https://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-been-illegal-to-make-women-have-a-man-co-sign-their-loans-since-the-70s-now-the-trump-administration-could-change-that-307521b2

Trump's Consumer Financial Credit Bureau is proposing changes to the rules governing how banks can offer and handle loans. Of course Dems are portraying it as the apocalypse.

Quote:

---

The proposed changes are mired in jargon, but the potential impact is clear enough to spook many consumer advocates and everyday citizens. The Trump administration is seeking three changes, according to David Silberman, who was previously a top official at the CFPB. The rule change would narrow the definition of what constitutes illegal discrimination, which would make it harder for consumers to prove discrimination happened; it would allow lenders to target advertisements to specific consumers to apply for loans; and it would discourage lenders from offering special loans to any specific groups, such as lower-interest loans for marginalized communities.

---

You'd think the world was ending. The reporter gathered comments on the proposed change from Reddit.

Quote:

---

One commenter on social-media site Reddit recounted how before the Equal Credit Opportunity Act became law, they had to get their dad to sign paperwork to "allow" them to open a bank account in their own name after they began their first full-time job at 19. Even after they got married and applied for a credit card, the husband had to sign the application, with the commenter relegated to being an authorized user. "It didn't matter how old you were or what type of job and income you had, [you] were treated like an incompetent child," the person said.
…
One of the anonymous comments said that the CFPB rule change will hurt women. "My grandmother struggled to make ends meet when her husband died in a mining accident, making her a widow with three kids still in grade school," the person wrote. "The widows, single women, women trying to escape abusive relationships will all be hurt by this proposed change."

---

Funny how Obama brought in "hope and change," but any changes for the better proposed by Trump are immediately met with "the sky is falling" rhetoric.

As someone who works with ECOA almost every day that article is hot garbage. There's not a chance in hell that those three proposed changes would force women to go back to having a man co-sign their loan simply because they're a woman.

But guess what if you don't qualify on your own, you'll need a co-signer. Which is the way it's always been. And the bank doesn't care if your co-signer is a man, woman, white, black, alien, or dog. As long as the two of you together have the finances to support the loan.

I'll take, "**** that didn't happen," for $1000, Alex.

Using bots as sources is pretty funny.

Quote:

---

Half a century later, the Trump administration is trying to roll back that progress, advocates say. They are particularly alarmed about certain groups possibly ending up paying more for loans than their peers - a daunting prospect today given the cost of living crisis among the nation's middle- and lower-class.

The morning after the CFPB's comment period on the proposed rule change closed on Dec. 15, more than 40,000 comments had been submitted by the public - from consumer advocates and community banks to consumers - some of whom submitted anonymous responses in just 30 days. Giving the public 30 days to comment was relatively short, considering the potential impact of the change, the CFA's Rust said. The number of comments that were submitted during the holiday season is a testament to how important people consider the proposed changes to be, he added.

---

30 days of course is the law, I think. If memory serves past changes to other things were successfully challenged in court because they did not have a 30 day commenting period. So the notion of "only" 30 days being relatively short is a canard.

And I thought those with lower credit scores have always paid more in interest.

techno-ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Half a century later, the Trump administration is trying to roll back that progress, advocates say. They are particularly alarmed about certain groups possibly ending up paying more for loans than their peers - a daunting prospect today given the cost of living crisis among the nation's middle- and lower-class.

The morning after the CFPB's comment period on the proposed rule change closed on Dec. 15, more than 40,000 comments had been submitted by the public - from consumer advocates and community banks to consumers - some of whom submitted anonymous responses in just 30 days. Giving the public 30 days to comment was relatively short, considering the potential impact of the change, the CFA's Rust said. The number of comments that were submitted during the holiday season is a testament to how important people consider the proposed changes to be, he added.

---

30 days of course is the law, I think. If memory serves past changes to other things were successfully challenged in court because they did not have a 30 day commenting period. So the notion of "only" 30 days being relatively short is a canard.

And I thought those with lower credit scores have always paid more in interest.

---

Yep.

It was an NPRM. That typically comes with a 30 day comment period (can sometimes be 60 day, but rarely longer than that).

Lawyers everywhere are pissed they don't get to represent aggrieved borrowers who were offered higher rates or denied credit due to poor creditworthiness while being a minority member.

Functionally no one in a mortgage company/credit card company is denying credit purely on non-financial characteristics, because they mostly get paid by a quantity of funded loans.

Government getting rich off fines. Lawyers getting rich of settlements. Borrowers getting basically nothing as a result of the lender's headaches dealing with government and lawyers.

hph6203 said:

---

Lawyers everywhere are pissed they don't get to represent aggrieved borrowers who were offered higher rates or denied credit due to poor creditworthiness while being a minority member.

Functionally no one in a mortgage company/credit card company is denying credit purely on non-financial characteristics, because they mostly get paid by a quantity of funded loans.

Government getting rich off fines. Lawyers getting rich of settlements. Borrowers getting basically nothing as a result of the lender's headaches dealing with government and lawyers.

---

This I think is the real issue. Fewer regulations, less government control. Grandma is still going to be able to load up on debt, though, if she wants to.