Fair Access to Financial Services (OCC-2020-0042-0001)

[thismanlies]

Assuming it is not overturned, it will take effect April 1st.

So is it too early to pop the cork?

 

[Astral Alley]

I've been astonished at how little press this has gotten the entire time

I also feel like this is too good to be true, to have passed with so little resistance. To me that means either it doesn't do what we think it does, or it doesn't actually have any teeth. What's the catch?

I've seen quite a bit of press in the financial sectors. Wall Street is not happy. Trump bank regulator final rule attacks Wall Street, ESG world (cnbc.com)
With Brooks leaving, this is sort of seen as his 'mic drop' moment.

They are hoping for either two things under Biden:

1. That congress puts a stop to this act early, but that requires a congressional vote.
2. That Biden instills a new head of the Comptroller of the Currency who reverses this ruling.

If we want to ensure that it does not get undone, we should do what we can to put an emphasis on how reversing this rule would harm small independent Adult Content Companies, many of which are LGBT+ operated and whatnot, as well as women's health centers.

 

[Bongocat]

I've seen quite a bit of press in the financial sectors. Wall Street is not happy. Trump bank regulator final rule attacks Wall Street, ESG world (cnbc.com)
With Brooks leaving, this is sort of seen as his 'mic drop' moment.

They are hoping for either two things under Biden:

1. That congress puts a stop to this act early, but that requires a congressional vote.
2. That Biden instills a new head of the Comptroller of the Currency who reverses this ruling.

#2 is already happening, though he hasn't made a statement that I'm aware of yet.

But, beyond any of that, nothing good ever happens.

 

[X Prime]

I wonder what Null will say once Biden and/or the Dems overturn it.

Hoping for the full video rant treatment.

 

[FAQnews Correspondent]

I've seen quite a bit of press in the financial sectors. Wall Street is not happy. Trump bank regulator final rule attacks Wall Street, ESG world (cnbc.com)
With Brooks leaving, this is sort of seen as his 'mic drop' moment.

They are hoping for either two things under Biden:

1. That congress puts a stop to this act early, but that requires a congressional vote.
2. That Biden instills a new head of the Comptroller of the Currency who reverses this ruling.

If we want to ensure that it does not get undone, we should do what we can to put an emphasis on how reversing this rule would harm small independent Adult Content Companies, many of which are LGBT+ operated and whatnot, as well as women's health centers.

Could they also just choose not to enforce this?

 

[X Prime]

What's also awesome about that CNBC article is how often it cites obviously biased people, including some guy trying to make a "Climate First Bank."

"They can make decisions that align with corporate values and that reflect reputational risk introduced by doing business in certain sectors," he said. "That's just effective risk policing and corporate value governance. ... Let's say the Proud Boys want to open accounts at a bank and started taking out loans to fund activities. There is a reputational risk there. How can you engage in a quantitative mathematical analysis to show reputational risk? Certain reputational risks are novel and don't have historical data sets to draw on in the underwriting analysis. Good self governance at a bank can't be reduced to a mathematical formula."

This is what their actual objection is about.

 

[AnotherPleb]

I've been astonished at how little press this has gotten the entire time

I also feel like this is too good to be true, to have passed with so little resistance. To me that means either it doesn't do what we think it does, or it doesn't actually have any teeth. What's the catch?

What good is a rule if it's not enforced?

 

[Astral Alley]

Could they also just choose not to enforce this?

What good is a rule if it's not enforced?

That would lead to lawsuits from the gun and oil industry, which would very likely not go in the bank's favor.
This would lead to those companies getting the fines that the banks would normally owe instead of (perhaps in addition to) the government.

It's in the democrats best interest to actively seek to repeal this bill if they want to continue pressuring banks to stop providing services to 'unfavorable' businesses.
If they cannot repeal it, it would be better to enforce it than to risk letting those industries walk away with even more money from winning lawsuits.

This is what their actual objection is about.

Exactly.
The argument is flawed because if all banks must conform to the same standards, then there would be no 'reputational risk' as they have no choice in the matter.

 

[teriyakiburns]

It's in the democrats best interest to actively seek to repeal this bill if they want to continue pressuring banks to stop providing services to 'unfavorable' businesses.
If they cannot repeal it, it would be better to enforce it than to risk letting those industries walk away with even more money from winning lawsuits.

It's not a bill or act, it's a regulatory rule. Congress can't repeal it.

My understanding is that the OCC, being part of the Treasury, isn't subject to quite the same congressional oversight as other regulatory agencies. If Congress want the rule changed, then absent a cooperative chief at the top of the OCC, they'll have to legislate to change its responsibilities in such a way that it is required to rule the way they want. That would open up a lot of interesting issues.

Of course that's never stopped a politician before. They don't think about the long term effects of what they're doing. They just sit there and demand everything NOW like the spoiled children they are.

 

[Astral Alley]

It's not a bill or act, it's a regulatory rule. Congress can't repeal it.

My understanding is that the OCC, being part of the Treasury, isn't subject to quite the same congressional oversight as other regulatory agencies. If Congress want the rule changed, then absent a cooperative chief at the top of the OCC, they'll have to legislate to change its responsibilities in such a way that it is required to rule the way they want. That would open up a lot of interesting issues.

Of course that's never stopped a politician before. They don't think about the long term effects of what they're doing. They just sit there and demand everything NOW like the spoiled children they are.

While it's true that it is not a bill, Congress can repeal recently enacted rules via the Congressional Review Act.
A good summary of the risks this rule faces can be found here: https://morningconsult.com/2021/01/14/occ-rule-fair-access-banks-biden/

I have been reaching out to my representatives as well as advocacy groups pleading the democratic case for this rule.

 

[The Intern]

We did it reddit!

 

[Astral Alley]

We did it reddit!

I wouldn't celebrate just yet.
It still needs to make its way to the Federal Register in order to be enforceable, which a Biden-appointed Comptroller could easily prevent.

If it makes it, then it will need to fend off both lawsuits from the banks as well as potential repeal attempts.

Although the adult entertainment industry is starting to take notice: Banking Discrimination Against Adult Workers May Soon End – APAG- Adult Performance Artists Guild (apagunion.com)

More work needs to get done to ensure that this isn't just seen as an 'anti-environmental, gun-violence promoting' legislation like all the headlines like to make it out to be.
This rule would seriously benefit everyone, and the little guys need to know.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

More work needs to get done to ensure that this isn't just seen as an 'anti-environmental, gun-violence promoting' legislation like all the headlines like to make it out to be.

I love how they always leave out the family planning from that list. Do these people think this regulation "forces banks to lend to abortion clinics?"

 

[AnOminous]

I've seen quite a bit of press in the financial sectors. Wall Street is not happy. Trump bank regulator final rule attacks Wall Street, ESG world (cnbc.com)
With Brooks leaving, this is sort of seen as his 'mic drop' moment.

Wall Street not being happy will never be something I give a single flying solitary fuck about tbh. They wouldn't be happy if they were strung up en masse either but that would also not be a particularly awful thing.

I love how they always leave out the family planning from that list. Do these people think this regulation "forces banks to lend to abortion clinics?"

The main blocs opposed to this are absolute fucks who will say anything they think can get opposition to this.

 

[Astral Alley]

This source claims: It’s back: The political struggle for control of banks’ loan taps | News | djournal.com

The rule has been published in the Federal Register, though it may prove short-lived. Many Democrats oppose the measure, and they will have 60 legislative days to disapprove it by a simple majority vote, as provided under the Congressional Review Act.

I couldn't find a source from this year on the Federal Register myself, but if this is true then it dramatically increases the odds of this rule sticking.

 

[AnotherPleb]

This source claims: It’s back: The political struggle for control of banks’ loan taps | News | djournal.com

I couldn't find a source from this year on the Federal Register myself, but if this is true then it dramatically increases the odds of this rule sticking.

So you're saying the only way for that to not get undone is if the DNC is too busy pushing through a lot of other shit? We'll see how that plays out in the political climate we have now.

 

[Kosher Dill]

In the document summarizing the comments, they mention our comments about payment processors but whether or not it will actually affect payment processors remains to be seen: Fair Access to Financial Services Final Rule, January 13, 2021 (occ.gov)

I'm not sure we should be celebrating - it looks like the $100 billion asset threshold was passed unmodified.

For reference, Paypal is only worth $50 billion in total and wouldn't be a "covered bank". I'm not sure how many individual Visa/Mastercard issuers would be covered either. Like, Citigroup has over a trillion in assets, but I'm betting whatever sub-entity issues Citibank Visa cards is officially smaller than that. How much smaller, I have no clue.

 

[Terrifik]

cross post - Trannies found the gold .

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/19/democrats-pledge-to-fight-trump-rule-ensuring-banks-wont-refuse-service-to-conservatives/

Democrats Pledge To Fight Rule Ensuring Banks Serve Conservatives

Banks have a duty to provide proportionate access to financial services, even for clients involved in legal but politically controversial industries.

web.archive.org

 

[Not Really Here]

I'm not sure we should be celebrating - it looks like the $100 billion asset threshold was passed unmodified.

For reference, Paypal is only worth $50 billion in total and wouldn't be a "covered bank". I'm not sure how many individual Visa/Mastercard issuers would be covered either. Like, Citigroup has over a trillion in assets, but I'm betting whatever sub-entity issues Citibank Visa cards is officially smaller than that. How much smaller, I have no clue.

Paypal isn't and never has been a bank of any kind, and they have spent a lot of effort making sure they don't get classified as such.

 

[Fools Idol]

So you're saying the only way for that to not get undone is if the DNC is too busy pushing through a lot of other shit? We'll see how that plays out in the political climate we have now.

Watch them get their shit together just for this before we can return to our regularly scheduled chaos and stupidity.