Introduction

In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in national policy and practice attention focused on various aspects of financial access (e.g., ABA, 2021; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, 2023; FDIC, 2021). Financial access is defined as having the legal right, necessary documentation and eligibility, and ability to open, afford, and continuously use beneficial and affordable financial products and services. It also includes having mobile or online connectivity with mainstream financial institutions or living in close proximity to them, as well as having the financial resources to meet product requirements, such as minimum opening deposits and maintenance fees (Birkenmaier et al., 2019). The range of financial products and services encompassed by financial access includes bank accounts, retirement accounts, credit cards, investments, insurance, and similar products (Birkenmaier & Fu, 2022). Financial access has been shown to be more crucial than ever for long-term financial well-being (Collins & Urban, 2020; Sun et al., 2022), including wealth accumulation (Célerier & Matray, 2019), retirement plan participation (Guo & Finke, 2018), and consumer credit usage (Bufe et al., 2019).

While all consumers need protection in the financial marketplace to safeguard their financial access, certain groups face greater vulnerability and struggle with low financial access (Mogaji, 2020). More than half of the US population struggles with low financial access and use of Alternative Financial Services Providers (AFSP), which offer higher-cost, non-bank alternatives to bank products and services (Birkenmaier & Fu, 2022). In 2021, an estimated 5.9 million households in the USA were unbanked, meaning they had no savings or checking account at a bank or credit union, and only 71.5% of households had a credit card (FDIC, 2022). An estimated 14.1% of households are banked but also used at least one AFSP (so-called underbanked) in 2021 (FDIC, 2022). One-third of working-age families did not participate in retirement plans in 2019 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, 2020).

Demographic characteristics such as citizenship status, asset ownership status, health, culture, and language play a critical role in financial access (Blanco et al., 2019; Namkung & Carr, 2019). Racial minorities, disabled individuals, and those with lower levels of education are more likely to be unbanked and underbanked (Berre et al., 2021; FDIC, 2022). Various populations, including those who are racially minoritized, immigrants (FDIC, 2022; Padua & Doran, 2016), previously incarcerated individuals (Mielitz et al., 2019), residents of low-income communities (FDIC, 2022; Kamran & Uusitalo, 2019), women, and single women (Cowling et al., 2020; FDIC, 2022) face challenges to their financial access (Dunham & Foster, 2023). Without full financial access, individuals in these populations are disproportionately at risk of being financially excluded and resorting to predatory and costly products and services, often from AFSP (Dunham & Foster, 2023).

Evidence strongly supports the idea that consumers need more than financial knowledge to ensure their financial well-being (see, for example, Lee et al., 2020). They also require a facilitating environment that includes protections. Government entities at the federal, state, and local levels play a significant role in safeguarding consumers from unfair, predatory, and deceptive products and services. At the federal level, Congress enacts laws and statutes that establish the framework for consumer protection, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Federal Trade Commission, n.d.). Federal regulatory agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), are responsible for creating and enforcing consumer protection laws and regulating specific industries to ensure consumer safety. While several agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), oversee financial products and services, the CFPB primarily handles regulation in this domain. Consequently, the CFPB has the potential to pursue policy goals through its regulatory powers to expand financial access, particularly for financially vulnerable populations. However, few studies have been published that examine the extent to which the CFPB has pursued such policy goals to create a facilitating environment for financial access.

This study aims to address the existing literature gap regarding the extent to which the CFPB has utilized its authority to pursue policy goals to expand financial access to financially vulnerable populations. It builds on previous research on Congress’s policy goals related to basic bank accounts (Birkenmaier & Janssen, 2021). The analysis focuses on the CFPB’s proposed and final rules to assess the degree to which policy solutions proposed by scholars and policymakers to reduce or eliminate financial exclusion related to financial access are pursued. This paper systematically examines CFPB rules-making activity, providing insights for future policy and regulatory efforts in pursuit of policy solutions.

Background

Government Policy and Financial Access

The causes of the problem of a lack of universal financial access are multi-faceted, including systemic factors rooted in government policy. All financial products and services needed for financial access are provided within a financial marketplace wherein financial institutions have wide latitude within government policy to create products and services with their chosen attributes. At the most basic level of financial access, consumers’ ability to own and use affordable savings and checking accounts from retail banks and credit unions are shaped by the competitive marketplace, bank profit mandate, and government regulations (Birkenmaier et al., 2021). This combination of marketplace, profit motive, and government regulations has fallen short of achieving the goal of universal financial access. For example, ownership of basic affordable accounts for everyone has not been achieved; only roughly half of all US bank branches offer a certified low-cost account (CFEF, 2023). In another example, only 67% of private industry workers had access to employer-provided retirement plans in 2020 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). About 77% of US consumers had a credit card in 2022 (Green & Shy, 2022).

Beyond simply owning a financial product or use of a service, a second aspect of financial access involves consumer protection on the financial products and services to ensure that they are beneficial and affordable. The framework of consumer protection relates to ensuring fair and transparent practices, promoting consumer rights, and mitigating potential harm. The tenants of the framework include disclosure to the consumer, fair and transparent practices, non-discrimination, consumer privacy and data protection, dispute resolution between consumer and company, responsible lending and borrowing, and consumer education and awareness (CFPB, 2017a; OECD, 2022). Despite federal and state laws that provide a network of consumer protections for financial products, consumer protections problems persist. The most common consumer protection complaints are about problems with credit and consumer reporting, debt collection, credit cards, checking or savings accounts, and money service fraud or scams (CFPB, 2022a). Unexpected and high fees for a range of products, including bank accounts and money transfers (“remittances”), concern lower-income populations and decrease their trust in mainstream financial institutions (Americans for Financial Reform, 2021; Collins et al., 2022; Warren et al., 2022). Non-bank products and services from AFSPs, including payday and auto loans, prepaid products, and others, have historically offered fewer consumer protections and enforcement and carry more risk than products from bank sources that have higher regulation and oversight (CFPB, 2017b, 2022b).

CFPB Is a Prominent Actor in Effort to Increase Financial Access

Consumer protection is typically established and enforced by regulatory bodies, including banking regulators, securities commissions, and insurance authorities. Federal bank regulators (i.e., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve Bank, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) ensure that financial institutions are safe and sound, and have some oversight of financial products and services offered by them. States also have an important role in consumer protection by passing legislation, and creating and enforcing regulations that govern various aspects of the financial industry within the state (e.g., interest rate caps, limiting fees and charges, and debt collection practices).

The CFPB plays a prominent role in the consumer protection area due to its broad authority over financial products and services. It is one of the youngest federal agencies, as it was created in the wake of the housing market crash and Great Recession of 2008 in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010. The agency was designed to consolidate various consumer financial protection authorities existing across several federal agencies to increase accountability and efficiency and increase protections for consumers. The agency operates independently within the Federal Reserve System and is funded outside of the regular congressional appropriations process, ensuring independence from political influence. It has three main objectives; first, to ensure consumer financial markets work for all involved players—consumers, responsible providers, and the US economy; second, to protect consumers from “unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices” (para. 1) by taking legal action against companies that violate the law; and third, to provide consumers with the necessary information, activities, and tools to make beneficial financial decisions within the financial marketplace (CFPB, n.d.a.).

The CFPB regulates the practices, disclosures, billing practices, interest rates, fees, and consumer protections for a wide range of products and services offered by diverse financial institutions. Some of the key areas under its authority include the mortgage industry, the credit card industry, consumer loans, the debt collection industry, prepaid products and digital payments, credit reporting, and banking services (CFPB, 2023a).

To fulfill its consumer protection agenda, the CFPB employs several mechanisms, including issuing studies (CFPB, 2022a), policy statements (CFPB, 2023a), and exercising enforcement powers, such as issuing fines (CFPB, n.d.b.). CFPB applies pressure to financial institutions by calling attention to problems and promoting innovation and competition (CFPB, 2022d), and offering mechanisms to encourage innovation (CFPB, n.d.e.). One powerful mechanism for carrying out these agendas is its regulatory function. The CFPB implements and enforces federal consumer financial laws to “ensure that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial services that are fair, transparent, and competitive” (CFPB, n.d.d., para 1). Its rulemaking process typically involves conducting research, considering public input, assessing the benefits and costs of rules under consideration, and publishing proposed rules to gain feedback from consumers and other stakeholders. The CFPB gathers public input through field hearings, consumer and industry roundtables, advisory bodies, review panels, and comment periods on proposed rules to gather input from stakeholders. A finalized rule is binding and enforceable (CFPB, n.d.c.).

The CFPB creates new rules, amends current rules, or repeals all or portions of rules as a result of Congress passing legislation that requires it’s action, or on its own authority. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB can propose and issue new rules even in the absence of a specific mandate from Congress. Drawing from its research and analysis, the CFPB can proactively propose new rules to address emerging issues, fill regulatory gaps, or enhance consumer protection, without waiting for Congress to pass specific legislation (CFPB, n.d.d.). The CFPB provides the public with an opportunity to submit input on potential new rules or provide feedback on current rules through a petition process as mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act (CFPB, n.d.d.). Once a rule is implemented, the CFPB provides support and resources to help stakeholders understand and comply with the rule (CFPB, n.d.d.).

Framework for Federal Regulatory Agencies Policy Decision-Making

Although CFPB, like other federal agencies, has latitude in proposing and making policy through its regulatory role, there are two prominent external influences that hold strong potential to shape its actions. First, the President, Congress, and the court system each have unique ability to take action to influence final regulations, so federal agencies must take into account the potential for politics and the legal system to alter regulations (Meister, 2010). In its regulatory policy decisions, the CFPB may be internally influenced by the agendas of the political parties in power in Congress and/or the Presidency, as well as related recent court decisions and pending cases. Second, a prominent criticism of regulatory agencies is that they are influenced by the industries that they regulate such that their decisions tend to advance or protect industry interests and neglect the public interest (Quirk, 2014). Regulated industries are often powerful and dominant policy forces, and can deflect regulation efforts through their influence. The CFPB may also be persuaded by the powerful financial services industry to promote its mission to support a functioning marketplace for consumers more strongly than its consumer protection mission.

Policy Suggestions to Increase Financial Access

Scholars and government actors have proposed a variety of policy solutions aimed to reduce issues with financial access. At the broad level, expanding the range of institutions that offer basic financial products and service, such as the US Post Office (Baradaran, 2014; Servon, 2017), Federal Reserve Bank (Ricks et al., 2020), and community development financial institutions (Birkenmaier, 2018) could increase the availability of low-cost basic bank accounts. A related idea is to increase the number of bank branches in underserved communities, making them more convenient than AFSPs, and ensuring that consumers have easy access to accounts, consumer loans, and other bank products (Friedline et al., 2019).

Policy solutions related to federal regulations include measures to enhance the availability of affordable accounts through rules specifically targeting bank accounts. For example, regulators could require the availability of a low-cost account certified by a third-party organization, such as the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund (CFEF, 2023). Requiring standardized, easily accessible account attribute information (e.g., minimum balances, overdraft fees) on websites would also facilitate comparative shopping (Birkenmaier et al., 2022). Another policy solution involves increasing regulation, oversight, and enforcement of AFSP and/or their products and services, such as payday and auto title loans, to reduce consumer risk. Strengthening regulation and enforcement in areas such as credit and consumer reporting, debt collection, credit cards, and money service fraud or scams would address consumer complaints (CFPB, 2022a). Attention to financially vulnerable populations in these policy efforts, such as low-income and racially minoritized communities, would assist to decrease the gap in financial vulnerability between the groups and the general public.

Study Justification and Research Questions

To date, analysis of the CFPB rules is missing in the academic literature. This study seeks to fill this knowledge gap. Policy advocacy groups on this topic may find this information useful for their advocacy agendas. This study explored the following research questions: (1) What policy goals have been pursued by the CFPB through 2023 related to basic financial products and services in proposed and final rules?; (2) What financial products and services have been the subject of proposed or final rules?; (3) What financial product and service providers have been the subject of proposed or final rules?; (4) What populations have been targeted by proposed or final rules?; and (5) To what extent has the CFPB used its authority to propose new rules independent of a Congressional mandate toward increasing financial access for the most financially vulnerable populations?

Methods

This project used policy mapping, a research method that applies the technique of content analysis to proposed or enacted policies. Content analysis involves systematically examining the content and meaning of text or other forms of communication (Bowen et al., 2022). The method entails eights steps: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify a data source; (3) specify policy inclusion and exclusion criteria; (4) develop categories and processes for coding; (5) build a data set; (6) code policies; (7) analyze coded data; and (8) synthesize and disseminate results (Bowen et al., 2022).

Study data were collected from the CFPB website search engine for agency documents, including proposed rules, from the beginning of the agency in 2011 through February 1, 2023. Documents were included if they were tagged as relevant to at least one of the following 14 categories that relate to financial access and/or any specific population: consumer protection, credit, banks/banking, electronic funds transfer, marital status discrimination, aged, freedom of information, religious discrimination, sex discrimination, equal access to justice, individuals with disabilities, truth in savings, blind, and women.

Data for 1080 documents were downloaded into a spreadsheet. There were two rounds of exclusion. In the first, 839 documents were excluded that were not proposed or final rules related to these categories. These excluded documents included agency reports, circulars, definition of terms, interpretive rules, notices of public meetings, and announcements. After this exclusion round, the dataset included 221 documents categorized as consumer protection, and 20 additional documents categorized in at least one other included category, for a total of 241 documents. In the second round of exclusion, documents were excluded that did not relate to financial access of basic products and services. The inclusion categories were bank accounts, credit cards, debt collection, remittances, any type of short-term consumer loan (e.g., auto loans and payday loans) or other AFSP, credit reports, and retirement products. Table 1 displays the exclusion categories and the total excluded for each category. After two rounds of exclusion, there were 38 documents remaining in the dataset.

Table 1 Excluded documents
Full size table

Coding Categories

Following the example of Bowen and Irish (2019), the researchers established categories and a codebook prior to beginning coding (Purtle & Lewis, 2019). The codebook included basic information about the documents, including the type of document, catalyst for the proposed change, entity regulated, product or service regulated, and any populations specifically mentioned. Researchers also coded whether the rule was paired with another rule (i.e., the same rule in a proposed and final rule form), and whether the rule altered a previous rule (i.e., rescinded or modified).

For policy goals and illustrative mechanisms for each goal, the researchers began coding based on the following policy goals using their review of the financial access literature: (1) expand access to bank accounts; (2) expand type of institution offering basic products or services; (3) expand access in underserved communities; (4) increase consumer protection; and (5) expand CFPB supervision (to enforce protections). The codes were not mutually exclusive, and there was no maximum number of codes for each rule. New policy goals were added as needed, and policy goals were edited and combined during the process of coding. Focal populations were coded based on any target population named in the proposed or final rule.

Coding Process

Two researchers independently coded the basic information, policy goals, and illustrative mechanisms related to the policy goals. Researchers coded based solely on the rule summary when possible, and used content from throughout the document related to policy goals and illustrative mechanisms when necessary to fully understand the information needed for coding. Content from all or part of a rule related to the coding categories was coded as needed. The researchers met to review codes after independently coding about 10–15% of the documents, and developed new codes as needed. The researchers had several rounds of independent coding, meeting to compare codes and add new codes, and editing and combining codes as needed. Coding discrepancies were resolved through collaboratively reviewing the document text, and discussion between the researchers to reach consensus (Krippendorff, 2018). Many discrepancies involved a coder’s lack of experience with the regulation process or with a particular product or process named in the rule, or misreading or misinterpreting text sections. The researchers coded text for provisions that could directly or indirectly support a policy goal or illustrative mechanism. Inter-coder agreement (Cohen’s Kappa Statistic) was not calculated for the basic information because interpretation was not necessary. It was also not calculated for the policy goals and illustrative mechanisms as they were continually redefined through an iterative process throughout the entire coding process through a consensus process. Proposed and final rules were paired when identified as a pair. They were coded separately first, then combined as one document in the analysis.

Results

As seen in Table 2, 14 pairs of 28 rules (58%) and 10 unique rules (42%) were included for a total of 38 individual rules, and 24 unique rules. The preponderance of the rules were final rules (46%) and final rules with official interpretation (46%). The majority (67%) of the proposed final rules were initiated and finalized independent of a direct Congressional mandate; instead, they were CFPB-initiated changes. The most common target of the rule were remittance senders (21%), followed by debt collectors (17%). Nonbanks, credit card issuers, prepaid product providers, banks, lenders, providers with arbitration agreements, and consumer reporting companies were also the focus of rules. The most common products targeted by new rules was remittances (21%), all products (17%), and debt collection (17%). Only three rules mentioned specific populations (i.e., consumers 21 and older, residents of American Samoa, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam who bank, and victims of human trafficking). A total of 21% of the rules modified previous rules.

Table 2 Basic characteristics of CFPB rules and regulations related to financial access, 2011–2023 (N = 24)
Full size table

Table 3 summarizes the coding of five policy goals, 13 illustrative mechanisms of the goals, and example regulatory language for the 24 rules. Twelve rules promoted the policy goal of increasing consumer protections. There were seven illustrative mechanisms found in the dataset for that policy goal, including “define larger participants in a market” (i.e., defining actors in a specific market that are subject to CFPB oversight or regulation), “comprehensive consumer protections for a product,” “establishing a new consumer right,” “and “restricting communication and requiring additional disclosure.” For example, the Prohibition on Inclusion of Adverse Information in Consumer Reporting in Cases of Human Trafficking (Regulation V) established the right for a victim of human trafficking to submit documentation of their experience to consumer reporting agencies to dispute adverse items on the credit report, and prohibits the agencies from including that information on their report. The next most common policy goal was “promote functioning of the financial marketplace” with nine rules pursuing that goal, and three illustrative mechanisms, including “reducing coverage of regulation or rescind or revoke regulation,” “lower requirement of disclosure of taxes and fees,” and “lower barriers to a product or service.” This goal tended to decrease consumer protections. For example, the Payday, Vehicle Title and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans rule revoked provisions that would have required lenders of a covered short-term or longer-term balloon payment to determine that the consumer reasonably have the ability to pay the loan.

Table 3 Policy goals, illustrative mechanisms, and example regulatory language (n = 24 unique items)
Full size table

Expanding access in underserved communities was a policy goal pursued by one rule, paired with the illustrative mechanism of “expand who and activity covered by a regulation to promote access to vulnerable populations.” The Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks (Regulation CC) was amended to include extending coverage of the EFA Act to banks in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. This extension of the Act required banks in those communities to adhere to consumer-friendly rules related to funds availability, payment of interest, and customer disclosures. The policy goal of “oversight of nonbank entities” was pursued by one rule (illustrative mechanism: “expand CFPB supervision to nonbank entities and products”). The Procedural Rule to Establish Supervisory Authority Over Certain Nonbank Covered Persons Based on Risk Determination authorized the CFPB to supervise a “nonbank person” engaged in conduct risky to consumers related to financial products and services. COVID-19 pandemic-related consumer protection was a policy goal paired with the illustrative mechanism of “additional consumer disclosure.” The Debt Collection Practices in Connection with the Global COVID-19 Pandemic (Regulation F) rule addressed certain debt collector conduct associated with an eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Rules independently initiated by CFPB are summarized in Table 4, including the policy goals, illustrative mechanisms, institution targeted, and product targeted. These 16 rules were amendments to or rescinding provisions of previously existing rules, and represent the CFPB’s independent pursuit of policy goals. The promotion of the functioning of the financial marketplace and increasing consumer protection were the most common policy goals independently pursued by the CFPB (each 44%). Among the associated illustrative mechanisms for functioning of the financial marketplace, reducing coverage of a rule or rescinding or revoking a rule was the most common (25%). COVID-19 related consumer disclosure and expanding access in underserved communities was each pursued by one rule. The most common target of rules was remittance senders (25%) and debt collectors (19%), banks and other financial institutions, and lenders and prepaid product providers (each 13%). The most common product targeted was remittances (25%), followed by debt collection (19%), bank accounts, loans with balloon payments, and prepaid products (each 13%).

Table 4 Characteristics of rules independently initiated by CFPB (n = 16)
Full size table

Discussion

This study provides findings from the first comprehensive analysis of the basic characteristics, policy goals, illustrative mechanisms, and independent regulatory actions taken by the CFPB between 2011 and 2023. The 24 proposed and final rules examined in this study are focused on basic financial access products and services, including remittances, debt collection, bank accounts, consumer loans, prepaid products, auto loans, and credit cards. The findings suggest that, in response to Congressional mandates and independent action, the CFPB has pursued the policy goal of increasing consumer protection most fervently followed by promoting the functioning of the financial marketplace. Additionally, the policy goals of expanding access in underserved communities, oversight of nonbank entities, and providing COVID-19 pandemic-related consumer protection were pursued less fervently. Similar results were found regarding independently initiated rules by the CFPB, with an even number focused on promoting the functioning of the financial marketplace and promoting increasing consumer protection. The most common financial products targeted by the new rules were remittances, followed by all products and debt collection. The most commonly targeted providers targeted were remittance senders and debt collectors. Independently of Congress, the CFPB has been most particularly responsive to consumer complaints about money service fraud and scams and debt collection, and to a lesser extent, bank accounts and credit cards. Regarding policy goals, these results suggest that the CFPB has maintained a balanced approach to its policy goals by pursuing both a functioning financial marketplace and consumers protection.

While the CFPB has taken independent steps to address the most prominent consumer complaints about remittances, debt collection practices, prepaid accounts, and some AFPS and non-bank products, results suggest some key areas that remain unaddressed. First, the consumer complaint of unexpected and high fees associated with bank accounts, a key issue for the unbanked (FDIC, 2022) as well as consumers at large (CFPB, 2023b), remains unaddressed by rules. The challenge of fees is significant to consumers to remain banked; for example, approximately a quarter of consumers live in a household that was charged an overdraft fee (i.e., fee charged when a financial institution covers a transaction for which a withdrawal, payment, debit, or transfer is for an amount greater than the available funds in their account) or non-sufficient funds (i.e., when the financial institution does not cover the transaction) between 2022 and 2023 (CFPB, 2023b). Other high fees, such as account minimum balance fees, monthly maintenance fees, and others, can also challenge their desire or ability to remain banked. While a recent analysis of larger banks and credit unions indicates that many institutions have reduced or eliminated overdraft/NSF fees, the problem persists (CFPB, 2023c). Realization of the policy goal of protection against unexpected and high fees is critical for basic financial access for all.

A second area that remains unaddressed is the problem of weak consumer protections for nonbank products and services offered by AFSP. These products and services continue to offer fewer consumer protections and enforcement and carry more risk than products from bank sources that have higher regulation and oversight, even with the CFPB’s rules concerning various types of short-term consumer loans. For instance, the rapid growth of loans known as “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) requires consumer protection rules to apply to all of these types of products to address this emerging trend (Soni, 2023). Another example is employer loans (“Training Repayment Agreement Provisions” or TRAPS), in which workers become indebted to their employers for training costs (Pierce & Goldstein, 2021). A third area that requires regulatory attention relates to financially vulnerable populations. Despite Congress mandating specific units and offices dedicated to underserved communities, service members, and older Americans (CFPB, 2022c), results suggest limited action to protect the most financially vulnerable populations. For instance, Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and immigrant communities were disproportionately affected by the economic impacts of COVID-19, and instead of further protecting consumers, the CFPB retreated by rescinding requirements that lenders consider borrowers’ ability to repay loans (Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain Host-Cost Installment Loans, passed in 2020) due to a court-order, and has not followed through on rules for closer supervision of credit reporting during disasters (Cordray et al., 2020). Taking future action to protect these populations in its rulemaking activities could serve to expand financial access (Thompson, 2021).

Although this study does not directly examine whether federal agencies are influenced by external forces in their regulatory work, the findings are consistent with the notion that the CFPB considers them in its work. While a large focus of its regulatory work pursued consumer protection, its independent work equally pursued both consumer protection and the functioning of the financial marketplace, suggesting a balancing of agendas in its independent work that may respond to political and other forces (Meister, 2010). This balance may be especially important, given the strong influence of the financial services industry in the US economy, which is worth about $3.59 trillion, and is one of the largest industries in the USA (McCain, 2023). The CFPB also works within a political climate wherein its autonomy and independent funding source is occasionally highlighted and questioned in Congress (Haendler & Heimer, 2021; U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urbank Affairs, 2020). As policy actors advocate for CFPB action on specific regulations, they can strategize about their advocacy actions considering the balance that the agency has taken in its past independent regulatory action. They may, for example, adjust the timing of their advocacy work to expect and adjust the balance of policy goals exhibited in the past.

Moving forward, when feasible, the CFPB could use its independent authority more often in several key areas toward the policy goal of increasing financial access for the most financially vulnerable populations. The CFPB is well situated to react to market behavior, Congressional legislation, and current law, but may enjoy less freedom to proactively take regulatory action at certain time periods. To maximize its effectiveness, the CFPB can strive to utilize more of its independent regulatory authority to address outstanding key issues when political conditions are favorable for consumer protections, while continuing to influence financial access through its activities that sway the behavior of financial institutions regarding their products and services.

Limitations

This study’s findings should be considered in light of its limitations. First, this study omits investigation of influences on policy goals resulting from other activities in which CFPB engages. The CFPB issues advisory opinions, policy statements, agency reports, circulars, definition of terms and other documents, as well as engages in enforcement activities with financial institutions that have broken the law, all of which influences product and service decisions at financial institutions (Garcia, 2020). For example, together with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the CFPB levied $150 million in fines against Bank of America because they charged “junk fees” and mishandled customer accounts (Flitter, 2023). However, with the exception of the enforcement activities, the other activities do not carry the force of law, as rules do. Second, in an effort to focus on the most basic financial access products and services, the dataset did not include rules relating to some products that could be considered part of financial access, including mortgages, student loans, and small business loans. Relevant rules may have been missed that had an indirect effect on bank accounts, credit cards, prepaid products, and other products included in this study. Third, the nature of the regulatory process related to policy goals and illustrative mechanisms deserves a closer examination in future research. For example, future studies could analyze the potential influence of public comments on changes made between proposed and final rules. Fourth, the analysis focused on the sheer number of rules, rather than scope of the rules. It is possible, for example, that the CFPB has had a stronger influence on consumer protection through its independent rules than reflected by the number of rules pursuing that policy goal. Last, future research in this area should include more contextual factors, including the dominant political party within Congress and in the executive branch related to the timing of proposed and final rules (Thompson, 2021).

Conclusion

Rules finalized by the CFPB since its inception address some of the key financial access challenges identified by Congress, internally via research and consumer outreach, and other sources. Results of this study suggest that many issues remain unaddressed or only partially addressed. The CFPB could further exercise its independent rule-making authority to address financial access issues, particularly for financially vulnerable populations. Advocates have called for increasing the strength of the voices of affected consumers and consumer advocates within advisory and feedback mechanisms to ensure that the interests of the most financially vulnerable populations are fully considered (Thompson, 2021). Beyond regulation, more research is needed on the impact of the full scope of CFPB activity for a complete picture of the influence of CFPB’s work to protect consumers.