the CLF to serve smaller groups of their covered institutions; and Gave the NCUA Board the clarity and flexibility about the loans it can approve by removing the phrase, “the Board shall not approve an application for credit the intent of which is to expand credit union portfolios.” Among other benefits, these statutory provisions facilitated agent membership of corporate credit unions. These enhancements, however, ended on January 1, 2023, resulting in 3,322 credit unions with less than $250 million in assets losing access to the CLF. Consequently, the CLF's borrowing capacity has decreased by almost $10 billion.To address this expiration and growing liquidity risks, the NCUA Board has unanimously requested that Congress allow corporate credit unions to purchase capital stock in the CLF to help smaller credit unions access to the facility. This change would make the CLF more affordable for corporate credit unions subscribing for a subset of their members. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the CLF reforms at no cost to taxpayers.6NCUA's Efforts to Protect and Strengthen the Credit Union SystemIn recent months, the NCUA has undertaken several actions to respond to cybersecurity risk; support minority depository institutions; enhance the credit union system's and the NCUA's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; and consider and adopt new rules to strengthen the system.Enhancing CybersecurityCybersecurity threats within the financial services industry are high and expected to remain so for the foreseeable future. To maintain vigilance against these threats, the NCUA is committed to ensuring consistency, transparency, and accountability in its cybersecurity examination program and related activities.Earlier this year, the NCUA deployed its updated, scalable, and risk-focused Information Security Examination (ISE) procedures. The ISE examination initiative offers flexibility for credit unions while providing examiners with standardized review steps to facilitate advanced data collection and analysis. Together with the agency's voluntary Automated Cybersecurity Evaluation Toolbox maturity assessment, the new ISE procedures will assist the NCUA in protecting the credit union system from cyberattacks.In addition, the NCUA's recently implemented cyber incident reporting rule has proven to be helpful to the agency and credit union industry.7 The final rule requires a federally insured credit union to report a substantial cyber incident to the NCUA as soon as possible but no later than 72 hours after the credit union reasonably believes a reportable cyber incident has occurred. In the first 30 days after the rule became effective, the NCUA received 146 incident reports, more than it had received in total in the previous year. More than 60 percent of these incident reports involve third-party service providers and credit union service organizations (CUSOs).The NCUA also actively communicates with credit unions about the increased likelihood of cyberattacks resulting from geopolitical and other cyber events. Credit unions of all sizes are a part of the U.S. critical infrastructure and should implement appropriate controls in the technology they use to deliver member services.Maintaining Consumer Financial ProtectionAn important part of the NCUA's mission is to examine credit unions with less than $10 billion in assets for compliance with consumer financial protection laws. The agency's consumer compliance efforts are integral to maintaining a safe-and-sound credit union system.In 2023, the agency's consumer financial protection supervisory priorities have included overdraft protection, fair lending, residential real estate appraisal bias, and Truth in Lending Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act compliance. The NCUA also prioritized examining credit union compliance with the Flood Disaster Protection Act, including disclosure requirements.In addition, the agency increased its review of overdraft programs and non-sufficient funds fee practices at credit unions to assess whether providing those services and charging the fees are potentially unfair practices. The NCUA's supervision of the services aims to create a more equitable system that supports financial stability for credit union members, improves transparency, and advances the statutory mission of credit unions to meet the credit and savings needs of their members, especially those of modest means.8Furthermore, the NCUA conducts targeted fair lending examinations and supervision at federal credit unions to assess compliance with federal fair lending laws and regulations. These reviews are critical to identifying discrimination and fostering financial inclusion. In August 2023, the NCUA encouraged the industry to review and comply with previously issued guidance addressing prohibited discriminatory practices in automated underwriting systems. Specifically, the agency encouraged credit unions to review system parameters to ensure compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and its implementing regulation.In addition to appraisal bias oversight examinations, the NCUA joined with the other Federal Financial Institution Examination Council agencies in June to issue proposed guidance for reconsideration of value for residential real estate valuations. The proposed guidance advises on policies that financial institutions may implement to allow consumers to provide information that may not have been considered during an appraisal or if deficiencies are identified in the original appraisal.As part of its consumer financial protection efforts, the NCUA's Consumer Assistance Center also resolves consumer complaints against federal credit unions with total assets up to $10 billion and, in certain instances, federally insured, state-chartered credit unions. In 2022, the Consumer Assistance Center responded to 10,589 written complaints, 1,842 inquiries, and 30,232 telephone calls from consumers and credit unions concerning consumer financial protection regulations.Finally, the NCUA regularly presents webinars promoting financial literacy and financial inclusion. Over the past year, the agency has hosted webinars on appraisal bias, elder financial abuse, and minority depository institutions. In addition, the agency participates in national financial literacy initiatives, including the interagency Financial Literacy and Education Commission.Supporting Minority Depository InstitutionsSupporting minority depository institution (MDI) credit unions is a longstanding priority for the NCUA. MDI credit unions represent approximately 10 percent of federally insured credit unions, and there are presently 498 such credit unions. These MDIs have more than five million members and exceed $66 billion in assets.In 2015, the NCUA established its MDI Preservation Program and has since sought new ways to assist MDI credit unions, their members, and the communities they serve. In 2022, the NCUA launched the Small Credit Union and MDI Support Program, allocating resources to assist MDIs in addressing operational challenges such as staff training, examinations, and improving earnings. In 2023, the NCUA allocated 10,000 staff hours across its three regional offices for the program.This year, the agency also issued customized guidance to examiners to provide insights into MDIs' unique business models and members' needs. The guidance assists examiners in understanding MDIs' distinct business model compared to other mainstream financial institutions by providing instruction on how to use MDI peer metrics instead of traditional peer metrics.Notably, while MDIs tend to be smaller institutions, they have relatively strong financial performance. As of the end of the second quarter of this year, MDIs averaged about $133 million in total assets, yet their return on average assets and net worth ratios were higher than federally insured credit unions overall and equal to credit unions with assets exceeding $1 billion. Meanwhile, their charge-off levels were consistent with the levels reported for both larger credit unions and credit unions overall.Congress recently authorized all MDIs to be eligible for Community Development Revolving Loan Fund grants and loans. Previously, MDIs required the low-income credit union designation to qualify. In the 2023 grant round, 42 MDIs received more than $1.4 million in technical assistance grants. The amount of funding MDIs received was a five-fold increase from the level of funding provided in 2022.Finally, the NCUA in October hosted an MDI Symposium that discussed how the agency can better serve these institutions. The MDI Symposium brought together MDI credit unions and industry stakeholders to learn about the challenges faced by MDIs. Sessions included case studies of successful MDI business models for replication. The NCUA plans to leverage this information to further support its MDI Preservation Program. And, as part of the NCUA's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Summit for credit unions in early November, the NCUA held a session that discussed MDI challenges and strategies for success.Advancing Diversity, Equity, and InclusionThe NCUA is fully committed to fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the agency and the credit union system.The agency uses data from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, including the Office of Personnel Management's Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility index, to inform its data-driven DEI strategies and activities.9 The agency's internal practices to promote DEI are also wide-ranging. For example, the NCUA's employee resource groups serve more than 30 percent of agency staff, surpassing the industry standard membership goal of 10 percent. Further, the NCUA's special emphasis program educates staff on cultural diversity and provides dedicated support for employees and managers with disabilities.In addition, the NCUA routinely recruits employees with diverse backgrounds and seeks to ensure broad applicant pools for vacancies. These diversity recruitment efforts are aimed at attracting and retaining highly qualified individuals from underrepresented groups, including Hispanics and candidates with disabilities. In 2023, the NCUA conducted a targeted barrier analysis to identify hiring and retention challenges for women and Hispanic employees. In addition, the agency has consistently exceeded the federal employment rate goals for employees with disabilities and targeted disabilities since 2017.10 Slightly more than 59 percent of the NCUA's managers are women.The NCUA has additionally built a diverse supplier network to obtain innovative solutions and the best value, particularly in technology and IT solutions. During 2022, the agency awarded $32.8 million of reportable contract dollars to minority and women-owned businesses. That figure represents 45 percent of the agency's contracting dollars, an increase of 8 percentage points from the prior year.Credit unions may also assess their DEI policies and programs through a voluntary credit union diversity self-assessment offered annually.11 Credit union submissions of their self-assessment have no bearing on their CAMELS rating, and examiners cannot access the data. The NCUA reports credit union diversity data only in the aggregate. The agency encourages credit unions to use this tool to support their DEI efforts.In 2022, 481, or 10 percent of all credit unions, submitted a self-assessment. The figure represents an all-time high for submissions to the NCUA. Of those submissions, 302 were federally chartered credit unions, 178 were federally insured and state-chartered, and one was a non-federally insured, state-chartered credit union. The number of CUDSA responses in 2022 is twice as much as the 240 self-assessments submitted in 2021.Finally, to support credit union accomplishments in DEI and provide further guidance, the NCUA hosted its fourth DEI Summit in Washington, D.C., in early November. This now annual event provided a forum for hundreds of credit union stakeholders to network, share best practices, and meet with thought leaders on ways to expand their DEI efforts. The event also highlighted the importance of allyship in helping to achieve the NCUA's and credit unions' DEI goals and improve the financial prospects and futures of families across the country.Rulemaking ActivitiesSince May, the NCUA Board has engaged in several rulemakings on topics like MDI preservation, member expulsion, financial innovation, fair hiring, and charitable donations. These rulemakings have aimed to implement laws required by Congress and strengthen the credit union system.In May, the NCUA Board approved a proposed rule that would add “war veterans' organizations” to the definition of a “qualified charity” that a federal credit union may contribute to using a charitable donation account. The NCUA Board approved the proposed rule noting the attributes of “veterans' organizations” as defined by section 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code are aligned with the purposes of the current charitable donation account rule. A “qualified charity” is a section 501(c)(3) entity defined by the Internal Revenue Code and must be both a non-profit and be organized for a charitable purpose. The final rule will be considered on November 16.In June, the NCUA Board approved proposed changes to the interpretive ruling and policy statement on the agency's Minority Depository Institution Preservation Program. The proposal would amend an existing interpretive ruling and policy statement to update the program's features, clarify the requirements for a credit union to receive and maintain an MDI designation, and reflect the transfer of the MDI Preservation Program administration from the agency's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to its Office of Credit Union Resources and Expansion. Proposed amendments to the interpretive ruling and policy statement also include incorporating recent program initiatives, providing examples of technical assistance an MDI may receive, establishing a new standard for MDIs to assess their designation periodically, and updating how the NCUA will review an MDI's designation status, among other changes. This rule is pending.Additionally, the Board finalized a rule in July to implement requirements of the Credit Union Governance Modernization Act of 2022.12 This regulation streamlines procedures for credit unions to expel a member in cases of serious misconduct.In September, the NCUA Board approved a financial innovation final rule that provides flexibility for federally insured credit unions to utilize advanced technologies and opportunities offered by the financial technology sector. The final rule specifically provides credit unions with options to participate in loans acquired through indirect lending arrangements and financial technology. With the adoption of this final rule, the limits previously found in the NCUA's regulations are replaced with policy, due diligence, and risk-management requirements that can be tailored to match each credit union's risk levels and activities.Lastly, the NCUA Board in October approved a proposed rule that would incorporate the NCUA's Second Chance Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement, and statutory prohibitions imposed by Section 205(d) of the Federal Credit Union Act into the agency's regulations. This proposed rule would allow people convicted of certain minor offenses to work in the credit union industry without applying for the NCUA Board's approval. It would also amend requirements governing the conditions under which newly chartered or troubled federally insured credit unions must notify the NCUA of proposed changes to their board of directors, committee members, or senior executive staff. The comment period closes on January 8, 2024.Legislative RequestsWhile the credit union system continues to perform well overall, several amendments to the Federal Credit Union Act would provide the NCUA with greater flexibility to effectively regulate the credit union system and protect the Share Insurance Fund in light of an evolving economic environment, a changing marketplace, and technological advancements.Central Liquidity Facility ReformsAs noted previously, the NCUA Board unanimously supports a statutory change to restore the ability of corporate credit unions to serve as CLF agents on behalf of a subset of their member credit unions. Such legislation would better allow the CLF to serve as a shock absorber for liquidity events within the credit union system.On February 28, 2023, lawmakers introduced bipartisan legislation that would allow corporate credit unions to purchase CLF capital stock on behalf of a subset of their members.13 This legislation would permit corporate credit unions to contribute capital to provide coverage for smaller members with less than $250 million in assets. Liquidity risks within the credit union system are rising, and timely consideration of this bill would better protect the credit union system from future liquidity events.Restoration of Third-Party Vendor AuthorityThe risks resulting from the NCUA's lack of vendor authority are real, expanding, and potentially dangerous for the nation's financial infrastructure. Other independent entities, including the Government Accountability Office, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, and the NCUA's Office of Inspector General, have identified this deficiency as inhibiting the NCUA from fulfilling its mission to safeguard credit union members and the financial system. And, it is the NCUA Board's continuing policy to seek third-party vendor authority from Congress.14The agency is working within its current authority to address this growing regulatory blind spot, but it is evident that additional authority is needed. There has also been a shift in credit union leaders' understanding of the value of the NCUA having the same vendor authority as the federal banking agencies. The benefits include credit union access to NCUA examination information when conducting due diligence of vendors, fewer requests from the NCUA to credit unions to intervene with vendors experiencing problems, and fewer losses to the Share Insurance Fund.The potential for such resulting losses to the Share Insurance Fund is real. The NCUA's Office of Inspector General stated that between 2008 and 2015, nine CUSOs contributed to material losses to the Share Insurance Fund. The report noted one of the CUSOs caused losses in 24 credit unions, some of which failed. According to NCUA staff calculations, at least 73 credit unions incurred losses between 2007 and 2020 as losses at CUSOs roll onto credit union ledgers and lead to liquidations.15The absence of third-party vendor examination authority limits the NCUA's ability to assess and mitigate potential risks associated with these vendors. Vendors typically decline these requests or refuse to implement recommended actions. This limitation exacerbates any exposure credit unions have to the operational, cybersecurity, and compliance risks that can arise from these relationships. Without the authority to enforce recommended corrective actions, the NCUA is unable to effectively protect credit unions and their members.Furthermore, the growing reliance on third-party services in the credit union industry poses a systemic risk to the credit union system. Five core banking processors, for example, handle more than 90 percent of the credit union system's assets. A failure of one of these critical third parties could cause hundreds of credit unions and potentially tens of millions of their members to lose access to their funds simultaneously. Such a vendor failure, in turn, may result in a loss of confidence in the financial sector. Ensuring proper oversight is imperative, as CUSOs and third-party vendors are poised to capitalize on financial institutions' growing appetite for artificial intelligence and real-time payment services.If granted third-party vendor authority, the NCUA would implement a risk-based examination program focusing on services that relate to safety and soundness, cybersecurity, Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering Act compliance, consumer financial protection, and areas posing significant financial risk for the Share Insurance Fund.Additional Flexibility for Administering the Share Insurance FundThe recent turmoil in the banking sector, growing liquidity risks within the credit union system, and rising interest rate risk all highlight the need for the NCUA to have additional flexibility for administering the Share Insurance Fund.Specifically, the NCUA requests amending the Federal Credit Union Act to remove the 1.50 percent ceiling for the Share Insurance Fund's equity ratio from the current statutory definition of “normal operating level,” which limits the ability of the Board to establish a higher normal operating level for the Share Insurance Fund. A statutory change should also remove the limitations on assessing Share Insurance Fund premiums when the equity ratio of the Share Insurance Fund is greater than 1.30 percent and if the premium charged exceeds the amount necessary to restore the equity ratio to 1.30 percent.16Together, these amendments would bring the NCUA's statutory authority over the Share Insurance Fund more in line with the FDIC's authority as it relates to administering the Deposit Insurance Fund. These amendments would also better enable the NCUA Board to proactively manage the Share Insurance Fund by building reserves during economic upturns so that sufficient money is available during economic downturns. This more counter-cyclical approach to managing the Share Insurance Fund would better ensure that credit unions will not need to impair their one percent contributed capital deposit or pay premiums during times of economic stress, when they can least afford it.ConclusionThe NCUA stands ready to address the impact of the evolving economic and business cycles within the credit union system. The NCUA will continue to monitor credit union performance and coordinate with other federal financial institution regulators, as appropriate, to ensure the overall resiliency and stability of our nation's financial services system and economy.Thank you again for the invitation to testify about the NCUA's programs and operations. 

In March 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that it had revised its examination manual to instruct its examiners to apply the “unfairness” standard under the Consumer Financial Protection Act to conduct considered to be discriminatory, whether or not it is covered by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. We first review the changes that the CFPB made to the manual, its rationale for the changes, and how those changes would allow the CFPB to target discrimination more broadly than the circumstances covered by the ECOA. We also review the industry lawsuit challenging the changes, including the reasons asserted for invalidating the changes and the relief sought. We then look at the court decision vacating the changes, including the court's application of the “major questions” doctrine and the relief granted. We conclude with a discussion of the CFPB's possible next steps and the decision's implications for pending CFPB rulemakings and other CFPB actions. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation, joined by Richard Andreano, a partner in the Group and Practice Leader of the firm's Mortgage Banking Group.

This week, we are delighted to present a previous episode of In Search of Green Marbles that featured Jena Roche, Weiss's Director of Investor Relations and Marketing. But the timing is not coincidental, as tomorrow, August 26th, is Women's Equality Day. Thanks to a 1973 Joint Resolution of Congress, Women's Equality Day was established to commemorate August 26th,1920, which marked the day in which Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby quietly signed the recently ratified 19th Amendment in his home – without any fanfare – that gave American women the right to vote. In doing so, a movement that started over a century earlier could finally declare victory.The journey towards equality beyond suffrage has made many strides since that day 103 years ago, but it's been a struggle. For example, it took all the way to 1974 and the enactment of the The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, before women were able to apply for credit cards and other loans in their own name, regardless of their marital status. And believe it or not, it took all the way until May 12th, 1987, before the first coeducation class graduated from Columbia College. So, while women have made great strides, Weiss believes that it's important to remember that the achievements made by women have been hard fought and have taken way more time than they should have. And the fight for progress continues, which is why we wanted to take this week to recognize one of our formidable women warriors.Please check important disclosures at the end of the episode.Time Stamps:Why is Jena enamored with manatees? [8:08]Why did Jena choose to attend Wellesley College despite the tuition cost? [10:31]How did Jena get to Wall Street after majoring in Biochemistry? [18:50]How does Jena apply the Ideal Gas Law formula, PV=nRT, in her daily life? [21:00] How did Jena transition from banking into her role in Marketing & IR at Weiss? [22:14]What advice does Jena have for aspiring women who are starting their careers on Wall Street? [32:15]How did George Weiss, Jordi Visser, and other finance professionals at Weiss help Jena think about her own investment decisions? [36:19]Resources:Women's Equality Day OverviewThe Equal Credit Opportunity ActClass of 1987 Heralds New Era at Columbia Disclosures: This podcast and associated content (collectively, the “Post”) are provided to you by Weiss Multi-Strategy Advisers LLC (“Weiss”). The views expressed in the Post are for informational purposes only and are subject to change without notice. Information in this Post has been developed internally and is based on market conditions as of the date of the recording from sources believed to be reliable. Nothing in this Post should be construed as investment, legal, tax, or other advice and should not be viewed as a recommendation to purchase or sell any security or adopt any investment strategy. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. You should consult your own advisers regarding business, legal, tax, or other matters concerning investments. Any health-related information shared on the podcast is not intended as medical advice or for use in self-diagnosis or treatment. Please consult a qualified healthcare professional before acting upon any health-related information on the podcast. Weiss has no control over information at any...

Please join Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis and Lori Sommerfield, along with American Association of Bank Directors (AABD) President David Baris, for a special announcement about the recently published second edition of the Practical Handbook on Fair Lending for Bank Directors and Executive Officers (AABD Handbook). The updated AABD Handbook addresses the dramatic shift in the regulatory landscape for enforcement of the federal fair lending laws over the past decade, with aggressive enforcement of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act by federal agencies (including the CFPB, U.S. Department of Justice, and federal banking agencies) under various presidential administrations.The AABD Handbook is designed to raise awareness and provide education to bank directors and executive officers about federal fair lending laws and related laws, as well as offer guidance to directors and executive management on their roles in providing meaningful oversight for fair lending risk management. The AABD Handbook also describes best practices to enhance banks' fair lending compliance programs to meet regulatory expectations. For this reason, the AABD Handbook serves as a helpful resource for others, including chief risk officers, chief compliance officers, and fair lending officers.The AABD Handbook is available for purchase through Amazon in paperback and e-book formats.David Baris serves as the president of the American Association of Bank Directors (AABD). He has led AABD since its founding in 1989 to provide bank directors the resources with which to serve their institutions effectively and in a manner that minimizes the risk of personal liability consistent with safe and sound banking practices. AABD supports bank directors through its advocacy, information, and training initiatives.David was a banking law partner with several law firms for many years, including Kennedy & Baris, which he co-founded, and later the Buckley law firm in Washington, D.C. Earlier in his career, he served as counsel to an oversight subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee and legislative counsel to a member of Congress. Mr. Baris has authored seven books and numerous articles on bank director issues.

I interview Joe Goldberg, formerly of NCUA, and an expert on ECOA.ECOA Requires creditors to make decisions related to providing credit and credit terms solely on credit-related factors. Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974) – "The Congress finds that there is a need to insure that the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extensions of credit exercise their responsibility to make credit available with fairness, impartiality, and without discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status. Economic stabilization would be enhanced and competition among the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of credit would be strengthened by an absence of discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status, as well as by the informed use of credit which Congress has heretofore sought to promote. It is the purpose of this Act… to require that financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of credit make that credit equally available to all credit-worthy customers without regard to sex or marital status."

At the end of March 2023, the CFPB issued its long-awaited final rule to implement Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to collect and report certain data in connection with credit applications made by small businesses, including women- or minority-owned small businesses. Although the final rule will be effective on August 29, 2023, it contains a tiered compliance date schedule, with an earliest compliance date of October 1, 2024 for financial institutions that originate the most covered credit transactions and later compliance dates for institutions with lower transaction volumes. In Part II of this two-part episode, we first take a close look at the final rule's tiered compliance dates and related volume thresholds and the CFPB's grace period policy statement. We next discuss our expectations for CFPB enforcement of the final rule, including the CFPB's statement on supervisory and enforcement practices, how the collected data is likely to be analyzed and used, and the potential for data analysis to produce unwarranted conclusions. We also look at the operational issues and challenges that lenders should consider in implementing the final rule and satisfying the requirement for lenders to have procedures that are “reasonably designed to collect applicant-provided data.” We conclude with a discussion of the final rule's implications for fair lending risk, including likely areas of CFPB scrutiny and the expected need for lenders to have additional data to explain lending disparities that may appear in exams. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation, joined by Michael Gordon, Of Counsel in the Group.

At the end of March 2023, the CFPB issued its long-awaited final rule to implement Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to collect and report certain data in connection with credit applications made by small businesses, including women- or minority-owned small businesses. Although the final rule will be effective on August 29, 2023, it contains a tiered compliance date schedule, with an earliest compliance date of October 1, 2024 for financial institutions that originate the most covered credit transactions and later compliance dates for institutions with lower transaction volumes. In Part I of this two-part episode, we first take a close look at the final rule's key definitions, specifically those for “covered application,” “covered financial institution,” “covered credit transaction,” and “small business.” We then discuss the data points that must be collected about the credit applied for, the borrower, and the borrower's principal owners and consider how the data points are similar to or different from the data points required to be collected pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. We conclude with a discussion of the rule's provisions regarding procedures for the collection of data, such as the restrictions on employee and officer access to data. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, leads the conversation, joined by John Culhane and Richard Andreano, Partners in the Group.

Micheal loves his memory. Carrie and Sarah are in Pittsburgh together again, just crying about how much they love each other over pancakes. The dogs go wild over the mail, and we decide that Blue's Clues has jumped the shark with all these spicy babies. Carrie loves boygenius and thinks "True Blue" is about her relationship with Sarah, a real true blue friend who never lets Carrie hide. As promised, Carrie and Sarah watch Pretty Woman together and meditate on power, sex, and gender. "You take care of you." Sarah identifies with Kit. 1990 was a good year for eyebrows. Carrie's college boyfriend used to turn corners in his truck and say "Like she's on rails, I tell ya." Sarah googles the cast of Urban Cowboy. Sarah, a single woman homeowner, also googles the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 and decides to celebrate this as a day of action. Carrie wants Vivian's suit with shorts, but butched up with some chunky chelsea boots. Sarah recommends a Halloween costume that comes with an unassuming weapon, like a sexy Mario with a monkey wrench. Maybe let's remake the film with only Kit and Vivian. Sarah is learning from therapy and taking those lessons into the real world and relationships. Sarah sees herself and allows herself to be seen. Sarah and Carrie hug. Carrie saves the world by rescuing a karaoke singer who can't find the pitch and looks to her for help. Carrie believes real heroes step in to help and then sit down when help is no longer needed. Carrie is the Hector Elizondo of Pittsburgh institution Belvedere's Ultra Dive. May we all be Hector Elizondo. Carrie and Sarah discuss their new book project, How to Make a Move Without Moving: a collection of essays about trying to attract sex partners with psychic signals, pheromones, and juicy smells. Carrie tries it out on a fella at karaoke through aggressive eye contact. Sarah says to use your words rather than broadcasting a pussy net to catch whatever is around. Carrie loves Sarah's new Chris Carraba haircut and her radical food acceptance. Sarah carries her happiness with her. Carrie is loving Sarah's whole look these days. Carrie and Sarah talk about dissociating from their feelings and experiencing having feelings as a crisis. Sarah loves that Carrie rocked a very femme look at karaoke, braless in her sundress. Carrie made herself known to the DJ and Sarah loves that Carrie could be a fixture at this Tuesday karaoke night. Lowstakes advice: Find you a friend that's family. Make a move by moving. Make aggressive eye contact and then ask the object of your desire if they can smell your pussy as an opening move. Send us your voicenotes on instagram at whatiloveaboutmyselfpodcast.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its final rule to implement Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act. What will this rule mean for your institution? Section 1071 amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to collect and report certain data in connection with credit applications made by small businesses and small farms, including women- or minority-owned entities. Randy Salser, President of NAFCU, digs into the new rule with two regulatory experts from Wolters Kluwer, both of whom are former federal regulators, to uncover the “what's”, “who's” and “when's.” Experts also dive into what credit unions can do today to prepare, and what to keep in mind as they build out systems to comply with 1071.   Additional topics include: Substantive differences between the DRAFT rule to the FINAL rule; Key dates to monitor; and Demographic information that needs to be collected and what credit unions need to know.   Speakers: Timothy Burniston, Senior Advisor, Regulatory Strategy, Wolters Kluwer Jason Keller, Associate Director, U.S. Advisory Services, Wolters Kluwer   Timothy.Burniston@wolterskluwer.com Jason.Keller@wolterskluwer.com

For many small business owners, the first step on the credit ladder is the hardest, and they may miss opportunities to build business credit and grow their business while relying on personal credit instead. On the latest episode of the ABA Banking Journal Podcast — sponsored by R&T Deposit Solutions — Amegy Bank EVP Jevaughn Sterling talks about Zions Bancorporation's Small Business Diversity Banking Program, organized as an “special-purpose credit program” under Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Sterling discusses: What defines an SPCP and how it is designed to improve access to capital by helping small business owners build business credit instead of relying on personal credit. How Zions designed the Diversity Banking Program to be tailored to the needs of disadvantaged small business borrowers. How loan terms may look similar and different for Diversity Banking Program participants. The nuts and bolts of designing, getting regulatory approval for, launching and marketing the Diversity Banking Program. Results seen, lessons learned and tips for other banks considering a special-purpose credit program. His own career journey as a commercial lender. View ABA resources on special purpose credit programs.

  We Should All Be Millionaires: A Woman's Guide to Earning More, Building Wealth and Gaining Economic Power  Author: Rachel Rodgers EP. 67: It's Givin' Rich Boo   What'd Up Crew? What's good?      Who Gon' Check Me Boo?! God is! Its Sade 33:1 Keep Doing what you are doing.  Seriously, this is a thing God and I have where when I feel stuck. I ask Him okay God what do I need to do differently. And He will quickly reply; “Keep doing what you're doing.” Before I use to be like; is that it? Now, I'm like, ok Got it. Let's keep going.    I ended up googling a real scripture that is in context of what I feeling. Colossians 3:23-24 (23) “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters. (24) Since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward.”    CREW LOVE:  Leave a written review, give the podcast 5 stars, share the episode, and follow us on social media. And visit our website some videos are exclusively accessible on the websiteTheCrewBookClub.com     Chapter 2: Million Dollar Lies “We'll never solve the feminization of power until we solve the masculinity of wealth.”  -Gloria Steinem pg.26 She has so many other statistics about other minority woman as well. Native American, Asian etc.  Pg.31-32 The Equal Credit Opportunity Act was passed 1974. That was only 49 years ago.    Chapter 3: Million Dollar Decisions  In the beginning of the chapter she gives us story Titled: The Tale of Two Boo's Another dope list she gives up to replace our broke ass decisions with Million dollar decisions. Pg. 45-47    We can end this chapter with the 3 main reasons woman make bad moves We want to be liked by everyone.  We hang out with people who are making Broke Ass Decisions We are living in a broke ass environment.      The challenge of the week Pg. 33 Give Yourself Grace    What Would Crew Do?!  (ask for advice) email the crew @ thecrewbookclub@gmail.com or DM on IG @thecrewbookclub  I didn't get an email or dm, but every networking event I get these questions. So I will use them for this section. What is your best advice for someone that wants to start a podcast? Is it worth it?    Quote of the week:  Pg.38 “Nothing happens until you decide. Make a decision and watch your life move forward.”  -Oprah Winfrey 

Episode 083 - Real Estate Exam Questions 37 Going through state exam questions to help real estate students pass their state exam. 01:55 – Congratulations to the recent test graduates: Heather, Maxine, Matthew, Tina, Sean, Dan, Lisa, Nikki, Lewis, Myra, Steven, Stephanie, Jahel, Russel, Cindy, Pete, Kristie, Dillon, Kelly, Paige, Kyle, Nun, Sarah, Chris, Cori, Stephanie, Amy, Kate, Kim, Bianca, and Tonya.  03:15 – Message from Teena. 05:20 – How to find episodes on multiple devices? Go to the website www.ahareep.com and it includes links to the different platforms we use. 06:43 – Things to think about if considering joining a real estate team. 11:30 – Beating a dead horse, do NOT memorize test questions and answers. Several people have used them and are not passing the exam. 15:20 – Jason asks about RESPA. Is it legal to offer discounts if someone has a one stop shop offering title, closing, and mortgages? Yes. 17:32 – Natalie asks about Do Not Call Registry. Consumer or customer we can contact for 3 months. Client, someone we worked with, we can contact for up to 18 months. 20:45 – What happens to a verbal conversation when commission is in question? Is it a contract, is the agent entitled to a commission, and is the contract enforceable. Statute of frauds would apply. 26:00 – How to apply depreciation to improvements on a parcel of land? Do not include the land in the depreciation calculation. $185,000 x 60% = $111,000 + $47,000 = $158,000. 29:27 – Agency duties of care, obedience and loyalty. 31:44 – A house with outdated plumbing suffers from what type of depreciation? Functional obsolescence. Curable versus incurable. 35:00 – When an HOA applies rules inconsistently, when could they be held liable for violating Fair Housing? Disability. Not citzenship, immigration status, or marital status. Marital status is under ECOA, Equal Credit Opportunity Act. 37:37 – If a person owns an easement, what type of easement do they have? Easement in gross..   A-Ha LINKS  Email info@ahareep.com Web www.ahareep.com Facebook https://www.facebook.com/AHA.REEP YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrxAjI5Li4Ll3Epwcyc0i6A

Please join Troutman Pepper Partner Chris Willis and his colleague Consumer Financial Services Partner Lori Sommerfield as they discuss the implications of the recent Illinois federal court decision, dismissing the CFPB's first-ever redlining case against Townstone Financial, Inc., which alleged that Townstone engaged in redlining practices by discouraging applications under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) through its marketing approach. The court found that ECOA does not extend to prospective applicants.A seasoned consumer financial services attorney, Lori Sommerfield brings more than two decades of experience in federal government, in-house, and private practice settings. She leverages her deep expertise in fair lending and responsible banking regulatory compliance when routinely counseling clients in consumer financial services supervisory issues, examinations, investigations, and enforcement actions. Lori also comes highly experienced in advising clients on compliance with Title III of the ADA on accessibility of physical spaces and digital platforms.

We first review the origins of mortgage redlining and discuss the concept of reverse redlining and new theories of redlining. We then look at a wide range of topics including: the application of redlining enforcement to non-banks; the use of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act to challenge redlining; activity at state level targeting redlining; the types of evidence regulators will look for when examining for redlining or bringing an enforcement action; potential penalties for redlining violations; what steps may be required for remediation of redlining; and how a bank or non-bank can build a compliance program to avoid redlining. Alan Kaplinsky, Ballard Spahr Senior Counsel in the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the conversation joined by Richard Andreano, a partner in the Group and Leader of the firm's Mortgage Banking Group.

Is Discrimination “Unfair” Under the UDAP Laws? New Lawsuit Challenges CFPB's Anti-Discrimination Guidelines By Jessica Rich, Paul Singer & Alysa Z. Hutnik on September 30, 2022 POSTED IN CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION, CONSUMER PROTECTION 
Most people would generally agree that discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, disability, or similar factors is a bad thing to do – indeed, that it's “unfair” within the common meaning of the word.  It's also illegal in various circumstances – e.g., the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits certain forms of discrimination in lending, the Fair Housing Act bans discrimination in housing, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits various types of employment discrimination. https://www.adlawaccess.com/2022/09/articles/is-discrimination-unfair-under-the-udap-laws-new-lawsuit-challenges-cfpbs-anti-discrimination-guidelines/ Jessica L. Rich
jrich@kelleydrye.com
(202) 342-8580
Bio - www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Jessica-L-Rich Paul L. Singer psinger@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8672 Bio - https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Paul-L-Singer Alysa Z. Hutnik
(202) 342-8603
ahutnik@kelleydrye.com Bio - https://www.kelleydrye.com/Our-People/Alysa-Z-Hutnik See our LinkeTree for more information linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach
 Produced by Jeff Scurry

Hey all, Jason here.This Sunday, I have a “hybrid” post for you — both regular newsletter content and a special podcast conversation about banking-as-a-service and regulation, with guests Sankaet Pathak, co-founder and CEO of Synapse, and Shaul David, Head of Banking at Railsr.We had a wide-ranging conversation about the space, including:How banking-as-a-service can help bank/fintech partnerships to scaleWhy some banking-as-a-service platforms want to be regulatedHow to ensure customers funds are protected when a fintech (or bank, or e-money institution) failsPredictions for the future of banking-as-a-serviceand moreClick “Listen Now” above or find the show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, or anywhere else you listen to pods.Existing subscriber? Please consider supporting this newsletter by upgrading to a paid subscription. New here? Subscribe to get Fintech Business Weekly each Sunday:How Do Goldman Sachs' CFPB Complaints Stack Up?Last week, we learned that the CFPB is investigating Goldman Sachs, which issues co-branded cards with Apple and General Motors, over its “credit card account management practices, including with respect to the application of refunds, crediting of nonconforming payments, billing error resolution, advertisements, and reporting to credit bureaus.” Now, CNBC is reporting one possible source of the scrutiny is how Goldman handles chargebacks on its cards. Per CNBC (emphasis added):“When an Apple Card user disputes a transaction, Goldman has to seek a resolution within regulatory timelines, and it sometimes failed at that, said the people, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the situation. Customers were sometimes given conflicting information or had long wait times, the people said.Goldman got more disputes than it counted on, said one source. ‘You have these queues that you need to clear out within a certain amount of time. The business was getting so big, suddenly we had to create more automation to deal with it.'…Regulators are focused on customer complaints from the past few years, and the biggest source of those came from attempted chargebacks…”The Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA) requires card issuers to acknowledge receipt of a dispute within 30 days and to investigate and resolve them within two billing cycles (not to exceed 90 days).Goldman Sachs' Most Common ComplaintsSince launching its first credit card, the Apple Card, in August 2019, consumers have lodged just over 1,300 complaints related to Goldman's credit cards with the CFPB.While it is difficult to compare Goldman to other issuers on the absolute number of complaints, it's possible to compare the relative frequency of types of complaints.Since the launch of the Apple Card, the five most common categories of complaint about Goldman to the CFPB were:Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statementApplication deniedCan't use card to make purchasesProblem during payment processCard was charged for something you did not purchase with the cardSo how does Goldman stack up to other major card issuers?About 27% of all complaints to the CFPB about Goldman's credit cards were related to transaction disputes. While this may sound high, it's slightly below major card issuer Citibank, though above American Express, Capital One, and Synchrony.A typical complaint to Goldman about a dispute sounded something like this one (emphasis added):“I had made a purchase at a XXXX dealership for a service ( fixing my a/c ). I paid for the service up front, like the dealer requested. I had to leave town for work, when I came back the dealer sent back the parts for my car, so I spoke to the XXXX and he agreed to refund me for the services, given that I never received them. XXXX never refunded me, so I took it with XXXX XXXX Credit Card and dispute it.They returned saying that the dealership had enough proof that I made the purchase. However they refused to see that through the whole time I talked to them about the dispute, I mentioned several times, I never received the service. I made the purchase and never got the services. When requested proof of the investigation. They had none, only that I made the purchase. No proof of the dealership saying I received the services, the only thing I got was we can do nothing.”The two categories of complaint where Goldman really stands out from others are “Application denied” and “Can't use card to make purchases.” The high share of complaints about denied applications makes enough sense, given the high-profile launch of the Apple Card and unfounded complaints of gender discrimination.The complaints about not being able to use the card to make purchases — which accounted for just over 9% of all complaints about Goldman-issued credit cards, are a bit more unusual. For other major issuers, these kinds of complaints represented just 2-4% of complaints to the CFPB.Though the exact complaints vary, a common theme emerges, where a user's card is restricted for unclear reasons, and, when they contact Goldman, they're unable to get an answer as to why.Many complaints also referenced calling repeatedly, long hold times, and unfulfilled promises that consumers would be called back.For example, one customer wrote to the CFPB (emphasis added):“For exactly a month now, Apple restricted my Apple credit card and I have not been able to make purchases using this card because they said my account is ‘under review'.They said that someone would contact me to resolve the situation when the review is done, but they never did. When I tried calling back like every week (latest was on XX/XX/XXXX), Apple still told me the same thing ... to wait for a return call.”…and another wrote (emphasis added):“I used my credit card within my limit as I normally would. The account has been restricted and I wasnt told why other than something triggered a response in their department. Ive called numerous times and my account is still restricted over a week later. Im not given a time frame of when I can usee my account. After reading about this companys practices online in similar cases, it looks like many people are restricted from using their cards for over a month.”CFPB Interpretative Rule Puts Google, Meta on Notice For UDAAP, Consumer Protection Violations LiabilityThe CFPB has put “Big Tech” on notice that they may be considered service providers to financial services companies that use their advertising platforms and thus “can be held liable by the CFPB or other law enforcers for committing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices as well as other consumer financial protection violations.”The CFPB's statement released in conjunction with the interpretative rule draws a distinction between “traditional advertising,” like a TV commercial or bill board, and “digital marketing.” According to the statement (emphasis added):“Traditional advertising relies on getting a product or service out to as wide an audience as possible. A traditional marketer, for example, may try to purchase time and space for a TV commercial on the most watched station or show.Digital marketers, on the other hand, seek to maximize individuals' interactions with ads. They may harvest personal data to feed their behavioral analytics models that can target individuals or groups that they predict are more likely to interact with an ad or sign up for a product or service.”Because digital marketing platforms “go beyond” traditional advertising, they do not qualify for the “time and space” exception that a TV station or newspaper would enjoy, the CFPB says.The agency argues that targeting and optimization algorithms common in digital marketing constitute a material service to financial advertisers (emphasis added):“Digital marketing providers are typically materially involved in the development of content strategy when they identify or select prospective customers or select or place content in order to encourage consumer engagement with advertising.Digital marketers engaged in this type of ad targeting and delivery are not merely providing ad space and time, and they do not qualify under the ‘time or space' exception.”What does this mean in practice? While the CFPB doesn't name specific ad platforms in the interpretative rule nor in its statement, it's pretty clearly targeted at Google and Meta (Facebook).While the statement about the interpretive rule is broad, referencing potential liability for unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, the most obvious area that could receive scrutiny is how ad platforms ensure compliance with ECOA or other kinds of unfair discrimination.The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits discrimination in access to credit on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, public assistance, or the exercise of any rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.This isn't purely theoretical — the Department of Justice recently reached a settlement with Meta on similar allegations that when its targeting algorithms were used for housing advertisements, the result was illegal discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act.In fact, CFPB Director Chopra referenced this case in remarks he gave last week coinciding with release of the rule. He closed those remarks by saying (emphasis added):“Today, relationship banking is under threat. In part, this is because our sensitive data is viewed as more valuable to firms than our actual selves. Advances in technology should help our economy and society advance, rather than incentivizing a rush to seize our sensitive financial data and to allow tech giants to evade existing laws that other firms must comply with. It is critical that we all work together to address this.”Digit to Pay $2.7 Million Penalty for Deceiving Users on OverdraftsSavings app Digit, which was recently acquired by small-dollar lender Oportun, has reached a settlement with the CFPB over its marketing and business practices that resulted in consumers overdrafting their accounts.The language in the press release announcing the order is notable for describing the company as “lying” to consumers:The Digit app links to a customer's existing checking account and then automatically determines an amount to transfer to a separate savings account.Digit promised that such transfers would not cause a user to overdraft their account and that, if they did, Digit would reimburse them.But, according to the consent order, that was not the case:“Falsely guaranteed no overdrafts: Hello Digit represented that its tool “never transfers more than you can afford,” and it provided a “no overdraft guarantee.” But instead, Hello Digit routinely caused consumers' checking accounts to incur overdraft fees charged by their banks. Hello Digit received complaints about overdrafts daily.Broke promises to make whole on its mistakes: The company also represented that if there was an overdraft, it would reimburse consumers. But the company often denied customers who tried to recoup their money. The company has received nearly 70,000 overdraft-reimbursement requests since 2017.Pocketed interest that should have gone to consumers: As of mid-2017, Hello Digit deceived consumers when it represented that it would not keep any interest earned on consumer funds that it was holding, when in fact the company kept a significant amount of the interest earned. Had Hello Digit kept its promise to not keep the interest on consumers' funds, consumers could have pocketed the extra savings.”For its part, Oportun, which acquired Digit, released the following statement (emphasis added):“Digit received a CID from the CFPB in June 2020. The CID was discussed with Oportun during the acquisition process. The stated purpose of the CID was to determine whether Digit, in connection with offering its products or services, misrepresented the terms, conditions, or costs of the products or services in a manner that is unfair, deceptive, or abusive.Through the investigation, it was found that with a success rate of better than 99.99%, Digit isn't ‘perfect,' meaning a Digit Save transaction caused an overdraft fee for one of our members less than 0.008% of the time.As a result, Digit owes 1,947 members approximately $35 each, for a total of $68,145. In addition, Digit will pay a civil money penalty of $2.7 million. While we disagree with the CFPB on this matter, we are happy to have it settled.”It's unclear how Digit's purported 99.99% success rate reconciles with the CFPB's claim that the company has received nearly 70,000 overdraft-related complaints since 2017.Other Good ReadsWhat's Going Wrong at Goldman Sachs' Marcus Consumer Bank (Business Insider)A PFM App By Any Other Name (Fintech Takes)Family Fortunes: The Origins and Growth of the Family Office (Net Interest)Contact Fintech Business WeeklyLooking to work with me in any of the following areas? Email me.Fintech advising & consultingSponsoring this newsletterNews tip or story suggestionEarly stage startup looking to raise equity or debt capital Get full access to Fintech Business Weekly at fintechbusinessweekly.substack.com/subscribe

Since 1974, and the passing of The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, American women have unfettered access to banking. Despite nearly 50 years of financial female firsts, women remain largely absent from high finance. Today, we sit down with Brooke Lively, president at Cathedral Capital to discuss why so few women are in finance, why she prefers to hire mothers, and the six key numbers your firm needs to understand to increase your bottom line. So often women in male-dominated sectors like finance and law feel intimidated and hit obstacles their male counterparts will never encounter. Fed up, Brooke forged her own path. She holds an MBA in Investments and Corporate Finance. And after graduation, built a 7- figure company in under 2 years. As a Chartered Financial Analyst, she and her team work with Hall of Famers, INC 5000 businesses, CEOs, and Small Business Owners to help turn businesses into profitable companies.  What's in This Episode? Who is Brooke Lively? How do you run a firm by the numbers to increase profitability? Only 7% of female MBA graduates in finance - making Brooke a unicorn - what drew her to this path? Why are most of the staff at Cathedral Capital women who work part time? How can female lawyers get recognized for partner? What six key financial numbers does every firm owner need to know? What number is essential to knowing the health of your firm? What is the 'profit finder' and how can it help your firm?

Almost 50 years after the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, which ended women needing a male co-signer on loans and credit cards, women are still facing discrimination from financial institutions.Our guest, Lacy Garcia, is the Founder and CEO of Willow, a woman-led, financial technology and guidance platform that empowers women and the underrepresented with education, coaching, and support through every life journey.Willow's mission is to pioneer the standard of financial care provided to women and transform the way in which financial institutions serve women.With two decades in the financial sector as a private banker and marketer in financial services, Lacy understands the challenges of meeting the needs of women clients. She founded Willow to provide women with access to the coaching and personalized guidance she wished had been available to her.To learn more about Willow, please visit: https://www.trustwillow.com/Watch these videos to learn more about how Willow can help you:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DzwvKVWjBYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWZAehtqHjwConnect with Lacy and Willow on social here:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/trustwillow/ and https://www.linkedin.com/in/lacy-garcia/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trust_willow/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/trustwillow Thank you for carving out time to improve your Founder Game - when you do better, your business will do better - cheers!Ande ♥http://andelyons.com #womenandmoney #womenempowerment 00:00 - Andelicious Announcements04:50 - Meet Lacy Garcia - Co-Founder & CEO of Willow11:38 - you don't need to be an expert to jump into entrepreneurship and solve a problem for customers14:00 - Willow will provide a free coaching session if you attend the $avvy FILM SCREENING AND FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE DISCUSSION on June 7th - tap this link to RSVP :https://gathr.com/events/06ce9c3d/avvy-film-screening-and-financial-independence-discussion17:00 - how does the Willow platform empower women to take control of their finances?31:45 - stop focusing on what you don't know and appreciate yourself for everything you DO know!36:58 - how Lacy got on the TODAY show + other bootstrapping PR advice for founders!42:00 - perfection is the enemy of productivity - good enough is good enough!CONNECT WITH ME ONLINE: https://twitter.com/AndeLyonshttps://www.facebook.com/StartupLifew... https://www.linkedin.com/in/andelyons/ https://www.instagram.com/ande_lyons/ https://www.pinterest.com/andelyons/ https://angel.co/andelyons TikTok: @andelyonsANDELICIOUS RESOURCES:JOIN STARTUP LIFE LIVE MEETUP GROUPGet an alert whenever I post a new show!https://bit.ly/StartupLifeLIVEARLAN'S ACADEMYEverything you need to know about launching a successful business, all in one place.https://arlansacademy.com/ELIZABETH YIN - HOW TO RAISE A SEED FUND https://docs.google.com/document/d/14N9R1ZNervLjIR4bi5VjfEDkOSDAFclkGMT06kHwbPI/editSCROOBIOUSScroobious empowers founders to create pitches that speak to investors and prepare for their next funding round or accelerator application.You can learn more by visiting: https://www.scroobious.com/AGORAPULSEMy favorite digital marketing dashboard is AGORAPULSE – it's the best platform to manage your social media posts and presence! Learn more here: http://www.agorapulse.com?via=ande17STARTUP DOX Do you need attorney reviewed legal documents for your startup? I'm a proud community partner of Startup Dox, a new service provided by Selvarajah Law PC which helps you draw out all the essential paperwork needed to kickstart your business in a super cost-effective way. All the legal you're looking for… only without confusion or frustration. EVERY filing and document comes with an attorney review. You will never do it alone. Visit https://www.thestartupdox.com/ and use my discount code ANDE10 to receive 10% off your order.SPONSORSHIPIf you resonate with the show's mission of amplifying diverse founder voices while serving first-time founders around the world, please reach out to me to learn more about making an impact through sponsoring the Startup Life LIVE Show! ande@andelyons.com.STREAMYARD OVERLAYS AND GRAPHIC DESIGNNicky Pasquier – CANVA EXPERThttps://www.virtuosoassistant.co.uk/Visit Nicky's CANVA Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhUDgDHkkma3YhOf7uy8TAbt7HdkXhSjO

What would the world look like if women had money rights from the start of time? I would imagine a very different world. Women have been pushing their way into equality for years. It was just 1963 when the Equal Pay Act was passed and1974 when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act made it illegal for credit card companies to discriminate against women. If you are a woman listening you know we still have a long way to go, but thanks to these 5 female pioneers our future is brighter. In this episode, in honor of International Women's Day, I'm highlighting 5 historical women who have changed money and the takeaways you can apply to your life right now.LinksWomen on Money articleHetty GreenMadam C.J. WalkerAbigail AdamsMaggie Lena WalkerStacey CunninghamEpisode SponsorsShopify is more than a store. Connect with your customers. Drive sales. Manage your day-to-day. Go to http://www.shopify.com/mymoney for a FREE fourteen-day trial and get full access to Shopify's entire suite of features.Find out how Upstart can lower your monthly debt payments today when you go to UPSTART.com/mymoney. I want you to start living a happier life today. As a listener, you'll get 10% off your first month by visiting our sponsor at http://www.betterhelp.com/mymoney. If you're the type of person who's like me and always thinking about new business ideas and startup ideas, start listening today to the My First Million podcast in any podcast player.FOLLOW & SHARELeave us a 5-star review. Head to this link and let us know why you love the show. Reviews help us continue to grow and bring on more amazing guests. Thank you in advance! http://bit.ly/millennial-money.Love this episode? Share it with a few friends so they can learn these valuable money concepts as well.Be sure to FOLLOW and SUBSCRIBE to never miss an episode!Sign up for my weekly Let's Talk Money email newsletter https://bit.ly/letstalkmoneyemailShannah Shares: Community Q&AHave a Shannah Shares question, submit it here https://www.mmoneypodcast.com Follow Me Here for More Money TipsShannah on Twitter https://twitter.com/shannahgame Shannah on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/shannahgame/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Barbara Huson has devoted decades to empowering women as a financial therapist, wealth coach, and author. In this episode, Kim speaks to her about her 7th book, Rewire For Wealth, and the three steps every woman can take to step into their power and program their brain for financial success. TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS EPISODE:  How Barbara’s father and first marriage didn’t teach her about money but prepared her to help women financially. Banks could refuse women a credit card until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 was signed into law. Prior to that, a bank could refuse to issue a credit card to an unmarried woman, and if a woman was married, her husband was required to cosign. Why women are afraid of their power. Being MetaFISCAL and what it means. How a women’s spiritual journey connects with her financial wellbeing. Barbara’s three levels of financial development: survival, stability, affluence. Are you an under-earner? The two emotions to recognize when going from survival to stability on your financial journey. Barbara’s 3-step formula to rewiring our brains for wealth. Why it can be difficult to rewire. The connection between our brain and our thoughts and how we can change the negative thoughts we tell ourselves. The balance between love and fear. Receptive surrender and how it relates to COVID-19 and what we are collectively going through as a whole. Why Barbara changed her last name. #LESSONUP: (2:50- 3:50) I realized very early in my work with women and wealth is that women's issues with money have very little of anything to do with money. And it has everything to do with their fear up or ambivalence about power because women don't understand power from a feminine perspective. And in my definition, a powerful woman is someone who knows who she is, who knows what she wants, and expresses that in the world unapologetically. So essentially our fear of power is our fear of becoming all of who we're meant to be, to really shining our light in the world, and dimming ourselves down. So we don't make waves. And for the patriarchy men see power as power over we don't, for us, power is power with, we are collaborative. We are all about power with. (4:09-5:00) I remember interviewing a psychologist who specialized in financial matters and I asked her, why are women so afraid of their power? And she said to me, something gave me full-body chills. She said powerful women have been burned at the stake. Yes. And I believe it is in our collective unconsciousness that we have this fear of being punished or having catastrophic outcomes if we are powerful. But in order to create wealth in order to make a difference in the world, we have to become a container that can attract, sustain and grow our money. And that's what's required of us. Mother Theresa said it takes a checkbook to change the world. And it's so true. (10:07- 10:20) Under-earning never feeds your soul. It is always an act of deprivation and not just of money, but of time of choices, of freedom, and most of all of self-esteem. (10:45- 11:20) Our brain which is a physical organ in our body controls our behavior. Everything we do inhaling, exhaling, saving, spending is controlled by our brain. Our mind is a non-physical entity, the source of thoughts and feelings. And what flows through the mind is what shapes the brain. So if you want to change your behavior, it's really hard. It's really, really challenging to change your behavior unless without changing your brain first, and the way you change your brain is by changing your thoughts and feelings. (13:28-13:56) All rewiring is unlearning the thoughts that don't serve you so you can, we can program into your brain thoughts that serve you. You recognize the thought you reframe it, but it's not enough to change your behavior unless you do the third step, which is respond differently. Don't want to do, do what doesn't feel. Right. Do what you think. This isn't me. This isn't me. Those are all signs that you are rewiring your brain. (14:55- 15:40) The effects of COVID are many, but one of it for us is enforcing us to reconsider our life. And are we going in the direction we need to go? And thing to do when you get the call, when you realize, Hmm, I need to make some changes. Whether you want to or not. The universe tells you time to make a change. What you need to do is step back and receptive surrender… to get quiet because the idea is to tune into your soul. And in order to hear our soul, we must be quiet. Our soul needs stillness. Our ego, which is telling us, telling you, you're not enough. You must do this. You should do this. It's so loud. It's screaming at you. So you need to get quiet to see what your soul has to tell you. (20:30- 21:50) I think we do not need to get to the state where I was, where it was feeling heavy. I do not think we need to get to this point. This is about you as a black woman asking for support because you give it to other people without question. So why can you not give it to yourself? And I think that is what I would say to any woman listening, give to yourself what you would give to others without question. And a lot of us do that, but we don't think that we are worthy of that. And that was a lesson that I had to learn because I do it. I show up for everybody and I show up in a way and give a hundred percent at all times. And yet I don't feel that I'm worthy of that level of support.  (17:38- 18:00) I want women to know how much power they have to create the life that they want. How much power, how much is in their control. How absolutely much how their thinking is so powerful. The creative power of thought is mind-boggling. And then when you can shift your thinking, you actually rewire your brain and your behavior will change. And there's nothing you can't do.

In today's Daily Download episode, HousingWire discusses a motion filed by Townstone Financial to dismiss a lawsuit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed against the company in July.For some background on the story, here's a summary of the article:On Monday, Townstone Financial Inc., a Chicago-based nonbank retail mortgage lender, filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed against the company in July.The July 15 complaint alleged that Townstone violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B by engaging in discriminatory mortgage-lending practices and that those violations also constituted violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.Townstone moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on expressive action that the CFPB attempted to expand the reach of the ECOA to “prospective applicants,” which the company said is not regulated under ECOA.The CFPB's suit alleges that, from 2014 through 2017, Townstone engaged in practices that illegally discouraged prospective African-American applicants from applying to Townstone for mortgage loans as well as practices that discouraged prospective applicants living in African-American neighborhoods in the Chicago MSA from applying to Townstone for mortgage loans.Following the main story, HousingWire also covers a report from the Mortgage Bankers Association that indicates the U.S. forbearance rate fell slightly to 5.9% last week and an announcement from First American that it has agreed to acquire sub-servicer ServiceMac.The Daily Download examines the most compelling articles reported from the HousingWire newsroom. Each afternoon, we provide our listeners with a deeper look into the stories coming across our newsroom that are helping Move Markets Forward. Hosted by the HW team and produced by Alcynna Lloyd and Victoria Wickham.HousingWire articles covered in this episode:Townstone Financial files motion to dismiss CFPB redlining lawsuitMortgage forbearances down 2 basis points to 5.9%, led by Fannie and FreddieFirst American to acquire subservicer ServiceMac

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, is targeting a small Chicago-area mortgage lender, alleging it violated, among other things, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The lender vehemently denies the charges and is unwilling to roll over. In this episode, the defendant's attorney Marx Sterbcow joins us to share why a settlement or CFPB win would negatively impact the entire real estate profession. It's a fight for the integrity of the industry to prevent actions nationwide that could dramatically change the way we do business.

Hosts Kevin Farrell and Dr Nancy Lottridge Anderson and Ryder Taff discuss, current events, credit cards and take your questions.American credit card debt now exceeds $1 trillion. The average US household has $8,398 in credit card debt. 60% of Americans carry their credit card balance month to month. Coin shortage, mortgage rates, stores closing on Thanksgiving this year: everybody https://www.theblackfriday.com/stores-closed-on-thanksgiving-day.phpAccording to the website nerd wallet dot com credit score ranges are: 300-329 Bad, 630 – 689 Fair, 690-719 Good, and 720-850 means the likelihood of you repaying new debt is excellent. A credit card allows you to borrow money from a bank to make purchases. As long as you pay back the money you borrow within the “grace period” of 25-30 days, you don’t have to pay extra. If you don’t pay it back in that time period, you’ll have to pay interest — a percentage of the money you owe the bank — on top of what you borrowed. Until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, women could not get a credit card without a husband as a co-signer. That meant single women and married women who wished to establish credit separate from their spouses were denied credit cards. The 1974 law made it illegal for creditors to discriminate against applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or marital status.According to Shift Credit Card Processing: 14% of Americans have at least 10 credit cardsPros:You can make a large purchase now and pay it off in smaller amounts over time. Carrying credit cards is more convenient (and safer) than carrying a wad of cash, and credit cards are more widely accepted than personal checks. With responsible use, you can build your credit, which will be important later on.Many credit cards give you rewards, essentially giving you back 1% or more of the money you spend. Or sign-up bonuses.Cons:You can easily dig yourself into debt if you’re not careful about your spending.The ease of using credit cards can cause you to overspend.Missing payments or maxing out a card can sink your credit score quickly.Interest can make even a small debt become large over time.Types of cards:REWARDS – cash back, travel points, specific airline or hotel cards, store cards.Best for cardholders who pay their bill in full every monthLOW INTEREST - lower interest rate, might come with a 0% introductory APR period. Good credit needed to qualifyBALANCE TRANSFER - move your debt from another issuer to take advantage of a lower interest rate. Requires good or excellent credit.SECURED credit card require a security deposit. For those with average or bad creditSTUDENT CARDS - The Credit Card Act of 2009 prohibits issuers from giving cards to people under 21 unless they have proof of income or a co-signer. Helps people establish creditRemember:Fees: late payment, annual fees, Balance transfer fee, Cash advance fee, Foreign transaction feeInterest payments when you don’t pay off your debt in full: APR for purchases, APR for balance transfers, APR for cash advances, Penalty APRTips:Pay your bill on time and in full every monthKeep your balance below 30% of your available creditWait at least six months between credit card applicationsReview your account online weekly to track spending and avoid fraudKeep no-annual-fee credit cards open and active to avoid hurting your credit scorehttps://spendmenot.com/credit-card-debt-statistics/https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/nerdscholar/credit-card/#:~:text=A%20credit%20card%20allows%20you%20to%20borrow%20money%20from%20a,round%2Dtrip%20ticket%20to%20France.&text=If%20you%20don't%20pay,top%20of%20what%20you%20borrowed.https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/credit-cards/credit-cards-101?trk=nw_gn2_4.0https://shiftprocessing.com/credit-card/Calls about:Billsproving it's not your debtdebt collection time framekeeping a file of correspondence See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com Granted Appeal Summary Case CHERYL H. WOOD, ET AL. v. TRACEY L. MARTIN (Record Number 190738) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; R. Gardiner, Judge. Counsel Yama A. Shansab (Ferguson Walton & Shansab, PLLC) for appellants. Thomas W. Repczynski and Alyssa Davies (Offit Kurman, P.C.) for appellee. Assignments of Error 1. The trial court committed substantial and reversible error by ruling that Wood’s change of beneficiary designation was “null and void” by reason of Martin’s Amended PSA and divorce decree, thus granting Martin’s declaratory judgment in contravention of Code § 38.2-3122, which bars “other legal process” from reaching the Proceeds, a protected insurance item, “in any case whatsoever.” 2. The trial court committed substantial and reversible error by ruling sua sponte, “as a matter of law,” that Code § 38.2-3122 did not apply to Martin because Martin was not a “creditor” within the meaning of Code § 6.2-500, part of Virginia’s Equal Credit Opportunity Act, so as to prevent Code § 38.2-3122 from barring Martin’s declaratory judgment. 3. The trial court committed substantial and reversible error in implicitly rewriting and expanding the terms of the Amended PSA’s exclusive remedy, which only gave Martin a contract claim against Wood’s estate for noncompliance with its insurance provisions, not a right to reach the protected insurance item, namely, the Proceeds http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/190738.pdf

In this episode, Aaron Roth and Michael Kearns, both professors of computer science at the University of Pennsylvania, discuss their new book, The Ethical Algorithm (Oxford U. Press 2020). This wide-ranging interview covers issues related to privacy, fairness, and explainable algorithms. The interview has three parts. First, Aaron and Michael explain the goal, process, and limits of differential private data. Second, they discuss various definitions of fairness in algorithmic decision-making and point out that simultaneously maximizing fairness along several dimensions may be impossible to achieve. Finally, they briefly discuss how an inscrutable, “black box” algorithm can be made to produce explainable decisions in specific contexts. Most interestingly, the authors provide several examples of how the process of translating laws into specific directions that machine learning models can follow may demonstrate that our laws are asking for the impossible. For example, it may be impossible to create a credit-underwriting algorithm that is “fair” to both women and black borrowers at the same time despite what the Equal Credit Opportunity Act purports to require. Roth and Kearns are both on Twitter at @Aaroth and @mkearnsupenn, respectively. This episode was hosted by Matthew Bruckner, an associate professor of law at Howard University School of Law. He is on Twitter at @Prof_Bruckner. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This is the 100th episode of The Personal Finance Show! My special guests today are Tanja Hester and Kara Perez, the hosts of my favourite podcast, The Fairer Cents, and James Mwombela, who is a CFP and Associate Planner at Grid 202 Partners. Episode 100 isn't about someone's personal finance story. It's about an important personal finance topic. Today's topic is financial privilege.   My goal with this episode was to encourage you to think about privilege and how it affects your life and your finances. Most people understand obvious financial privilege.   If you come from a wealthy family, you have an easier time than someone who doesn't come from money.   Having to work as a teenager to pay bills is very different than choosing to work as a teenager to buy the things your parents won't buy you.   Graduating with student loans puts you in a very different financial starting position from someone who's parents saved up and paid for their schooling.   Working to save for retirement is very different from working to pay your bills and make the minimum payments on your credit cards. But as we discussed in the episode, there are also less obvious layers of privilege, like your gender, the colour of your skin, or whether you are an immigrant, which may affect your ability to make money.   Like Darryl Brown from episode 93 of the show who didn't think that anyone would want him to be their financial advisor because he's black.   Or Nico Barawid from episode 67 who's parents were both doctors, but were discriminated against financially because they had immigrated from the Phillipines.   There is still a lot of work to be done to increase Indigenous people's access to culturally relevant financial education resources, as Bettina Schneider and I discussed in episode 95.  Women are 80% more likely to live in poverty in retirement than men, as Saijal Patel mentioned in episode 77.  This is not surprising if you consider that women only gained the right to open a bank account in the 1960s. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act was only enacted in 1974, which made it unlawful for a creditor to discriminate against any applicant on the basis of race, gender, religion, national origin, marital status, or age.   Think about that for a second -  45 years ago, it was so normal to financially discriminate against anyone who wasn't a white male, that they actually had to make a law to tell financial institutions to stop being racist and sexist. On the other hand, white men have been able to open bank accounts and get credit since banks were invented hundreds of years ago.  And it's not like everyone stopped being racist and sexist on the day the law came out. As we discussed in the episode, this discrimination still exists, though it's not as explicit as it once was. I've never met anyone who doesn't think this is a problem.  There isn't anyone I know who would explicitly say that they don't believe everyone should have equal opportunity to make money and build wealth. So let's do something about it. Let's talk about it on podcasts like this.   If you have the opportunity to use your privilege for good, to help someone who might have less advantages than you, do that. Remember that privilege is just perception.  There's no logical reason why gender or race or all of the other differences we mentioned should impact your ability to make money.  It's all in our heads and to stop it we need to change our thinking and our actions. So that's my 100th episode.  I'll be back soon with new episodes so if you haven't subscribed to the podcast, please do that now, so you know when the new episodes are up.  If you liked this episode, check out the other 99 episodes and please leave me a review on Apple Podcasts. And if you have any questions or just want to say hello, you can always email me at beau@beauhumphreys.com. Click here to become a patron of The Personal Finance Show via Patreon

Sexy Spirituality Episode #34 The Spirituality of Money Consciousness   Hosts Lezli Goodwin Sonia Byrne Guest: Karen Russo   Opening Chat Sonia, Lezli and Karen talk wallets, their use and what it means for modern commerce.   The Spirituality of Money Consciousness Karen Russo is the author of "The Money Keys," a program that combines spiritual principle and money consciousness in the real world. The biggest question she is asked is, "Can this get better?" Can spiritual principles really lead us to real change in our lives? Her answer is a resounding YES! Money isn't any harder than any other area. Should we have hope? Yes, yes, yes. Key affirmation: I love and respect myself enough to live a financially prosperous and responsible life. As we move into community behavior, Karen sees a trend toward accountability and investments that reflect community values. Next, Karen is going deeper in women, money and worth as her career moves forward. The question is, "What does it mean that it was only 1974 when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act was passed in the United States where women could apply for a home loan in their own name and not have a husband or father sign for them? How does that really affect us, when we have spiritual principle that is unbounded by history that is moving out of seeming limitation?"   Something Good Sonia Tuesday, April 30 is the final class for the free "Stained Glass Spirit" class via Zoom at 6:00 PM PST. This is a special night! We'll be joined by the author, Tracy Brown.  You can find the link to join us to hear the authorst ake at www.riversidecsl.org.    Karen If you've been listening to this conversation and want to have a sense of, "Where so I start around money?" I have a wonderful video training and a quiz to show you where you're stukck and where to get free.  Get the Three Money Myths Kit at www.threemoneymythskit.com    Lezli New Vision Center for Spiritual Living is offering a free Community Morning Meditation via Zoom.  Join us at 7:00 AM PST for a 15 minute guided meditation, Mondays through Fridays. www.zoom.us, room # 6027878888 or find the link at www.newvisioncsl.org   We'll see you May 6 for our next episode of Sexy Spirituality. Share your thoughts with us at sexyspirituality@gmail.com.

Our duty as voters is to judge the job performance of our members of Congress and decide whether or not they deserve to be re-hired or fired from their positions as lawmakers. In this episode, Jen summarizes 20 controversial bills and laws that passed during the 115th Congress which you can use to judge whether your Representative and two Senators have voted in your best interest. Links to all of the votes are listed in this episode's show notes on www.congressionaldish.com Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD174: Bank Lobbyist Act CD163: Net Neutrality CD157: Failure to Repeal CD151: AHCA - The House Version (American Health Care Act) CD129: The Impeachment of John Koskinen CD069: Giving Away Your Land CD048: The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Bills S.2155: Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, introduced Nov 16, 2017, enacted May 24, 2018. Outlined in detail in CD174: Bank Lobbyist Act First significant re-writing of the banking laws since Dodd-Frank in 2010 Most significant change: Kills a Dodd-Frank requirement that banks with more than $50 billion in assets undergo stress tests to ensure their stabilityr. Bank Lobbyist Act changed that so stress tests will only be required for banks with over $250 billion. This exempts 25 of the 38 largest US banks from important regulations. Passed the Senate 67-31 Passed House of Representatives 258-159   H.R.1628: American Health Care Act of 2017, introduced March 20, 2017, passed House May 4. 2017. Outlined in detail in CD151: ACHA The House Version (American Health Care Act) There were quite a few versions of bills that would have ripped up the rules placed on insurance companies by the Affordable Care Act, but every version - including this one - eliminated the requirements that health insurance cover “essential health benefits”, which include: Ambulances Emergencies Hospital stays Maternity and newborn care Mental health Prescription drugs Rehab Lab work Preventative visits Dental and vision for children Would have also allowed - in some circumstance - insurance companies to charge us more for “pre-existing conditions” Passed the House of Representatives 217-213 All Democrats no's 20 Republicans no’s   S.Amdt. 667 (McConnell) to H.R. 1628: Of a perfecting nature., July 28, 2017. The “Skinny Repeal” is a wildly irresponsible 8 page bill, which was only available to read for a few hours before the vote, which also would have allowed the sale of health insurance that doesn’t cover the essential health benefits. This vote was the famous, dramatic moment when John McCain turned his thumb down and killed the bill. Get the full story in CD157: Failure to Repeal Failed Senate 49-51 All Democrats and Independents voted no   S.J.Res. 34: A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services." introduced March 7, 2017, enacted April 3, 2017. Regulation overturned: Killed a regulation that applied the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to internet access and telecommunications providers. Required them to: Provide privacy notices that clearly and accurately inform customers Get opt-in or opt-out customer approval to use and share customer information Require opt-in’s when the company is making money from selling our information Secure our information Notify customers of data breaches Not condition service upon the customer’s surrender of privacy rights Passed Senate 50-48 All Republicans yes All Democrats and Independents no Passed House 215-205 - All Democrats no   H.R. 21: Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017, introduced January 3, 2017, passed House January 4, 2017. Allows Congress to bundle rules that they want to prevent into one bill so there is a single vote on a joint resolution of disapproval. This means that each one will not be carefully considered as is required now. Passed the House of Representatives 238-184 Every Democrat voted no Has not been voted on in the Senate   H.R. 26: Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017, introduced January 3, 2017, passed House January 5, 2017. Changes the Congressional Review Act to require Congressional review of major agency regulations before they can go into effect. Passed the House 237-187 all Republicans voted yes Has not been voted on in the Senate   H.J.Res. 38: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule, introduced January 30, 2017, enacted February 16, 2017. Regulation overturned: Killed the “Stream Protection Rule”, which required permits to specify when coal mining would reach a damaging level for ground and surface water quality. Stricter water quality monitoring requirements in streams. Required land disturbed by mining be restored to a condition similar to what it was before the mining. Passed Senate 54-45 Passed House 228-194   H.J.Res. 41: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to "Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers." introduced January 30, 2017, enacted February 14, 2017. Regulation overturned: Kills a regulation requiring fossil fuel companies to annually report any payments made by the company or a subsidiary to a foreign government or the Federal Government for the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals. Passed Senate 52-47 All Republicans yes All Democrats and Independents no Passed House 235-187   H.J.Res. 44: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pusuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, introduced January 30, 2017, enacted March 27, 2017. Regulation overturned: Kills a regulation that enhanced opportunities for public involvement during the preparation of resource management plans by increasing public access to plans in earlier stages of the process, allowing the public to submit data and other information. Passed Senate 51-48 All Republicans yes All Democrats and Indepedents no Passed House 234-186   H.J.Res. 40: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, introduced January 30, 2017, enacted February 28, 2017. Regulation overturned: Kills a regulation that required Federal agencies to give the Attorney General information on more people for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). People who would be added include people collecting disability benefits due to mental instability. Passed Senate 57-43 All Republicans voted yes Passed House 235-180   H.J.Res. 83: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness, introduced February 21, 2017, enacted April 3, 2017. Regulation overturned: Kills a regulation that made clear that the requirement to record work-related injuries and illnesses is an ongoing obligation; the duty does not expire if the employer fails to create records in the first place. The records must be complete for as long as records are required, which is 5 years and citations can be issued for up to 6 months after that. Passed Senate 50-48 All Republicans yes All Democrats and Independents no Passed House 231-191   H.J.Res. 37: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, introduced January 30, 2017, enacted March 27, 2017. Regulation overturned: Kills a regulation that required contractors for the Defense Department, General Services Administration, and NASA to report their compliance with 14 federal labor laws, required contractors to provide documentation on “hours worked, overtime hours, pay, and additions to or deductions from pay” in each pay period, and limited mandatory arbitration of employee claims for contracts and subcontracts worth more than $1 million. Passed Senate 49-48 All Republicans voted yes All Democrats and Independents voted no Passed House 236-187   H.J.Res. 111: Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Finanacial Protection relating to "Arbitration Agreements" introduced July 20, 2017, enacted November 1, 2017. Regulation Overturned: Killed a regulation that prohibited banks and other financial institutions from forcing arbitration in their contracts to prevent customers from filing and participating in class action lawsuits. Passed Senate 51-50 VP Mike Pence broke the tie All Democrats and Independents voted no Passed House 231-190 All Democrats voted no   S.J.Res. 57: A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer financial Protection relating to "Indirect Auto Lending and Cmopliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act" introduced March 22, 2018, enacted May 21, 2018. CFPB regulation overturned: Killed a regulation that included auto dealers in the definition of “creditor” for the purpose of prohibiting them from discriminating in any way in a credit transaction on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or welfare assistance. Passed Senate 51-47 All Republicans yes All Independents no Passed House 234-175   S. 204: Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017, introduced January 24, 2017, enacted May 30, 2018. Allows people diagnosed with a life-threatening diseases or conditions who have exhausted approved treatment options and can’t participate in a clinical trial on an experimental drug that has not been FDA approved to get that drug directly from the drug company, with a doctor’s approval. Allows drug companies to sell their unapproved drugs directly to customers as long as the drugs have to have been through a completed Phase 1 of a clinical trial. This law says the Secretary of HHS can’t use the clinical outcomes of the patient’s use of the drug to delay or adversely affect the review or approval of the drug, unless he/she certifies it’s for safety reasons or the drug company requests that data be used. Gives legal immunity to the drug companies, prescribers, dispensers or an “other individual entity” unless there is willful misconduct, gross negligence, to the intentional breaking of a state law. Passed the Senate by unanimous consent (no recorded vote) Passed House 250-169 on May 22 All Republican votes were yes's Along with 22 Democrats   H.R. 772: Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2017, introduced January 31, 2017, passed House February 6, 2018. Changes the calorie disclosure requirements from telling us the number of calories in the standard menu item as usually prepared to allowing them to tell us the calories per serving, with them determining what a serving is. Allows restaurants to choose whether they will display calories by entire combo meals, by individual items in combos, by servings in items in combos. Let’s them use ranges, averages, or “other methods” as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (making it a decision of political appointee) Eliminates the requirement that restaurants provide calories in store if “the majority of orders are placed by customers who are off-premises” Restaurants will not be required to get any signed certifications of compliance. Restaurants can not be held liable in civil courts for violating nutrition disclosure laws. Passed the House 266-157 Has not been voted on in the Senate   H.R. 2936: Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, introduced June 20, 2017, passed House November 1, 2017. Allows more wood to be removed by the logging industry from Federal Forests and exempts them some from environmental regulations Passed House 232-188 Has not been voted on in the Senate   H.R. 4606: Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, introduced December 11, 2017, passed House September 6, 2018. Deems the importation or exportation of natural gas to be “consistent with the public interest” and says the applications for importation or exportation “shall be granted without modification or delay” if the volume does not exceed 0.14 billion cubic feet per day and if the application doesn’t require an environmental impact statement. Passed House 260-146 Has not been voted on in the Senate   H.R. 1119: Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act (SENSE Act), introduced Febraury 16, 2017, passed House March 8, 2018. Says the EPA must give coal companies the choice of if their steam generators will comply with emissions standards for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide. The EPA is not allowed to require compliance with both Passed House 215-189 Has not been voted on in the Senate       H.R. 3053: Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2018, introduced June 26, 2017, passed House May 10, 2018. Forces the continuance of the process of moving all the nuclear waste in the United States to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Grants the entire US government immunity for damages caused in the course of “any mining, mineral leasing, or geothermal leasing activity” conducted on the land reserved for nuclear waste disposal. Speeds up the approval process by 6 months for interim storage and basically forbids disapproval Would Increase by 57% the amount of spent fuel allowed to be held during construction - no environmental review to make sure the tanks can hold this much The Secretary of Energy does NOT need to consider alternative actions or no-action alternatives to infrastructure projects needed for Yucca mountain as far as environmental analysis are concerned. Passed the House of Representatives 340-72 Has not been voted on in the Senate                       H.R. 7: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017, introduced January 13, 2017, passed House January 24, 2017. Makes permanent a common funding law amendment that prevents federal money from being used to perform abortions. This bill would also prevent any government payment assistance on the health insurance exchanges for plans that cover abortion - which effectively would stop health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage in their plans since that would make them ineligible for many of us to purchase. Passed the House of Representatives 238-183 All Republicans voted yes Has not been voted on in the Senate       Additional Reading Article: Pompeo eyes Fox News reporter to head Counterpropaganda Office by Robbie Gramer and Elias Groll, Foreign Policy, September 6, 2018. Article: "Right to Try" is a cruel farce by Beatrice Adler-Bolton, Jacobin Magazine, August 12, 2018. Article: The 'right to try' could cost dying patients a fortune by Michelle Cortez, Bloomberg, June 20, 2018. Article: Congress works to revive long-delayed plan to store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain by Michael Collins, USA Today, June 3, 2018. Report: Johnson to FDA: Agency should comply with right to try law, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, May 31, 2018. Article: Senator behind right-to-try law says its intent is to weaken FDA by Anna Edney, Bloomberg, May 31, 2018. Opinion: Right to Try Act poses big challenge for FDA by Michael D. Becker, NPR, May 24, 2018. Article: Right-to-try bill headed for vote puts bigger burden on FDA to protect patients, Gottlieb says by Ike Swetlitz and Erin Mershon, Stat News, May 17, 2018. Article: Walden, Shimkus, Lance, Walters steer House toward advancing nuclear waste bill by Ripon Advance News Service, May 14, 2018. Article: House passes Yucca bill, but its future is uncertain as Heller pledges to stop it in the Senate by Humberto Sanchez, The Nevada Independent, May 11, 2018. Article: The revenge of the stadium banks by David Dayen, The Intercept, March 2, 2018. Article: Pence says that Congress should get right-to-try legislation 'done' by Erin Mershon, Stat News, January 18, 2018. Statement: Examining patient access to investigational drugs by Scott Gottlieb, FDA.gov, October 3, 2017. Article: What was in the failed Senate 'skinny repair' health care bill? by Tami Luhby, CNN Money, July 28, 2017. Article: Scott Gottlieb: Conflicts surround Trump's FDA pick by Sandee LaMotte, CNN, April 4, 2017. Report: House passes bill to overturn 'midnight' regulations en masse by Lydia Wheeler, The Hill, January 4, 2017. Article: Now you have to keep OSHA injury records for 5 years by Fred Hosier, Safety News Alert, December 21, 2016. Opinion: With Harry Reid's retirement, will the Yucca Mountain plan be revived? by The Times Editorial Board, Los Angeles Times, December 8, 2016. Article: Bankers ease rules on automatic student loan defaults by Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, The Washington Post, October 27, 2016. Article: Sallie Mae under fire for death-induce defaults by Shahien Nasiripour, Huffpost, April 25, 2014. Report: Victim: Gang-rape cover-up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR by Brian Ross, Maddy Sauer, And Justin Rood, ABC News, December 10, 2007. Resources Company Information: Volks Constructors Corporation Congressional Publication: Disapproval of Regulations by Congress: Procedure Under Congressional Review Act, Oct 10, 2001. Court Report: Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission Disease Information: Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), MDA.org Explanatory Statement: Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018 Fact Sheet: President Trump: Cutting Red Tape for American Businesses FDA: Expanded Acces INDs and Protocols Law Resolutions: Congressional Review Act (CRA) Letter: Scott Gottlieb to Elizabeth J. Fischmann, Associate General Councel for Ethics Letter to the Senate: Dean Heller, Re: 2019 NRC Approps LinkedIn Profile: Scott Gottlieb OpenSecrets.org: Rep. Bruce Westerman - Arkansas District 04 OpenSecrets.org: Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers - Washington District 05 OpenSecrets.org: Domino's Pizza OpenSecrets.org: Sen. Ron Johnson - Wisconsin Study Report: Clinical Development Success Rates Study 2006-2015 Sound Clip Sources House Session: Legislative Day of May 22, 2018, HouseLive.gov. 6:13:00 - Rep. Mike Burgess (TX) "The bill we will be voting out soon is about patients. It is about having more time with their loved ones. In the words of Vice President MIKE PENCE, ‘‘It’s about restoring hope and giving patients with life-threatening diseases a fighting chance.’’ With hundreds of thousands of Americans with a terminal illness and their families looking for us to act, I urge Members of this House, the people’s House, to support restoring hope and giving them a fighting chance at life." Hearing: House Hearing; Yucca Mountain, May 10, 2018. 32:00 Representative Greg Walden (OR): You know, the Department of Energy’s Hanford site is just up the mighty Columbia River from where I live and where I grew up. That area and those workers helped us win World War II, and the site’s nuclear program was instrumental in projecting peace through strength throughout the Cold War. While the community has been a constructive partner in support of our vital national security missions, it did not agree to serve as a perpetual storage site for the resulting nuclear waste. Fifty-six million gallons of toxic waste sitting in decades-old metal tanks at Hanford—these are those tanks that were being constructed to hold this waste. They are now buried in the ground. The only entry point is right here. The amount of waste stored at Hanford would fill this entire House Chamber 20 times over. According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, the oldest of these tanks, some of which date back to the 1940s, have single-layer walls, or shells. They were built to last 20 years. They will be almost 100 years old by the estimated end of their waste treatment. The Department of Energy has reported that 67 of these tanks are assumed or known to have leaked waste into the soil. There is an understandable sense of urgency in the Northwest behind the cleanup efforts that are under way at Hanford. H.R. 3053 will provide the pathway to clean up the contaminated Hanford site. You see, the waste from Hanford will end up in a secure permanent storage site that we believe will be Yucca Mountain. 35:15 Representative Greg Walden (OR): The legislation authorizes the Department of Energy to contract with private companies to store nuclear waste while DOE finishes the rigorous scientific analysis of the repository design and the associated Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing process. So, an interim storage facility can bring added flexibility to DOE’s disposal program and may provide a more expeditious near-term pathway to consolidate spent nuclear fuel. 41.31 Representative Fred Upton (MI): In my district, we have two nuclear plants. Both of them have run out of room in their storage, so they have dry casks that are literally a John Shimkus baseball throw away from Lake Michigan. Every one of these 100-some sites across the country is in an environmentally sensitive area, and at some point they’re going to run out of room. In Michigan, we’ve got two other sites that also have dry casks in addition to the two in my district. 45:05 Representative Buddy Carter (GA): This legislation is important not only because of what it means to the future of clean-energy opportunities for this country, but also what this means for our communities. Nuclear energy has become a safe and effective way to generate energy, all while not producing greenhouse gas emissions. 53:29 Representative Leonard Lance (NJ): New Jersey is home to four nuclear reactors at three generating stations: Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, and Salem. Oyster Creek will be closing this October. In the congressional district I serve, these plants account for about half of the power generation and 90 percent of the carbon-free electricity. New Jersey’s nuclear plants avoid 14 million tons of carbon emissions each year. Public Service, FirstEnergy, and Exelon are doing their part in storing their station’s spent nuclear fuel on-site, but we need a permanent site. The expertise and know-how of the federal government has a responsibility to my constituents and to the American people. I want the 3,000 metric tons of nuclear waste out of New Jersey and consolidated in a national protected facility. 58:54 Representative Dina Titus (NV): The first ‘‘Screw Nevada’’ bill was passed in 1982, and since that time, Nevada’s residents, elected officials, business leaders, health and environmental groups have steadfastly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record over 100 letters from those groups in opposition. 59:19 Representative Dina Titus (NV): You’ve heard that the legislation before you now, ‘‘Screw Nevada 2.0,’’ is a work of compromise, a bipartisan effort, not perfect, but a step forward. Well, that, frankly, is an opinion. It’s not the facts. Here are the facts: the legislation overrides environmental laws, allowing the EPA to move the goalposts in terms of radiation limits to ensure that nothing will ever interfere with the agenda of the nuclear industry. It sets up a consent-based process for the establishment of an interim storage facility but imposes a permanent facility at Yucca Mountain. It increases the amount of nuclear waste to be dumped in Nevada by 37 percent, 110 metric tons more that were not considered in any of the environmental or safety studies being used to justify the project. It also removes the prohibition currently in law that prohibits Nevada from being the de facto interim storage facility until a permanent one can be licensed. It was also changed after passing out of committee to address the high scoring costs—is it already three minutes? Chairman: Gentlewoman’s time has expired. Representative Paul Tonko: Mr. Speaker, we grant the gentlelady another minute. Chairman: Gentlelady’s recognized. Rep. Titus: Thank you. —to address the high scoring costs, making it less likely that we get host benefits. Also, contrary to the sponsor’s comments, the area around Yucca Mountain is not some desolate area. It has iconic wildlife, endangered species, and Native American artifacts. Also, the proposed facility sits above the water table and on an active fault and can only be reached by roads that travel through 329 of your congressional districts. 1:03:53 Representative Ruben Kihuen (NV): You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it offensive. I sit here and listen to all my colleagues, and they all want to send nuclear waste to the state of Nevada. They’re all generating this nuclear waste, and they want to send it to my backyard right in the Fourth Congressional District. You know, bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker: if you generate nuclear waste, you should keep it in your own backyard. Don’t be sending it to our backyard. 1:11:27 Representative Joe Courtney (CT): Next to me is a picture of Haddam Neck, Connecticut, which is a pristine part of the state where the Connecticut River and the Salmon River come together. Where the circle is on the photograph, there are 43 casks of spent nuclear power uranium rods that, again, today, pretty much cordon off that whole area. If you drove up in a car, you’d be met by a platoon of heavily armed security guards who, for good reason, have to patrol that area every single day because of the dangerous material that is stored there. That has been the case for over 20 years. It costs Connecticut ratepayers $10 million a year, again, for a site that should be long overdue for renovation and access to folks from all over the world because of its rich archeological and historical area. This bill provides a way out for this area, along with 120 other sites across the country, that host communities have been saddled with storage of spent nuclear fuel because of the fact that this country has been unable to come together with a coherent policy. And this bill provides a way out. 1:15:23 Representative Dana Rohrabacher (CA): This bill authorizes the construction of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage site, which would alleviate the burden of incredible risk that is now borne by communities throughout the country, such as in my district, where homes are not far located from the closed San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. That, and many other plants throughout the nation, have closed their doors in decades. Yet, Congress has yet to agree of how to safely store that waste, while—and what’s really important is we must store the waste—but while we develop new nuclear energy technologies, that we are capable of doing, that are safe and produce less of their own waste and can consume the waste of older plants—I reminded Secretary of Energy Perry of that yesterday—but, in the meantime, until that technology—by the way, it is sinful that we have not developed that technology, which we are capable of, that could eat this waste—but until we do, having safe storage at Yucca Mountain makes all the sense to me and is safe for my constituents. 1:17:07 Representative Rick Allen (GA): Mr. Speaker, I have the great honor of representing Georgia’s 12th Congressional District, which is home to every nuclear reactor in our state, and we are leading the way in the new nuclear. At Plant Vogtle, in my district, there are thousands of spent fuel rods being held in spent fuel pools and dry cask storage containers, and in the next few years we’re going to double the number of nuclear reactors online at Vogtle. Hearing: House Hearing; Forests Act, November 1, 2017. 3:02:49 Representative Bruce Poliquin (MA): Now, H.R. 2936 brings federal regulations in line with this new technology and new standards of safety by allowing family-owned logging business the ability to train 16- and 17-year-olds under very close supervision of their parents. 3:23:31 Representative Greg Walden (OR): In Oregon, this bill would take away arbitrary prohibition on harvesting trees over 21 inches in diameter. It’s tied the hands of our forest managers. 3:28:00 Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA): I represent the Colville National Forest, which is about a million-acre forest. It’s really the engine of our economy in the Northwest, because what happens on the Colville National Forest determines whether or not we have Vaagen’s lumber or 49 Degrees North ski resort or the biomass facility that Avista runs, converting wood waste into electricity. This is all providing jobs, energy, recreational opportunities. Yet mills have been closed, jobs have been lost. It’s unacceptable. It’s time to pass the Resilient Federal Forests legislation. 5:32:57 Representative Jeff Denham (CA): The Resilient Federal Forests Act gives us the tools to immediately reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. It allows us to expedite the removal of dead trees and rapidly mitigate disease-infested areas. 5:41:58 Representative Louie Gohmert (TX): If you want to just leave it to nature, nature will destroy massive numbers of acres of land. So we have a responsibility. Even in the Garden of Eden when things were perfect, God said, tend the garden. 6:06:29 Representative Raul Grijalva (AZ): This is not the first time we have seen the bill, this piece of legislation. House Republicans sent a version to the Senate in the 113th and the 114th Congress, where it languished on the shelf because our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol found it too extreme. Rather than view that experience as an opportunity to seek compromise, this time around, today, we are considering a bill that is even more extreme and polarizing. They doubled the environmental review waivers, added language to undermine the Endangered Species Act, and scaled back protections for national monuments and roadless areas. 6:07:39 Representative Raul Grijalva (AZ): But this bill is not about forest health or wildfire mitigation; it’s about increasing the number of trees removed from our forests. 6:18:24 Representative Tom McClintock (CA): You know, there’s an old adage that excess timber comes out of the forest one way or the other—it’s either carried out or it burns out. When we carried it out, we had resilient, healthy forests and a thriving economy, as excess timber was sold and harvested before it could choke our forests to death. In the years since then, we’ve seen an 80 percent decline in timber sales from our federal lands and a concomitant increase in acreage destroyed by forest fire. I would remind my friend from Oregon that timber sales used to generate us money, not cost us money. The direct revenues and spin-off commerce generated by these sales provided a stream of revenues that we could then use to improve our national forests and share with the local communities affected. 6:22:38 Representative Jared Huffman (CA): Title I of this bill allows intensive logging projects of 10,000 to 30,000 acres each. That’s as big as the entire city of San Francisco. Projects of that size can proceed on federal public lands without any environmental review under NEPA, without any compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Title II of the bill eliminates the requirement that the Forest Service consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service; essentially, lets the Forest Service decide for itself if it wants to follow the Endangered Species Act consultation requirements regarding any of its projects on public lands. Title III further chokes judicial review by prohibiting the recovery of attorneys' fees for any challenges to forest management activity under the Equal Access to Justice Act, including meritorious successful challenges. This severely limits public review of logging projects on federal public lands. Hearing: Examining patient access to investigational drugs, Energy & Commerce, October 3, 2017. House Session: Legislative Day of January 4, 2017, Houselive.gov 4:15:30 - Rep. Darrell Issa (CA) "For the freshmen of either party,when you go to make a vote on this, re-member, we are not changing the un-derlying law. Only one regulation under the underlying law has ever been repealed, and it was bipartisan in both the House and the Senate when it was repealed. It has been 16 years, and the few that will likely be considered under this act and the underlying law will be just that, a relatively few regulations that are believed to be unnecessary and for which the House, the Senate, and the President concur.   Video: Josh Lyman Sick of Congress, YouTube, July 23, 2012. Community Suggestions See more Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

Bernie Mason, RMA's Regulatory Affairs Liaison, discusses the vote by the U.S. Senate to overturn the CFPB's 2013 guidance, “Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.”

If you are an American adult, there is a good chance that criminals now have the ability to match your name and social security number, greatly increasing your risk of becoming a victim of identity fraud. In this episode, hear highlights from Congressional hearings about the Equifax breach that exposed the personal information of 145.5 million Americans as we explore the key role that credit reporting companies play in our society. Please Support Congressional Dish Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bills H.J.Res.111: Providing for congresional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule... H.R. 624: Social Security Number Fraud Prevention Act of 2017 H.R. 2622 (108th): Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 Additional Reading Blog Post: The USS senate is preventing companies like Equifax being held accountable for major screw-ups by Tim Fernholz, Quartz Media, October 24, 2017. Article: The IRS gave Equifax a $7.25 million contract, and a congressman thought it was a joke from The Onion by Aaron Mark, Slate, October 4, 2017. Article: Equifax suffered a hack almost five months earlier than the date it disclosed by Michael Ray, Anita Sharpe, & Jordan Robertson, Bloomberg Technology, September 19, 2017. Article: The Equifax data breach: What to do by Seena Gressin, Federal Trade Commission, September 8, 2017. Article: Wells Fargo uncovers up to 1.4 million more fake accounts by Matt Egan, CNN Money, August 31, 2017. Article: Wells Fargo forced unwanted auto insurance on borrowers by Gretchen Morenson, The New York Times, July 27, 2017. Blog Post: U.S. cities with the best & worst credit scores by Mike Brown, Lend EDU, April 12, 2017. Article: Two major credit reporting agencies have been lying to consumers by Gillian B. White, The Atlantic, January 4, 2017. Report: CFPB orders TransUnion and Equifax to pay for deceiving consumers in marketing credit cores and credit products, CFPB, January 3, 2017. Article: Class-action suits target Experian over T-Mobile breach by Andrew Blake, The Washington Times, November 11, 2015. Article: The long, twisted history of your credit score by Sean Trainor, Time, July 22, 2015. Publication: Data point: Credit invisibles by Kenneth P. Brevoort, Philipp Grimm, & Michelle Kambara, CPFB, May 2015. Blog Post: 4 things to do when your credit score reaches 'good' or 'excellent' by Simple.Thrifty.Living, Huffpost, April 14, 2015 Article: What's the difference between a fraud alert, credit freeze, & credit lock? by STAFF, Lexington Law, January 26, 2015. Article: Revealed: One in four of the UK's top companies pay no tax while we give them millions in credits by Alex Hawkes and Simon Watkins, The Mail, March 2, 2013. Article: The high cost of a 'free credit report' by Stephanie Clifford, The New York Times, August 4, 2008. Article: Credit scores - what you should know about your own by Malgorzata Wozniacka & Snigdha Sen, Frontline, November 23, 2004. Publication: An overview and history of credit reporting by Mark Furletti, Discussion Paper, June 2002. Article: Witness says credit bureaus invade privacy and asks curb by Roy Reed, New York Times, March 13, 1968. References Bill Actions Tracking: H.J.Res.111 Credit Report Website: https://www.annualcreditreport.com/index.action Experian: ChoiceScore Info FTC Consumer Response Center: A summary of your rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act Identity Theft Website: https://identitytheft.gov/ Open Secrets: Experian Client Profile Summary Open Secrets: Trans Union Corp Client Profile Summary Senate Vote Summary: H.J.Res.111 Sound Clip Sources Senate Session: US senate approves disaster relief bill; Senate; October 24, 2017. 3:57:20 Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH): Studies show that Wall Street and other big companies win 93 percent of the time in arbitration. Ninety-three percent of the time in arbitration the companies win. No wonder they are fighting like hell. No wonder they have lobbied this place like we have never seen. No wonder every Wall Street firm is down here begging their Senators to stand strong with Wall Street and pass this CRA, pass this resolution to undo the rule stopping forced arbitration. 4:05:00 Sen. Mike Crapo (ID): The real issue is whether we will try to force the resolution of disputes in financial resolution into class action lawsuits. This is a question about whether we should force dispute resolution mechanisms into class actions. In fact, let me read the actual language of the rule that we are debating. It doesn’t say anything about forced arbitration clauses. In fact, the rule doesn’t stop arbitration clauses in contracts. It stops protections in arbitration clauses against class action litigation. Let’s read what the actual rule says: The CFPB rule prohibits a company from relying in any way on a predispute arbitration agreement with respect to any aspect of a class action that concerns any consumer financial product or service. In other words, the entire purpose of this rule is to promote class action litigation and to stop arbitration resolution when there is a dispute. Hearing: Equifax Sen Banking Hearing; Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law; October 4, 2017. Witness: Richard Smith: Former Chairman & CEO of Equifax 27:20 Sen. Chuck Grassley (IA): Additionally, we must appreciate that fact that not all data breaches are the same. The information and risk of harm can greatly vary from one breach to another. For example, the past breaches at Target and Neiman Marcus, which this committee held a hearing to examine, involved financial information such as credit and debit cards. Of course, this is information that absolutely must be protected and secured. If it falls in the wrong hands, it can create a lot of problems for individuals. But in the Equifax data breach, I think that’s different. It’s important that consumers and policymakers recognize this distinction because the threat landscape has changed. The information hackers obtained or gained access to in the Equifax breach is the most sensitive personal information used by thieves to commit identity theft. So, we should let that sink in very definitely. A credit card number or bank account information can be changed with a phone call, but you can’t change your social security number and your date of birth. Anyone who’s ever applied for a loan, a credit card, a job, or opened a bank account knows you have to provide a social security number, date of birth to verify your identity. Thus, if someone has this information they can do the same and take over your identity. They can become you. And you won’t know it happened until it’s too late. 38:30 Sen. Jeff Flake (AZ): In your testimony before the House yesterday, you stated that Equifax’s “traditional business model is with companies, not with 400 million consumers.” What portion of Equifax’s business is consumer facing? Richard Smith: Mr. Chairman, roughly 10% of our revenues around the world come from what we call B to C—business to consumer. Flake: That’s 10%. Then, what is the main source of Equifax’s revenue stream? Smith: The vast majority, the remaining, is largely doing analytics, insights, and providing solutions to banks, telecommunications companies, credit card issuers, insurance companies, and the like around the world. Flake: So, if only 10% of the revenue is consumer facing, what is the company’s incentive for keeping consumer data secure when it has no meaningful interaction or limited meaningful interaction with the accountability of consumers? Smith: We are clearly viewed as a trusted steward of that information, and losing that information violates the trust and confidence not only of the consumer but also of the companies we do business with as well. 1:01:52 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): You spent a lot of money lobbying against as consumer-protection act that might require you to notify consumers immediately in such breaches. Are you still going to fight and still spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to stop that kind of a consumer-protection bill from going through? Richard Smith: Senator, I can tell you as a company we do have a government-relations team. In the scheme of things, it’s relatively small. We’re a company with expenses of well over $2 billion. I think our entire lobbying budget, which includes association fees, is a million dollars or less. Leahy: I could care less what your budget is for lobbying. The fact is you opposed legislation that might require notifying consumers, might actually give consumers the ability to respond when they’ve been hurt. Are you going to—is Equifax going to continue to fight consumers’ right to know? Smith: One, I’m unaware of that particular lobbying effort you’re referring to. I can talk to the company, but I’m unaware of that particular lobbying effort. Leahy: It was in your report that you have to file on your lobbying expenses. 1:03:30 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): Do consumers have the right to find out what kind of information data brokers like Equifax has on them? Richard Smith: Do they have the right? Hirono: Yeah, yes. Can they call Equifax up and say, what do you have on me? Smith: Every consumer has the right to a free credit report from us, from the industry, and that credit report would detail all the information that the credit file would have on them. Hirono: But that’s just their credit, but you have a lot of other information on everybody besides just their credit information, do you not? Smith: Yes, we do. Hirono: So, if—and my understanding is that you get all this information free. You don’t pay anybody for the information you gather on 145 million people, which is more than one out of three people in our entire country. Smith: It’s largely free. There are exceptions, obviously, but this business, as you know, we’re 118 years old. We’re part of a federally regulated ecosystem that enables consumers to get access to credit. Hirono: Yes. Smith: So that data’s there, and it’s used at their consent, by the way. Regardless of the type of data we have—if it’s your employment data or your income data or your credit data—that data can only be accessed if you as a consumer give the consent for someone to access that. Hirono: How does one give consent— Smith: If you— Hirono: —if you’re selling the information that you have on them? Smith: So, if you as a consumer go to your bank and want to get a credit card, for example, when you sign a contract with the bank for the credit card, you’re allowing the bank the access to approve your credit, in this particular case, to give you the best rate and the best line. 1:17:52 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Can you guarantee this committee that no consumer will ever be required to go to arbitration? Richard Smith: I cannot, sir. Blumenthal: Why? Smith: Well, one, I’m no longer with the company. I can talk to the management team. Blumenthal: Well, that’s what I mean by the designated fall guy. You know, you’re here, you can’t speak for the company. I’m interested in looking forward. How will consumers be protected? Will arbitration be required of them? Will they be compensated for the sense of security that has been lost? Will there be a compensation fund? Will there be insurance against that kind of loss? And I’m talking about a compensation fund that applies to them because of that loss of privacy. These kinds of questions, which you’re unable to answer because you’re no longer with the company, are as profound and important as any investigative effort looking back, and I recognize you’re here without the authority to make these decisions, but I think someone from the company has to make them. Hearing: Equifax Senate Banking; Senate Banking Committee; October 4, 2017 Witness: Richard Smith: Former Chairman & CEO of Equifax 6:03 Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH): But security doesn’t generate short-term profits. Protecting consumers apparently isn’t important to your business model, so you gather more and more information, you peddled it to more and more buyers. For example, you bought a company called TALX so you could get access to detailed payroll information—the hours people worked, how much they were paid, even where they lived—7,000 businesses. You were hacked there, too, exposing the workers of one proud Ohio company—400,000 workers at Kroger—and an unknown number of people’s information to criminals who used it to commit tax fraud. 26:35 Sen. Ben Sasse (NE): Your organization has committed to providing identity-monitoring services for the next year, but I’m curious about whether or not Equifax and your board have deliberated. Do you think your responsibility ends in one year, in two years, in five years, in 10 years; and if you think it ends at some point, have you tried to think about the goodwill and balance sheet impact of all this? How can you explain to an American whose identity might be stolen later because of this breach why your responsibility would ever end? Does it end? Richard Smith: I understand the question. And it extends well beyond a year, Senator. The first step we took was the five services we mentioned to the chairman a minute ago, which gets the consumer through one year. The ultimate control for security for a consumer is going to the lifetime lock. The ability for a consumer to lock down his or her file, determine who they want to have access for life— Sasse: But isn’t this—just to interrupt—isn’t that about people who might be breached in the future. I’m talking about the 145 million whose data has already been stolen. Does your responsibility end, or what do you think your legal obligations are to them? Smith: I think the combination of the five services we’re offering combined with the lifetime lock is a good combination of services. Sasse: I actually think the innovation of some of the stuff you proposed for the big three going forward is quite interesting, but why does any of that five really do much for the data that’s already been stolen? Smith: Senator, again, the combination of the five offerings today plus the lifetime lock we think is the best offering for the consumer. Sasse: Okay, I don’t think you’ve really answered the question about whether or not you’re exposure legally ends for the 145 million. 29:13 Sen. Ben Sasse (NE): I want to open, at least, the allegations that Equifax executives engaged in insider trading relating to knowledge of this cyber breach. One of the clearest times in definitions of insider trading occurs when a business executive trades their company stock because of confidential knowledge that they have gained from their job. I’m sure you can imagine why Americans are very mad about the possibility that this occurred here. While insider trading is going to be discussed a lot more later in this hearing, I wish you could just very quickly give us a timeline of the first steps. When did Equifax first learn of the May 2017 breach, and when did you inform the FBI of that breach? Richard Smith: Thank you. I’ll answer as quickly as I can. We notified the FBI cybersecurity forensic team and outside global law firm on August 2. At that time, all we saw was suspicious activity. We had no indication, as I said in my oral testimony, of a breach at that time. You might recall that the three individuals sold stock on August 1 and 2. We did not have an indication of a breach until mid- to late August. Sasse: So you’re saying that those three executives—Mr. Chairman, I’ll stop—you’re saying those three executives had no knowledge of a breach on August 1 or 2. Smith: To the best of my knowledge, they had no knowledge and they also followed our protocol to have their stock sales cleared through the proper channels, which is our general counsel. 32:00 Sen. Jon Tester (MT): Let’s fast forward to the 29th of July, and you learned for the first time that your company has been hacked—don’t know how big the hack is, but it’s been hacked—and it was preceded by this notification from US-CERT. Three days after, as Senator Sasse pointed out, you had three high-level execs sell $2 million in stock. That very same day, you notified the FBI of the breach. Can you tell me if your general counsel was held accountable for allowing this stock sale to go forward? Or did he not know about the breach. Richard Smith: Senator, clarification: On the 29th and 30th, a security person saw suspicious activity, shut the portal down on the 30th. There was no indication of a breach at that time. The internal forensics began on the 30th. On the 2nd we brought in outside cyber experts—forensic auditors, law firm, and the FBI. The trades took place on the 1st and the 2nd. At that time, the general counsel, who clears the stock sales, had no indication—or to the company—of a security breach. Tester: Well, I’ve got to tell you something, and this is just a fact, and it may have been done with the best of intentions and no intent for insider trading, but this really stinks. I mean, it really smells really bad. And I guess smelling bad isn’t a crime. But the bottom line here is that you had a hack that you found out about on the 29th. You didn’t know how severe it was. You told the FBI about the breach. On that same day, high-level execs sell $2 million worth of stock, and then you do some investigation, evidently, and you find out at the end of the month that—or, at least, by the first part of September—that this is a huge hack, and you finally notify the public. And as was pointed out already in this committee, these are people that didn’t ask for your service. You’ve gathered it. And now it’s totally breached. And then, as Senator Sasse said, what’s the length of exposure here, and you said, we’ll be doing these five things. That’s proactive, and I think we can all applaud those efforts. But I’ve got to tell you, that doesn’t do a damn thing for the people who have had their identity stolen and their credit rating stolen. So let me ask you this: So their credit rate goes up a little bit, and they go buy a house for 250,000 bucks on a 30-year note, and it costs them 25 grand. Are you liable for that? Smith: Senator, I understand your anger and your frustration. We’ve apologized for the breach, we’ve done everything in our power to make it right for the consumer, and we think these services we’re offering is a right first step. 53:57 Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA): In August, just a couple of weeks before you disclosed this massive hack, you said—and I want to quote you here—“Fraud is a huge opportunity for us. It is a massive, growing business for us.” Now, Mr. Smith, now that information for about 145 million Americans has been stolen, is fraud more likely now than before that hack? Richard Smith: Yes, Senator, it is. Warren: Yeah. So the breach of your system has actually created more business opportunities for you. For example, millions of people have signed up for the credit-monitoring service that you announced after the breach—Equifax is offering one year of free credit monitoring—but consumers who want to continue that protection after the first year will have to pay for it, won’t they, Mr. Smith. Smith: Senator, the best thing a consumer could do is get the lifetime lock. Warren: I’m asking you the question. You’re offering free credit monitoring, which you say is worth something, and you’re offering it for only one year. If consumers want it for more than one year, they have to pay for it. Is that right? Smith: Yes, Senator. But the most, the best thing a consumer can do is the lock product. It’s better than monitoring. Warren: Okay, but, they’re going to have to pay after one year if they want your credit monitoring, and that could be a lot of money. So far, seven and a half million people have signed up for free credit monitoring through Equifax since the breach. If just one million of them buy just one more year of monitoring through Equifax at the standard rate of $17 a month, that’s more than $200 million in revenue for Equifax because of this breach. But there’s more. LifeLock, another company that sells credit monitoring, has now seen a 10-fold increase in enrollment since Equifax announced the breach. According to filings with the SEC, LifeLock purchases credit monitoring services from Equifax; and that means someone buys credit monitoring through LifeLock, LifeLock turns around and passes some of that revenue directly along to Equifax. Is that right, Mr. Smith? Smith: That is correct. Warren: That’s correct. Okay. The second Equifax announced this massive data breach, Equifax has been making money off consumers who purchased their credit monitoring through LifeLock. Now, Equifax also sells products to businesses and government agencies to help them stop fraud by potential identity thieves. Is that right, Mr. Smith? Smith: Yes, Senator. There’s one clarification. You’d mentioned the LifeLock relationship— Warren: Uh-huh. Smith: —which was accurate. At the same time, the majority of that revenue we normally generate is direct to consumer. We’ve shut that down. We’re no longer selling consumer product directly. Warren: I’m sorry. My question is, every time somebody buys through LifeLock—and they’ve seen a 10-fold increase since the breach—you make a little more money. We actually called the LifeLock people to find this out. So, I asked you the question, but I already know the answer. It’s true. You’re making money off this. So, let me go to the third one. Equifax sells products to businesses and government agencies to help them stop fraud by potential identity thieves, right? Smith: To the government, yes. Not to the business. Warren: You don’t sell to businesses? Just small businesses? Smith: We sell business, but it’s not to prevent fraud. That’s not the primary focus or business. Warren: But to stop identity theft, you don’t have any products that you’re touting for identity-theft purposes? Smith: Senator, all I’m saying is the vast majority we do for businesses is not fraud. Warren: Look, you’ve got three different ways that Equifax is making money, millions of dollars, off its own screw up, and meanwhile, the potential costs to Equifax are shockingly low. Consumers can sue, but it turns out that the average recovery for data breaches is less than $2 per consumer, and Equifax has insurance that could cover some big chunk of any potential payment to consumers. So, I want to look at the big picture here. From 2013 until today, Equifax has disclosed at least four separate hacks in which it compromised sensitive personal data. In those four years, has Equifax’s profit gone up? Mr. Smith? Smith: Yes, Senator. Warren: Yes, it has gone up, right? In fact, it’s gone up by more than 80% over that time. You know, here’s how I see this, Mr. Chairman. Equifax did a terrible job of protecting our data because they didn’t have a reason to care to protect our data. The incentives in this industry are completely out of whack. Because of this breach, consumers will spend the rest of their lives worrying about identity theft. Small banks and credit unions will have to pay to issue new credit cards, businesses will lose money to thieves, but Equifax will be just fine. Heck, it could actually come out ahead. Consumers are trapped, there’s no competition, nowhere else for them to go. If we think Equifax does a lousy job protecting our data, we can’t take our data to someone else. Equifax and this whole industry should be completely transformed. Consumers—not you—consumers should decide who gets access to their own data. And when companies like Equifax mess up, senior executives like you should be held personally accountable, and the company should pay mandatory and severe financial penalties for every consumer record that’s stolen. Mr. Chairman, we’ve got to change this industry before more people are injured. 1:22:00 Sen. John Kennedy (LA): It just seems incongruent to me that you have my information—you don’t pay me for it; you don’t have my permission — you make money collecting that information, selling it to businesses — and I think you do a service there; don’t misunderstand me — and you also come to me—you can’t run your business without me; my data is the product that you sell — and you also offer me a premium service to make sure that the data you’re collecting about me is accurate. I mean, I don’t pay extra in a restaurant to prevent the waiter from spitting in my food. You understand my concern? Richard Smith: I understand your point, I believe, but another way to think about that is the monitoring part that you’re referring to, Senator? Kennedy: Uh-huh. Smith: In the future, it’s far less required if you as a consumer have the ability to freeze, or lock as we call it, and unlock your file. And that is free for life. Kennedy: But it’s not just the freeze part. What if you had bad information about me? Have you ever—has an agency ever had bad information about you, and you had to go through the process of correcting it? Smith: Yes, Senator. There’s a process that if— Kennedy: It’s a pain in the elbow, isn’t it. I mean, the burden’s kind of on – you have my data, which you haven’t paid me for. You’re earning a good living, which I don’t deny you. I believe in free enterprise. I think this is a very clever business model you’ve come up with. But you’re earning your money by selling my data, which you get from me and don’t pay me for, to other people, but if the data is wrong that you have about me, I would think you would want to make it as easy as possible to correct it, not as hard as possible. Smith: I understand your point, and it’s an important point for the entire industry to make the process as consumer-friendly as possible if there’s an error on your utility bill, if there’s an error on your bank bill, your credit card statement, to work with consumers to make— Kennedy: Well, can you commit to me today that Equifax is going to set up a system where a consumer who believes that Equifax has bad information about him can pick up the phone and call a live human being with a beating heart and say, here’s this information you have about me that you’re selling to other people—you’re ruining my credit, and it’s not true, and I want to get it corrected. How are you going to correct it, what information do you need from me to prove that it’s incorrect, and when are you going to get back to me, and give me your name and phone number so I can call you. Smith: Senator, I understand your point. There is a process that exists today. More than half— Kennedy: Yeah, and it’s difficult, Mr. Smith. Smith: Be more than happy to get the company to reach out to your staff, explain what we do, and what we’re doing to improve that process. I hear you. Hearing: House Equifax CEO Hearing; House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; October 3, 2017 Witness: Richard Smith: Former Chairman & CEO at Equifax 5:13 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL): The Equifax data breach was massive in scale: 145.5 million American victims as of yesterday. I would call it shocking, but is it really? We have these under-regulated, private, for-profit credit reporting agencies collecting detailed personal and financial information about American consumers. It’s a treasure trove for hackers. Consumers don’t have a choice over what information Equifax or, for example, TransUnion or Experian, have collected, stored, and sold. If you want to participate in today’s modern economy; if you want to get a credit card, rent an apartment, or even get a job often, then a credit reporting agency may hold the key. Because consumers don’t have a choice, we can’t trust credit reporting agencies to self-regulate. It’s not like when you get sick at a restaurant and decide not to go there anymore. Equifax collects your data, whether you want to have it collected or not. If it has incorrect information about you, it’s really an arduous process—I’ve tried it—to get it corrected. When it comes to information security, you are at the mercy of whatever Equifax decides is right; and once your information is compromised, the damage is ongoing. Given vast quantities of information and lack of accountability, a major breach at Equifax, I would say, would be predictable if not inevitable. I should really say breaches. This is the third major breach Equifax has had in the past two years. From media reports and the subcommittee’s meeting with Equifax officials after the breach, it’s clear to me that the company lacked appropriate policies and practices around data security. This particular breach occurred when hackers exploited a known vulnerability that was not yet patched. It was months later before Equifax first discovered the breach, and it was another several weeks before Equifax shared news with consumers, this committee, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Senior officials at the company are saying they weren’t immediately aware that the breach occurred, and yet, by the way, there were executives who sold over a million dollars in stock just days after the breach was discovered but, yet, not reported. And for a lot of Americans, that just doesn’t pass the smell test. 22:45 Richard Smith: We know now that this criminal attack was made possible because of combination of human error and technological error. The human error involved the failure to apply a software patch to our dispute portal in March of 2017. Technological error involved a scanner which failed to detect that vulnerability on that particular portal. Both errors have since been addressed. On July 29 and July 30, suspicious activity was detected, and a team followed our security-incident protocol. The team immediately shut down the portal and began our internal security investigation. On August 2, we hired top cybersecurity, forensic, and legal experts, and at that time, we notified the FBI. At that time, to be clear, we did not know the nature or the scope of the incident. It was not until late August that we concluded that we had experienced a major breach. 47:53 Rep. Frank Pallone (NJ): All right, during your tenure at Equifax, you expanded the company’s business into packaging and selling other people’s data, and in that August 17 speech, you explained that having free data with a gross margin of profit of about 90% is—and I quote—“a pretty unique model.” And I get that this unique model is a good deal for Equifax, but can you explain how it’s a good deal for consumers? Richard Smith: Thank you, Congressman. I think I understand the question. Our industry has been around for a number of years, as you know. In fact, Equifax is a 118-year-old company. We’re part of a federally regulated ecosystem that enables consumers to get access to credit when they want access to credit and, hopefully, at the best rates available to them at that time. So we’re very vital to the flow of economy, not just in the U.S. but around the world. Pallone: All right, I want to turn to what Equifax is offering consumers in the wake of this breach, specifically the free credit-lock service that is supposed to be introduced next year. We’ve been told that this free credit-lock service could require consumers to consent to Equifax sharing or selling the information it collects from the service to third parties with whom the individual already has a business relationship for marketing or other purposes. Is that true? Smith: This product will be a web-enabled, mobile-enabled application that will allow a consumer at a time he or she, if they decide they want access to credit, can simply toggle on, toggle off that application to give the bank, credit card issuer, auto lender, access to their credit file to approve their loan. Pallone: Well, by agreeing to use the Equifax’s lock service, will consumers also be opting in to any additional marketing arrangements, either via Equifax or any of its partners? Smith: Congressman, we’re trying to change the paradigm. What I mean by that is, this will be in an environment viewed as a service, a utility, not a product. But we know cross-selling, upselling, or any products available to the consumer, when they go to get and sign up for the lock product, it’s a service to them, and that’s the only product—this service they’ll be able to get. Pallone: Will Equifax give consumers an easy and free method to choose not to share their data in this way, even if the consumer already has a business relationship with the third party? Smith: Yeah, Congressman, I’d envision as this evolves over time, the consumer will have the ability to invite into their world who they want to have access and who they do not. It’ll be their choice, their power, not ours, to make that decision. Pallone: Now, last week, the interim CEO announced that by January 31 of 2018 Equifax would make locking and unlocking of a person’s Equifax credit report free forever. A credit-report lock is already included in TrustedID Premier and other services like credit monitoring and identity-theft insurance. Will that still end after one year? Smith: Congressman, a couple of differences. Number one, the product we offer today for consumers protects the consumer at the same-level protection they’d get January 31. The difference is, today is a browser-enabled product, or service; the 31 of January it’ll be an application, much simpler and easier for the consumer to use. The protection is largely the same. So they get this free service when they sign up for one year. At the end of the one year, effective January 31 of 2018, it goes into the new lock product. Pallone: I guess the difference, other than not expiring, between the credit-report lock that is part of TrustedID Premier and the credit-locking tool that will be available in January, why not just extend the freeze program? Smith: There’s a difference between the freeze product, which came to pass with FACTA back in 2003, passed into law in 2004, that is now governed by state laws in all states, and it’s a cumbersome process for a consumer. In many cases, some states require you to mail in your request for a freeze and that we must mail you a PIN, so your ability to get access to credit when you want credit is encumbered. A consumer could go to a car dealer or to a bank to get a credit card, forget his or her PIN on a freeze product, have to go back home, look for the PIN, mail the PIN in, so it’s a cumbersome process. The lock product we’re offering today is a big step forward; lock product for the 31 of January is an even further step forward. 53:00 Rep. Joe Barton (TX): Mr. Smith, what’s the market value of Equifax? What’s your company worth, or your former— Richard Smith: Congressman, last time I checked it’s somewhere close to 13 billion. Barton: Thirteen billion. I’m told by my staff that this latest data breach was about 143 million people. Is that right? Smith: We were informed yesterday from the company that is typical in a forensic audit, there was some slight movement and the numbers adjusted. Press release came out from the company last night. It’s 145.5. Barton: A hundred—well, okay, I appreciate your accuracy there. But under current law, you’re basically required to alert each of those that their account has been hacked, but there’s really no penalty unless there is some sort of a lawsuit filed and the Federal Trade Commission or state attorney general files a class-action lawsuit against your company. So you really only notify—you’re just required to notify everybody and say so sorry, so sad. I understand that your company has to stay in business, has to make money, but it would seem to me that you might pay a little bit more attention to security if you had to pay everybody whose account got hacked a couple thousand bucks or something. What would the industry reaction be to that if we passed a law that did that? Smith: Congressman, I understand your question. I think the path that we were on when I was there and the company’s continued is the right path, and that’s a path, a line that the consumers to control the power of who and when accesses a credit file going forward, taking the— Barton: Well, a consumer can’t control the security of your system. Smith: That is true, sir, but they can control— Barton: And your security people knew there was a problem, and according to staff briefings that I’ve been a part of, they didn’t act in a very expeditious fashion until the system had already been hacked. And, I mean, you’re to be commended for being here. I don’t think we subpoenaed you. I think you appeared voluntarily, which shows a commendable amount of integrity on your part, but I’m tired of almost every month there’s another security breach, and it’s okay, we have to alert you. I checked my file to see if I was one of the ones that got breached, and apparently I wasn’t. I don’t know how I escaped, but I didn’t get breached, but my staff person did, and we looked at her reports last night, and the amount of information that’s collected is way beyond what you need to determine if she (audio glitch) for a consumer loan. Basically, her entire adult history, going back 10 years, everywhere she’s lived, her name, her date of birth, her social security number, her phone numbers, her addresses, her credit card, student loans, security-clearance applications for federal employment, car insurance, even employment history of jobs that she worked when she was in high school. That’s not needed to determine whether she’s worthy of getting a five-thousand-dollar credit card loan or something. And now it’s all out in the netherworld of whoever hacked it. I can’t speak for anybody but myself, but I think it’s time at the federal level to put some teeth into this and some sort of a per-account payment—and, again, I don’t want to drive credit bureaus out of business and all of that, but we could have this hearing every year from now on if we don’t do something to change the current system. 58:42 Rep. Ben Lujan (NM): Will Equifax be willing to pay for this freeze at Experian and TransUnion for consumers whose information was stolen? Richard Smith: You’re referring to the freeze or the lock? Lujan: You said they’re the same, so… Smith: Yeah, right now we offer a free lock product, as you know, for one year, and then a free lifetime lock product for life, starting January 31, 2018. Smith: And that also extends to Experian and TransUnion? Smith: No, sir, it does not. Lujan: Would Equif—let me repeat the question. Will Equifax be willing to pay for that freeze, for that lock, at Experian and TransUnion for consumers whose information was stolen by it—through Equifax? Smith: Congressman, the company’s come out with what they feel is a comprehensive five different services today and a lifetime lock. I would encourage, to be clear, I would encourage TransUnion and Experian to do the same. It’s time we change the paradigm, give the power back to the consumer to control who accesses his or her credit data. It’s the right thing to do. Lujan: Okay, I’m down to limited time, Mr. Smith. I apologize. I’ll take that as a no that Equifax will not pay for Experian and TransUnion consumers. 1:26:09 Rep. Debbie Dingell (MI): Why do consumers have to pay you to access their credit report? Why should that data not be free? Richard Smith: Congresswoman, the consumer has the ability to access the credit report for free from each of the three credit reporting agencies once a year, and you combine that with the ability to lock your credit file for life for free. Again, it’s a step forward. 2:00:40 Rep. Larry Bucshon (IN): Is it possible people who never signed up or used Equifax directly could have been impacted by the breach? Richard Smith: Yes, Congressman. Bucshon: Okay, so how does Equifax get the information on people who’ve never directly associated with Equifax at all? I mean, I’m not familiar with that. Smith: Yeah, we get it from banks, telecommunications companies, credit card issuers, so on and so forth. Bucshon: So just like we go to apply for a loan, they send you the information, because they want to get a data—they want to get the information on my credit rating, for example. Smith Correct. As I define it, we are part of the federally regulated ecosystem— Bucshon: Yeah. Smith: —that enables banks to loan money to consumers. Bucshon: Right. So, it’s up to the banks, at that point, to notify the individual which credit agencies they’re utilizing to assess their credit risk? Or is it up to the credit agencies? Smith: Traditionally, the contributors of data—in that case, Congressman, the banks would give their data to all three. That’s the benefit of the system is you get a holistic view of an individual’s credit risk. Bucshon: Yeah. My point is, I guess, because a lot of people I talk to back in Indiana, southern Indiana, have no idea who Equifax is, right? And many of those people have applied for home loans and other things. And a matter of fact, probably at some point you have their information, but they may or may not have been notified who sent the information to them—probably the bank or other agency—and that’s something I think that is also maybe an issue, that people don’t understand or have not been told who is being used to assess their credit risk and, hence, something like this happens, they have no idea whether or not their information has been compromised. Smith: I understand your point. Bucshon: Yeah. 2:09:20 Rep. Gene Green (TX): Mr. Smith, Equifax customers or businesses who purchase data and credit reports on consumers, the American public is essentially Equifax’s product. How many times per year on average does Equifax sell access to a given individual’s credit file to a potential creditor, and how much do they make every time they sell it? Richard Smith: If I understand the question, Congressman, we take the data that is given to us by the credit ecosystem of the U.S., add analytics to it, and then when a consumer wants credit—again, through a credit card, home loan, a car—the bank then comes to us for that data and for that analytics, and we charge them for that. **Green: Okay. Well, the question was, how many times does Equifax receive payment for that individual credit file? Every time—if my local car dealer contacts Equifax, and so they pay a fee to Equifax for that information. Smith: Yes, Congressman. If you as an individual want to go to that car dealership and get a loan for a car, they come to us or to competitors, and when they take your data, access your data, we do get paid for it, correct. 2:47:40 Richard Smith: If there’s one thing I’d love to see this country think about is the concept of a social security number in this environment being private and secure, I think it’s time as a country to think beyond that. What is a better way to identify consumers in our country in a very secure way, and I think that way is something different than an SSN, a date of birth, and a name. 2:56:28 Rep. Jan Schakowsky (IL): What if I want to opt out of Equifax? I don’t want you to have my information anymore. I want to be in control of my information. I never opted in, I never said it was okay to have all my information, and now I want out. I want to lock out Equifax. Can I do that? Richard Smith: Congresswoman, that requires a much broader discussion around the rules of credit reporting agencies because that data, as you know today, doesn’t come from the consumer; it comes from the furnishers, and the furnishers provide that data to the entire industry. Schakowsky: No, I understand that. And that’s exactly where we need to go, to a much larger discussion, because most Americans really don’t know how much information, what it is that you have it, and they never said okay. Video: Circle Jerk, YouTube, December 3, 2015 Hearing: Credit Privacy Hearing; Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; December 18, 2013 Witnesses: Tony Hadley: Senior VP of Government Affairs and Public Policy at Experian 47:13 Sen. Jay Rockefeller (retired) (WV): So, Mr. Hadley, what does your company—or why does it single out and sell lists of economically vulnerable groups like immigrants, widows, and military personnel? 48:03 Tony Hadley: Thank you, Senator. We would be very concerned if lenders were using that information for scamming purposes, too. And we have processes and procedures in place to ensure that nobody gains access to that score for that purpose. Now— Sen. Jay Rockefeller: And how does that work? Hadley: We have an onboarding system by which we take on a client that gets our information to know who they are, and we also have a mail-piece review process to know what they’re going to offer the consumer. And if it’s anything that looks discriminatory or predatory, we will not provide our list to them. Now— Rockfeller: And this is your self-regulation. Hadley: This is our self-regulation under DMA standards. So if we were to violate that, we’d be in violation of our self-regulatory standards as well as our contractual standards with our clients. Now, what’s important here is that there are somewhere between 45 and 50 million Americans who are outside the mainstream of the credit markets in the United States. These are underbanked, underserved consumers who financial institutions cannot reach through credit scoring and credit report. They don't have financial identities or a big enough or even the presence of a credit file in order to bring them into the mainstream of financial markets. But that doesn't mean that they don't need access to financial services. So banks use this data to try to reach out to consumers who they can help to empower them, not to scam them. We don't want to do business with financial institutions who are trying to scam people, only to empower them. And this is their best way to find those individuals who are outside the mainstream—immigrants; new to credit, like recent college graduates, exactly what we’re talking about here—to give them an offer, an invitation to apply, so that then they can make an eligibility determination regarding that application under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. But this is marketing literature, not eligibility determination. Rockefeller: Who— Hadley: Can I add to that for you? Rockefeller: Not entirely. Can you tell me which are the companies that buy this ChoiceScore product from you? We’ve asked you that. Hadley: Yeah. They would be banks and financial institutions and members of the financial community. Rockefeller: That’s what’s called a general answer. Hadley: Yeah. I can't tell you who our clients are. That’s a proprietary list of ours. It’s like our secret ingredient. The ones who would want that most are our competitors. And our counsel has informed me that they don't believe that our ability to give that to you can be shielded from disclosure through the rules of the Senate. If we thought they could be—for example, under a law enforcement action, where it could be shielded and protected from FOIA or other disclosures, we could do that, but not under the situation—under the rules of the Senate. And we’re very sorry about that, but we just simply can't do that. Our counsel won't let us. 1:25:49 Sen. Claire McCaskill (MO): The case, Mr. Hadley, of Experian and Superget. You purchased the company Court Ventures in 2012, in the spring of 2012. For more than a year after the time you purchased this company that had all this data, you were taking monthly wire transfers from Singapore, and your company did nothing. And as it turns out, those wire transfers were coming from a man in Vietnam who specialized in identity theft and was marketing the information that you owned to criminals to ruin people's lives. So my first question to you is, you were quoted as saying, “We would know who was buying this.” You were getting wire transfers from Singapore on a monthly basis, and no one bothered to check to see who that was? Hadley: Now, I want to be clear that this was not Experian marketing data; this was Experian authentication data. So it’s under a different company, a different use. So that’s just—I want you to know that it’s not marketing data. McCaskill: I don't understand the distinction. I think it’s a distinction— Jay Rockefeller: Nor do I. McCaskill: —without a difference. I believe it was data that you owned, Experian owned. You’d purchased this data from Court Scan, and they had, in fact— Hadley: No. Let me clarify. McCaskill: —sold it to someone else. Hadley: Yeah, let me clarify that for you, because we’ve provided a full response to that question to the Committee, and it’s part of the eight submissions that we’ve given. And I do have to say that it’s an unfortunate situation, and the incident is still under investigation by law enforcement agencies. So I’m really extremely limited in what I can say publicly about it, but I do want to say this. The suspect in the case obtained data controlled by a third party—that was U.S. Info Search. That was not an Experian company—through a company we bought, Court Ventures— McCaskill: Okay. Let— Hadley: —prior to the time that we acquired that company. And to be clear, no Experian data was ever accessed in that deal. McCaskill: Well, I understand what you’re saying. Here’s what happened: You had U.S. Info Search— Hadley: No, we did not own— McCaskill: No, no; I’m— U.S. Info Search existed, and Court Ventures existed. Hadley: And they had a partnership. McCaskill: —they decided, for commercial reasons, to make more money, to combine their information. Hadley: To resell their information. McCaskill: And so they had a sharing agreement, those two companies, correct? Hadley: Right, right. McCaskill: Okay. So these two companies had a sharing agreement. Then you bought one of those companies. Hadley: Court Ventures. McCaskill: Correct. So now you owned it. Now you stood in their place. Are you a lawyer? Hadley: I’m not a lawyer, but I understand we stood in their place, right. McCaskill: Are there any lawyers on the panel? Okay; she’ll back me up. You stand in their place when you buy this. So now you’re there. Now, you said in your earlier testimony, we would know who was buying this. So you now are part of their transactions. Hadley: During— McCaskill: And you were receiving the benefit of these monthly wire. Hadley: So, during the due-diligence process, we didn't have total access to all the information we needed in order to completely vet that. And by the time we learned about the malfeasance, I think nine months had expired. The Secret Service came to us, told us of the incident, and we immediately began cooperating with the Secret Service to bring this person to justice. McCaskill: Okay. Hadley: And we’re continuing to cooperate with law enforcement in that realm. This was—we were a victim and scammed by this person. McCaskill: Well, I would say the people who had all their identity stolen were the victims. Hadley: And we know who they are, and we’re going to make sure that they’re protected. There’s been no allegation that any harm has come, thankfully, in this scam. McCaskill: Okay. Hadley: And we’ve closed that down, and— Rockefeller: Let Senator McCaskill continue. Hadley: —and we’ve modified our processes to ensure that [unclear]— Rockefeller: Let Senator McCaskill continue. McCaskill: Okay. So let's talk about that process. This person got—this man who they lured to Guam to arrest and who is now facing criminal charges in New Hampshire, they posed as an American-based private investigator. What is your vetting process when people want to buy your stuff? Hadley: That would’ve been Court Ventures who would have vetted that prior to our acquisition. McCaskill: Okay, but I’m talking about now, you. What is your vetting process? Hadley: Right now, before we would allow acc—first, let me say that that person would have not gained access to Experian or this data if they had gone through our vetting processes prior to the acquisition. McCaskill: And what would’ve stopped him? Hadley: We would’ve known who that company is. We would’ve had a physical onsite inspection of that company. We would’ve known who that business is and what that business's record is. We would’ve known exactly why they wanted that data and for what purposes. And that would have been enshrined in our contract. And we would’ve known the kinds of systems they have in place to protect the data that they gained. Those are all incumbent upon us under the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act and the FCRA. McCaskill: Well, listen, I understand that this was not a crime that began under your watch. Hadley: Thank you. McCaskill: But you did buy the company, and you did keep getting the wire transfers from Singapore, and the only reason you ever questioned them is because the Secret Service knocked on your door. I don't know how long those wire transfers from Singapore would’ve gone on until you caught them. I don't have confidence that it would’ve stopped at all. So I guess what my point is here, I maybe do not feel as strongly as others on this panel that behavioral marketing is evil. I believe behavioral marketing is a reality, and, frankly, the only reason we have everything we have on the Internet for free is because of behavioral marketing. So I don't see behavioral marketing as an evil into itself. What I do see is some desperate need for Congress to look at how consumers can get this information, what kind of transparency is there, and whether or not companies that allow monthly wire transfers into their coffers from Singapore from a criminal who is trying to rip off identity theft, whether or not they should be held liable for no due diligence on checking those wire transfers from Singapore until the Secret Service knocked on their door. And that’s what I think we need to be looking at. And I don't think there’s enough—I mean, I know that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, you say trial lawyers, and they break out in a sweat. But the truth is that if there was some liability in this area, it would be amazing how fast people could clean up their act. And, unfortunately, in too many instances there’s not clear liability because we haven't set the rules of the road. Video: FreeCreditReport.com all 9 commercials, YouTube, October 3, 2009. Hearing: Credit Scoring System; House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations; July 30, 2008. Witnesses: Thomas Quinn: Vice President of Global Scoring at Fair Isaac Business Consulting Stan Oliai: Experian Decision Analytics Consulting Senior Vice President Chet Wiermanski: Transunion Credit Services Analytical Systems Vice President Richard Goerss: Equifax Credit Services Chief Privacy Officer Evan Hendricks: Privacy Times Publisher and Editor 26:42 Thomas Quinn: A FICO score is a three-digit number ranging from 300 to 850, where the higher the score, the lower the risk. Lenders use the score, along with other information, to decision the request for credit, set the credit line and pricing terms. Creating the FICO score model requires two samples of credit reports, two years apart, for the same randomly selected depersonalized set of consumers provided by one of the national credit reporting agencies. Those credit factors found to be most powerful and consistent in predicting credit performance, individually and in combination, form the basis for the complex mathematical algorithm which becomes the score. The traditional FICO score model evaluates five broad types of data elements from the consumer credit report. These include, and listed in order of importance, previous credit payment history, about 35 percent contribution; level of outstanding debts, about 30 percent contribution; length of credit history, 15 percent contribution; pursuit of new credit, 10 percent contribution; and mix of type of credit, about 10 percent contribution. FICO scores were first introduced to the marketplace in 1989 and have been consistently redeveloped and updated throughout the years to ensure their predictive strength. 34:00 Stan Oliai: A credit score is a numerical expression of risk of default, based on a credit report. The score is produced by a mathematical formula created from a statistical analysis of a large representative sample of credit reports. The formula is typically called a “model.” The credit score is calculated by the model, using only information in the credit report. These reports include the following types of information: The credit account history—such as was the account paid, was it paid on time, how long has the account been open, and what’s the outstanding balance; the type of account—is it a mortgage, is it an installment, is it revolving; the public record information—liens, judgments, bankruptcies, for example; inquiries in the credit file that represent applications for new credit and other consumer-initiated transactions. A credit report does not include information such as income or assets. It also does not include demographic information such as race or ethnicity. Demographic factors are not used in the calculation of a credit score. 35:05 Stan Oliai: Regulatory oversight of credit scores is accomplished through routine bank examinations for compliance, with a number of laws that govern fair lending, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. This makes sense because the lender chooses the scoring model to assist in this proprietary underwriting process. The lender is ultimately responsible for demonstrating to regulators that the scoring model it has chosen complies with the lending laws. 46:20 Chet Wiermanski: There is strong evidence to suggest that consumers would benefit from the increased reporting of nontraditional credit information. For example, consumers with thin credit files and, in particular, minorities, immigrants, young and old, all experience a net benefit from full-file reporting by energy companies and telecommunication providers. Consumers with impaired credit histories also obtain a net benefit from full-file reporting by these companies. We are presently engaged in a follow-up study to learn more about the impediments to full-file reporting faced by the utilities and telecommunication industry. It may be very well that Congress may have a role to play in removing roadblocks to encourage voluntary full-file reporting. 2:01:30 Richard Goerss: There are a lot of thing—different activities—that a consumer can do to protect themselves if they feel they are victims or might be victims of identity theft. Certainly, one of the things that they can do is to place a fraud alert on their credit file. They can receive a free disclosure of their credit file to see if there has been any inappropriate activity or inquiry to their credit file. They can provide an identity-theft report and identify the account information that they feel, or that they say, was opened fraudulently. And under the requirements of the FACT Act, the consumer reporting agencies are going to delete that information, and the consumer reporting agency that receives that identity theft with the information-removal request is going to refer it to the other two consumer reporting agencies, who are also going to remove that information. 2:24:30 Evan Hendricks: Right now, you take it for granted that we know about credit scores, but you have to remember it was, like, 12 years ago, in the mid-1990's, when credit scores started being widely used. They were a complete secret; the industry did not even acknowledge their existence. Then, when they found out about it and reporters like Michelle Singletary of the Washington Post started reporting on it, then they would not disclose the score to you. So, California led the way with a state law, and now we have the FACT Act, which means that you can get one—you can buy a credit score for a fair and reasonable price. 2:54:55 Rep. Jackie Speier (CA): We call these credit reporting agencies or credit bureaus, which gives the average consumer the impression that they are dealing with some federal entity, when in fact they are not—we heard this afternoon they’re private or publicly traded companies—and yet this information is so critical, and to Mr. Barrett's comments, who suggested that the consumer needs to be educated, needs to know what goes into their FICO score and what they can do to improve their FICO score, we can't give those kinds of answers, because, for all intents and purposes, it is a proprietary formula. It’s sort of like secret sauce; we don't know what it is. Now, there’s something wrong when the government can't articulate what should be considered in a FICO score. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in this Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

JPMorgan Chase has been accused of creating a “racketeering enterprise” whose purpose was to evade legal duties owed to investors and borrowers and to appropriately service federally regulated mortgage loans. JPMorgan Chase failed to provide documentations to investors that purchased loans from them (likely because all documentation was intentionally destroyed). The loans are void and uncollectable without the proper documentation.  JPMorgan Chase also uses entities like Nationwide Title Clearing to create false title and paperwork necessary to foreclose (notes, assignments, reconveyances). This blockbuster lawsuit illuminates the fact that JPMorgan Chase was selling thousands of loans it didn't own including loans it had previously sold to other MBS trusts!  Chase likely transferred these defective “loans” in order to avoid non-reimbursable advances and expenses. JPMorgan Chase failed to service loans in a manner consistent with its legal obligations under: RESPA, TILA, FTC violations, the FDCPA, The Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act; and other applicable state and federal usury, consumer credit protection and privacy, predatory and abusive lending laws.  It is likely that this is not an isolated incident, but JPMorgan Chase's standard operating procedure. It is alleged that JPMC failed to comply with the costly and time consuming legal obligations it faced under the Acts, and instead warehoused loans in a database of charged-off loans known as RCV1 and intentionally and recklessly sold these liabilities to unaware buyers such as the Plaintiffs. For a copy of the lawsuit and additional information please go to LivingLies.

Feminism is a hot topic today! With so much pressure to be a feminist - or be "pro-fem", wearing a "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt - T&A had to ask, what does it mean to be a feminist? After an alarming audition for a network TV show, 'A' questioned 'are we going in the right direction?' Listen in as 3 generations of women - Helen (79), Gina, from Gen-x, and Annie (17), all from the same family - discuss feminism.  ...and what does that mean for the men in our lives? These ladies speak honestly and openly about our own experiences, what concerns us most moving forward in our culture, and how we, as men and women, can all self-actualize for more contentment!  Helene graduated college in 1957.  She hosted consciousness raising groups in the 60's, and worked for many years with the League of Women Voters on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and more! Gina is an award winning filmmaker including films screened at Sundance Film Festival, shortlisted for an Oscar nomination, and collaboration on documentary work that lead to a Pulitzer Prize.  Annie is a Gen-Z girl about to graduate high school. She is already proactive in changing Sex Ed policies in New York and participates in various Civil Rights organizations.  

Stephen Stern is a partner in Hyatt & Weber's employment and commercial litigation practices. In employment law, Stephen regularly advises businesses on strategic matters and issues that arise on a day-to-day basis. When litigation has been necessary, Stephen has defended employers against claims arising under Title VII, ADEA, ADA, FMLA, SOX, FLSA, NDAA, IRCA, and other similar statutes, and he has defended employers against various tort claims. Stephen also regularly advises companies and represents them in litigation on matters related to the protection of trade secrets and enforcing non-compete/non-solicitation agreements. Stephen also frequently represents businesses in commercial/business disputes involving allegations of fraud, breach of contract, violations of fiduciary duties and other tortious conduct, and violations of various federal and state statutes. Recent examples include defending against a civil RICO claim, allegations of discriminatory lending practices under the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and insurance coverage claims, as well as prosecuting a breach of construction contract claim and various tort and contract claims related to a real estate dispute. Stephen is admitted to practice in federal and state courts in Maryland, DC, and Virginia. He has appeared before the EEOC, DOL, DOJ, and comparable state and local agencies, and he has litigated in federal and state courts around the country.

I’m calling this episode “Consulting the Source.” My guest would be the first to say he is not the source of our consumer financial protection rules -- that would be Congress. Still, no one has had more to do with translating law into regulatory form than Leonard Chanin. When Leonard left the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for his current position at the law firm Morrison & Foerster LLP, it was big news. American Banker wrote: “Morrison & Foerster can’t say it hired the attorney who wrote the CFPB’s rulebook. But it picked up the guy who started the job.” Actually, Leonard has been involved in the crafting of pretty much all the consumer financial regulations since 1985. And for years he led the legal teams – first at the Fed and then at the CFPB – that wrote them. I consider him the single most expert person in the world on how to write consumer protection regulation in finance. His deep knowledge of the field and his great sense of humor led to a really fun and animated discussion about the challenges of financial regulation. In fact, our conversation continued for nearly another hour after we turned off the microphone. I often find that, after the recorded part of the podcast, my guests go on to say things even more interesting. In Leonard’s case, he said something I’ve been thinking about ever since, and I got his permission to share it. He said, “The only solution is to blow it all up. If we just take what we have and try to improve it, we will fail.” Our regular listeners know I’m at Harvard this year writing a book about modernizing consumer financial protection for the innovation age. I think most people in the financial field agree that the system we have hasn’t worked well. And yet, the course we’re on is exactly the one Leonard says won’t work – taking what we have and just trying to improve it at the margins. The CFPB, of course, is adding vigor and rigor to the effort and having many impacts. Still, this is a good time to examine the basic questions of what works, and whether we could do better. I met with Leonard in his office in Washington, and we explored it all. Can disclosure ever really be effective? What should we do about information overload?  Is it impossible for regulations to be both simple, and clear, at the same time, or do we have to choose between those two goals?  Should we rely more on principles-based regulations instead of detailed rules? When should the law just ban practices, instead of requiring them to be disclosed?  Should we have a regulatory sandbox? Is it worth trying to do better, given the enormous costs the industry incurs every time the rules change? What could we do better now that people can get information instantly on their cell phones? Should government try to protect people from their own mistakes, or just prevent deception and let consumers make their choices? I recently spoke at a conference where I said I think disclosure has largely failed as a consumer protection strategy in finance. Someone afterwards said to me that he thinks it was never meant to work – that it was just the industry’s strategy for preventing tougher regulation. I was involved in a lot of those early efforts, and as I say to Leonard in our talk, it seemed like a good idea at the time, to me. It seemed worth trying. But today, it’s time to think again. (For an interesting analysis of the ineffectiveness of disclosure, see this article by Temple University’s Hosea Harvey. Leonard is currently Of Counsel in the Financial Services group at Morrison & Foerster LLP. He advises clients on issues relating to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Truth in Lending Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Truth in Savings Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Before rejoining Morrison & Foerster, he was the Assistant Director of the Office of Regulations of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, heading the agency’s rule-making team of nearly 40 lawyers. He also provided legal opinions to Bureau supervisory and enforcement offices on federal consumer financial protection laws. Prior to that, he was Deputy Director of the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs at the Federal Reserve Board. His role there included providing legal opinions and policy recommendations to the Board and the Division on federal consumer financial services laws, negotiating rules and policies with the other federal banking agencies and providing legal views on enforcement actions against state member banks. Leonard’s law degree is from Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, where he served on the board of the Washington University Law Review. He is a currently a fellow of the American College of Consumer Financial Services Lawyers. So, please enjoy my conversation with Leonard Chanin. And…try my new video series, Regulation Innovation! And be sure to come to my new site, www.RegulationInnovation.com, and sign up for my new series of video briefings!  I’ve posted a short trailer (EMBED?) explaining the videos as a roadmap for navigating through the two toughest challenges facing every financial company – how to thrive on all this regulatory and technology. You can try it out and get started very easily. If you enjoy our work to bring together thought provoking ideas and people please consider a contribution to support the site. Support the Podcast Please subscribe to the podcast by opening your favorite podcast app and searching for "Jo Ann Barefoot", in TuneIn, or in iTunes.   

Barry Goheen is a partner in King & Spalding’s Litigation Practice Group, and leads the firm’s privacy litigation practice. He focuses on consumer class actions and data breach and privacy litigation. He has been lead or co-counsel in dozens of class actions and individual cases in all aspects of privacy-related litigation, including actions arising from data breaches, employee background screening, and consumer credit/identity theft such as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Mr. Goheen has served as lead or co-counsel in over 25 privacy-based class actions in state and federal courts, including over 20 class actions against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act, representing such clients as SunTrust Banks, Shell, Countrywide, Equifax, Bank of America, and Capital One.