This is fine as far as it goes, but I can name several areas where Cordray's CFPB didn't push the envelope. Dems normally don't like to point that out politico.com/magazine/story…
First, the initial Ocwen consent order was an absolute crime, as I said at the time. newrepublic.com/article/116010…
CFPB essentially admitted this with its follow-up suit against Ocwen thenation.com/article/the-cf…
Second, the agency has pretty much not used its UDAAP authority, picking its battles. Which is fine I guess, but not as aggressive as portrayed thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/0…
The lack of rules on pawn shops and international remittance shows a blind spot: services used by the truly poor sometimes don't get as thorough treatment.
Also there's this: 
And on its mortgage servicing rules it didn't attack the primary driver of problems: the compensation model (though it had some restrictions there). washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-squa…
There's another big problem but I have an upcoming piece on it so don't want to spoil.
Now, I'm a big fan of CFPB, it's an advance on many, many levels. But kidding ourselves that it's Public Citizen inside the government is just wrong.
