The Skinny on Trump’s Regulatory Reset
In my 2017 regulatory predictions post last month, I concluded by saying that the new year would be very different for the financial services industry than 2016. This certainly did…
In my 2017 regulatory predictions post last month, I concluded by saying that the new year would be very different for the financial services industry than 2016. This certainly didn’t take long to come to fruition. In the first two weeks of the new administration, President Trump took several steps aimed at slowing down as well as scaling back current and future regulations. Despite these aggressive actions, there remains a number of challenges related to the reach and impact of these directives.
Regulatory Reform through Memorandum and Executive Orders
Out of the gate, the Trump administration made good on its promise to curtail the pace of federal regulations. Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memo on Inauguration Day that, in part, calls for the heads of executive departments and agencies to initiate a regulatory freeze until someone designated by the President has a chance to review and approve them.
The freeze was followed by an Executive Order (“1 in, 2 out rule”) issued 10 days later that required for each new regulation issued by an agency, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination. The executive order further mandates that the financial impact of each new regulation be offset by the savings from the rescinded regulations, such that the total incremental cost not exceed zero.
Finally, on February 3, the President signed an Executive Order that details six “core principles for regulating the United States financial system.” The Executive Order directs the Secretary of the Treasury to consult with the heads of Financial Stability Oversight Council (e.g., OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, CFPB, FHFA and SEC) and report to the President within 120 days the extent to which current laws, regulations and oversight requirements, including those connected with the Dodd-Frank Act, help promote the six core principles.
Application Limited to Executive Branch Agencies
Since the term “department or agency” is not defined in either the memo or the first Executive Order, there was some initial confusion as to whether the requirements of these presidential directives extended only to executive agencies, or also to independent agencies such as the CFPB, OCC, FDIC, SEC and Federal Reserve. A few days after issuing the “1 in, 2 out rule,” the White House issued interim guidance explicitly stating that the order’s provisions did not apply to independent agencies. However, this was not before the Federal Reserve had challenged the reach of the regulatory freeze and the “1 in, 2 out rule” on January 30 by announcing a final rule that no longer subjected select regional banks to the quantitative portion of the annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) stress test.
Existing Challenges and Potential Impact
Despite the swift moves taken by President Trump, it is not clear how much impact these actions themselves will have on slowing down and reducing the number of regulations. While a regulatory freeze will temporarily halt the rulemaking progress at all executive branch agencies, as previously stated, the freeze does not extend to independent agencies.
The “1 in, 2 out rule” has been critiqued as being complicated and difficult to implement. For example, many regulations are mandated by statute and cannot be repealed without an act of Congress. As a result, this may significantly narrow the pool of existing federal regulations that are eligible to be rescinded. Also, any repeal of an existing regulation must go through the extensive and deliberative process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Already, this Executive Order is facing a legal challenge.
In addition, while the Treasury Secretary can make determinations of what regulations align with the six core principles detailed in the February 3 Executive Order, any changes to Dodd-Frank Act regulations will require congressional action. Though the Republicans control both chambers, Democrats have large enough numbers in the Senate to make it very difficult for Republicans to garner the 60 votes necessary today to get controversial legislation adopted. Not surprisingly, Republicans are actively discussing ways to clear this obstacle.
Where the Real Power Lies
The Trump administration’s largest impact on shaping the regulatory agenda in financial services may lie outside of its executive orders and memoranda. An obscure 1996 statute, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), has suddenly become a potentially powerful tool.
Under the CRA, before a new regulation takes effect, Congress can take action (through a simple majority vote) on a joint resolution disapproving the rule. If the joint resolution is approved in both chambers, the resolution is sent to the President for signature or veto. If the regulation is invalidated, the Agency that issued the regulation is prohibited from issuing a substantially similar regulation without a subsequent act of Congress.
Since its inception, only one time under the CRA had a resolution been signed into law by the President. During the first three weeks of the Trump administration, the House has passed 13 resolutions and two have already been signed into law.
It is easy to envision Republicans using the CRA to invalidate, for example, any newly issued CFPB regulation that they oppose. In addition, within the next 12 months, President Trump will be able to appoint new leaders at the OCC, Fed and FDIC. He has already nominated a new head of the SEC. New leadership can reshape the regulatory agenda of an agency, and this may be one of the most impactful tools that the administration has in ensuring that its regulatory reset is realized.
We are just a few weeks into a new administration, and already we have witnessed a dramatic shift in approach. Yet the action is just heating up as Congress prepares for the introduction of Dodd-Frank reform legislation, and President Trump continues to deliberate over the future of CFPB Director Richard Cordray. The outcome of these battles will help determine the expansiveness of Trump’s regulatory reset agenda.
Popular Posts
Average U.S. FICO® Score at 716, Indicating Improvement in Consumer Credit Behaviors Despite Pandemic
The FICO Score is a broad-based, independent standard measure of credit risk
Read more
The GSE Data Is Public. Here's What It Shows About Credit Score Modernization.
Independent Milliman analysis of GSE historical data confirms what anyone can now verify directly: FICO® Score 10T is the most predictive score.
Read more
FICO® Score High Achievers: Is Age the Only Factor?
<p>FICO’s latest research on <a href="http://www.fico.com/en/blogs/risk-compliance/us-credit-quality-rising-the-beat-goes-on/" target="_blank">national FICO® Score distribution</a> shows that US credit quality continues to trend upwards, with an increasing number of consumers scoring in the highest scores ranges. Given that, we decided it was time to refresh our study on “<a href="http://www.fico.com/en/blogs/risk-compliance/infographic-what-does-a-high-credit-scorer-look-like/" target="_blank">FICO® Score high achievers</a>,” where we examine the credit behavioural profiles of consumers with higher credit scores.</p> <p>As expected, our latest study showed that older people generally have higher scores, as has been the case in our <a href="http://www.fico.com/en/blogs/risk-compliance/age-before-beauty-credit-worthiness-before-youth/" target="_blank">past research</a>. This is largely because they have trade lines that have been open longer, which leads to higher scores (assuming the trade lines are in good standing and all other things equal). The most credit savvy among you will remember that length of credit history accounts for roughly 15% of the overall <a href="http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/WhatsInYourScore.aspx" target="_blank">FICO® Score calculation</a>.</p> <p>But for younger consumers, it isn’t too helpful to say, “just wait until you are 50 years old, and that will fix things!” Thus, I decided to dive deeper with our analysis, including looking at the credit behavioural characteristics of younger consumers with high FICO® Scores.</p> <p>In this analysis, I looked at credit characteristics for the two highest score bands, 750-799 and 800-850, which have about 16% and 23% of the population, respectively. I further broke this down by looking at the characteristics of the youngest 15% in each group, which occurs at age 29 for the 750-799 group and 43 for the 800-850. We used FICO<strong>®</strong> Score 9 for our analysis, and examined typical variables of the categories that go into the make-up of the score.</p> <p><a href="http://www.fico.com/en/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/FICO-Score-High-Achiever-table.png"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-29367" src="http://www.fico.com/en/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/FICO-Score-High-Achiever-table.png" alt="fico-score-high-achiever-table" width="715" height="747" /></a></p> <p>Since there’s a lot to dissect in this chart, I’ll highlight a few findings that struck me: <ul> <li><strong>Credit history.</strong> Higher scores are undoubtedly associated with a longer time on file. What’s striking is the higher average time on file for the 800+ group, both overall and for revolving accounts (the most common trade line). Clearly, it helps to start credit use early in life – but that’s not the sole determining factor for high scoring. The younger cohorts in both the 800+ and 750-799 groups have time on file medians significantly less than their older counterparts.</li> <li><strong>New credit.</strong> High credit scorers do, in fact, pursue new credit. We see little variation in months since last trade line opening and last inquiry among all groups observed.</li> <li><strong>Pay on time.</strong> As you might expect, the further in the past the delinquency, the higher the score – and that’s <u>if</u> a delinquency ever happened. 95% of the 800+ people and 72% of the 750-799 group have never been delinquent, which is a striking contrast to the 57% for the total population. The percentages for the younger groups are even higher, especially so for the 750-799ers. Collection items are also scarce for these high scorers. While 23% of the national population have collection items greater than $99, the figures are only 0.5% for the 800+ group and 3% for the 750-799 group. It is clear that, in conjunction with starting a credit file early, paying on time is a key trait of the FICO® Score high achiever.</li> <li><strong>Balance and utilization.</strong> Finally, we look at how credit is being used, focusing on revolving product use. (Since most people only have one mortgage or one auto loan, variation in instalment product figures is minimal and driven by payment history, which is near perfect for high scorers, as we’ve seen.) FICO® Score high achievers tend to have more open revolving accounts. While the % active trades and utilization are generally lower, by no means do high scorers avoid the use of credit products. What drives the difference here is the amount of <u>available</u> revolving credit utilized. The 800+ group is roughly 1/4 of the national median, both in total and on their highest utilized card; they also have lower balances and more cards<em>. </em>The 750-799 group is more active and higher utilized, but still only at 2/3 of the national figures. The young 750-799 group compensate with lower revolving balances and, as a result, lower utilization, which is in line with what we see for the 800+ group.</li> <li><strong>Benchmarks.</strong> I’d like to point out that while this study provides good benchmarks of the typical credit traits of the FICO® Score high achiever, individual credit profiles will vary widely. And keep in mind that when we sort groups of consumers as a whole by different behaviours, some results may look superficially odd. For example, the 800+ band has a longer median average open account time (128 months) than average revolving months on file (140 months).</li> </ul> So, what do we conclude? A huge takeaway is that high scorers don’t have too much in the way of serious delinquencies and negative public record data.</p> <p>In most respects, the young 800+ people are like their peer group. They really only differ markedly in their shorter credit history and higher non-mortgage balance, both of which are a function of life stage. Our results show that you don’t have to be a credit product hermit; these high scorers have more credit cards. The takeaway is to start credit activity early and maintain well-managed and moderate usage.</p> <p>In many ways, the young 750-799 people are more interesting because their age profile is much younger. Their credit characteristics differ more from their peer group, particularly in terms of length of credit history. They compensate by having almost pristine credit records and lower balances.</p> <p>Ultimately, 39% of US consumers are FICO® Score high achievers, which they accomplish by following common-sense credit practices. It ain’t rocket science!</p>
Read moreTake the next step
Connect with FICO for answers to all your product and solution questions. Interested in becoming a business partner? Contact us to learn more. We look forward to hearing from you.