Financial Products Safety Commission
posted by Frank Pasquale
As we deal with the consequences of housing and consumption arms races, Elizabeth Warren’s article on “Making Financial Products Safer” is a must-read. Warren notes:
It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance your home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting your family out on the street—and the mortgage won’t even carry a disclosure of that fact. Similarly, it’s impossible for the seller to change the price on a toaster once you have purchased it. But long after the credit-card slip has been signed, your credit-card company can triple the price of the credit you used to finance your purchase, even if you meet all the credit terms. Why are consumers safe when they purchase tangible products with cash, but left at the mercy of their creditors when they sign up for routine financial products like mortgages and credit cards?
Warren proposes that a new federal agency start regulating credit from a consumer safety perspective:
[W]hy not create a Financial Product Safety Commission (FPSC), charged with responsibility to establish guidelines for consumer disclosure, collect and report data about the uses of different financial products, review new products for safety, and require modification of dangerous products before they can be marketed to the public? The agency could review mortgages, credit cards, car loans, and so on. It could also exercise jurisdiction over life insurance and annuity contracts. In effect, the FPSC would evaluate these products to eliminate the hidden tricks that make some of them far more dangerous than others, and ensure that none pose unacceptable risks to consumers.
An FPSC would promote the benefits of free markets by assuring that consumers can enter credit markets confident that the products they purchase meet minimum safety standards. A commission could collect data about which financial products are least understood, what kinds of disclosures are most effective, and which products are most likely to result in consumer default. It could develop nuanced regulatory responses; some credit terms might be banned altogether, while others might be permitted only with clearer disclosure. A commission could promote uniform disclosures that make it easier to compare products, and to discern conflicts of interest on the part of a mortgage broker or seller of what are now loosely regulated products. For example, an FPSC might review the following terms that appear in some—but not all—credit-card agreements: universal default clauses; unlimited and unexplained fees; interest-rate increases that exceed 10 percentage points; and an issuer’s claim that it can change the terms after money has been borrowed. It would also promote such market-enhancing practices as a simple, easy-to-read paragraph that explains all interest charges; clear explanations of when fees will be imposed; a requirement that the terms of a credit card remain the same until the card expires; no marketing targeted at college students or minors; and a statement showing how long it will take to pay off the balance, as well as how much interest will be paid if the customer makes the minimum monthly payments on the outstanding loan balance.
As I’ve noted here and here, the federal CPSC may not exactly be a model here. It could easily turn into one more preemption machine. But given the “race to the bottom” dynamics common generally, federal regulation may be the only solution.
April 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Posted in: Consumer Protection Law, Current Events, Securities
Print This Post
Responses (3)
KipEsquire - April 24, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house.”
Just as it is impossible to sell a toaster that can’t be dropped into a bathtub by a reckless user.
Sean M. - April 27, 2008 at 8:18 pm
No marketing at minors or /college students/? Have we made our youth into such infants that /college students/ need government protection from the big, bad capitalists with their credit card offers?
Maryland Conservatarian - April 29, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“…no marketing targeted at college students or minors…”
what if they skipped Harvard and went right into the work force – would it be okay to target them then?…all I hear is how smart kids are today and yet they’re considered too dumb to realize that Joe Camel was a cartoon and that debts are to be repaid.
Leave a Reply