by Jeff Sovern
I've been reading Dan Immergluck's fine book, Foreclosed: High-Risk Lending, Deregulation, and the Undermining of America's Mortgage Market (2009). At pages 177-78, he has as good a description of the competition among regulators for lenders as I've seen:
![]()
[S]ome state regulators have a vested interest in preempting state consumer protection laws. The ability to preempt state law is perhaps the greatest source of value in the federal thrift and national bank charters. Regulators can gain political power based on the number and size of the banks that fall under their regulatory supervision. In some cases, a regulator's operations are funded by levying fees on the institutions they regulate. This can encourage an agency to pursue policies that are friendly to banks--especially larger ones. If a regulator does not use its ability to allow banks under its supervision to preempt state consumer protection regulations, the bank may change its charter so that it is regulated by a more lender-friendly agency. . . . Even if an agency's funding is not directly tied to the banking assets under its supervision, if fewer and fewer institutions fall under its supervisory umbrella, its power and relevance will be called into question. In the long run, this could jeopardize the agency's very existence.
* * *
In 1974, Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, expressed concerns over a "competition in laxity" among the regulators . . . . Since then, there have been repeated concerns that banks "forum shop" to find the most comfortable regulator . . . . Since at least the late 1990s, this "race for the bottom" includes regulators vying to offer banks as much preemption power as they can. Demonstrating the important of preemption to the value of a charter type, a banking attorney was quoted in the American Banker regarding the OCC's preemption actions as asking "Why would you want a national charter but for the preemption authority?" * * *
[After noting that the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) moved before the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to preempt state antipredatory lending laws, Immergluck continues:] The OCC was not about to let the thrift charter gain a clear regulatory advantage over the national bank charter. [Immergluck then describes the OCC's preemption efforts]
Perhaps this explains why the federal regulators have been so aggressive in preempting state laws. It's not just a matter of ideology or even generating fees; it's a matter of survival. Another argument for the CFPA, which of course would not need to preempt state laws to survive.