Hello, and welcome to the Votes in Verdicts podcast hosted by the litigation and policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the investment research platform of Bloomberg LP. Bloomberg Intelligence has five hundred analysts and strategists working across the globe and focused on all major markets. Our coverage includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have outlooks on more than ninety industries and one hundred market indices, currencies and commodities.
This podcast series examines the intersection of business policy and law. I'm Elliott Stein, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence covering financials litigation, and.
My name is Nathan Dean, and I'm an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence covering financials policy.
We are delighted today to have our guest Kathy Kraininger, CEO of the Florida Bankers Association. Prior to that role, she was VP of Regulatory Affairs for Solidus Labs, where she built the fintech Startups global policy and engagement strategy, and before that, she was Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, better known as the CFPB from twenty eighteen
to twenty twenty one. Previous government service has also included being an Associate Director in the Office of Management and Budget the OMB from twenty seventeen to twenty eighteen, serving in the Peace Corps in Ukraine from nineteen ninety seven to nineteen ninety eight, and in turning for Representative Shared Brown, who is now, of course, a US Senator from Ohio. So with all that, Kathy Kraminger, welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast.
Thank you so much, Elliott Nathan. Fantastic to be with you today.
So our first question that we ask of all our guests is about their history. You know, I just mentioned the highlights of your official bio. It's obviously very impressive, but we'd love to know a little bit more about how you got to where you are, what took you into government service, and more recently, what took you to the Florida Bankers Association.
Yea happy, happy to give you a bit of the rundown of that circuitous route that I took, largely through government service, and it really came from a love of policy and a love of Washington, d C. I'll say these days that sounds very naive and nice, I guess quaint, but I really always loved Washington and I said, you know, if I could work in the US capital, if I could work for the American people and do good for.
The country, you know, that's all worthwhile.
And so I feel very blessed that I had that career. I went to Washington, d C. Following my Peace Corps service, as you mentioned, and worked at the Department of Transportation. Had a fantastic really first boss in a full time role forgetting my internship, but working for Secretary Normanetta, who was the Democrat in in the Bush cabinet, and nine to eleven, of course happened. It changed everything that we
were working on. One day we're talking about whether and how Mexican trucks should enter the United States, and the next day we're talking about, you know, obviously how planes fly into buildings, and what we need to do to further secure aviation and all transportation and immigration borders. You know, the rest of it is now history with the stand up of DHS that I was involved in in TSA. So I really do feel very blessed to have been engaged in really what were the big public policy issues
at the time and looking to solve them. Moving through homeland security and a lot of the things that I worked on there, including infrastructure protection and cyber and disaster response. Of course, we had major hurricanes we responded to also over the last two decades that I had a role
at least in the policy and funding side on. But a lot of that got me introduced into and actually financial crime enforcement too, got me introduced into financial services and the conversations that were happening there.
Certainly the financial crisis and the creation of the.
CFPB, A lot of that came out of that. And so as you look at moving into my time in the Trump administration, when I was at OMB, I was involved with the Economic Policy team from that vantage point, talking about housing finance, talking about where we should go on a lot of exciting regulatory reform arenas. We had the opportunity in that administration to replace the CFPB director, and you can imagine that as the President was looking around and there are a lot of things that he
likes to do that are going to surprise people. There were Republicans who basically said the agency should not exist, and they would go into.
To really neuter it, I suppose you could say, in a nice way, uh.
And then on the other side, it was you know, who's going to run the agency. It has a legal responsibility. You know, we want to you know, surprise people and put in a Republican that is going to govern and follow the law.
And so that is how my nomination came to be.
And that was my you know, last service in government and leaving the CFPB, I had the chance to say, you know, I want I want to help start building, build a business, understand what was happening internationally, which is how I ended up at Solidus Labs. And then I also said, you know, it wasn't scaling fast enough. I also have a lot of my history in you know, how do we build an organization, how do we scale,
how do we take things to the next level. And so I still am a huge supporter of that company and and you know, want to see them do well and excited to see progress in the regulation of the crypto markets. It was a great opportunity to come to Florida, really and it was part of my decision making process too, to say am I going to be in Washington for the rest of my life or am I going to go venture out?
So I did, in fact do that.
In taking this job, but I'm following a long time CEO, So twenty six years Alex Sanchez was here in Florida and really looking at the changes that have been happening for the banking industry, and that the opportunity to remind people, frankly, why banks are so important in their communities and putting customers and communities first and foremost in terms of how we talk about the real impact of the policy process on these institutions. It's not about the impact on the banks themselves.
It's how that.
Changes the services and products and support that banks can give to their communities and to their customers. So being at the forefront of that is definitely where we are as FBA and as really associations represent bankers.
So you talked about how much you love Washington as we currently film this or it's currently ninety seven degrees with thunderstorms. So I would love to talk about your time in Florida because that's where I wish I was right now. So you know, as you have been at the Florida Bankers Association, what are the highest priorities for you in the organization that you see over the next year.
So, certainly the regulatory environment is huge. We are seeing what is aptly called the tsunami of regulatory changes coming out of every agency in Washington, and frankly a trend that is migrating into the States too, as the States are taking you know, political postures and saying, you know, is this the industry that we want to see or
is this how we want to see business operate? So those dynamics are real, and as I said before, that impacts communities, That impacts real people, That impacts the type of credit products and support and risks that banks can take when they know their communities and know their customers, but they have to justify that to regulators, and those regulators are looking for a standard credit box and saying, you know, afterward, you know that Monday morning quarterback role
is always a much nicer place to be to come in afterwards and say like, well, how did you approve this? But not approve that? And that's the role we're in in many respects. We're turning banking into a commodity and turning it into, you know, something that is cookie cutter or a utility, and that is definitely not what made these institutions really serve their communities and help small businesses.
So I think that that whole.
Regulatory environment and the conversation and pushback you're seeing is fundamentally about what community support should look like. So that's issue number one by far. I'd say the second one is also the next generation. We are very much pushing for making sure that people understand.
What opportunities there are in banking.
And helping, you know, shape that as an opportunity for people, particularly as I said, in Florida, and there's there are a lot of things happening in Florida that are positive for sure.
Well, Elliott and I both came up out of the banking world, so we will join you and say that if anybody's listening, join the banks. Don't go to tech or healthcare or anything. You know, we love the banks too. So I'd like to talk a little bit about the Basle three endgame. You know, this is a Federal Reserve ftic OCC proposal which under the proposed language, could increase capital requirements for the regional banks around five to six percent, the g SIPs, the Bank of Americas, the JP, Morgan's
and so forth, the up to nineteen percent. We've seen reporting that the FED is going to have broad and material changes and that these overall capital requirements are coming down. But one of the things that I've also been very struck as we go through this process is that there's been a lot of outreach for from community banks and from small banks and small businesses on why the Bosle three endgame would ultimately hurt them. So does Florida? Does
the Florida Bankers Association stand anywhere on the proposal? And if so, should the proposal drastically changing? If you know, should there even be a reproposal at this point?
So I will say yes, absolutely, it is. Basle three endgame is part of that. And I think one of the things that I've been most encouraged by in terms of the way the associations in Washington at the state level have approached this. We have the US Chamber, State Chambers to the Florida Chamber and local chambers of commerce that are right there with us fighting on on Basle
three endgame. And you've got you know, I can't remember, frankly, if it was a Super Bowl I tend to like to fact check, but I think it was a Super Bowl commercial frankly out puzzile free endgame. So you get to what is a very arcane regulatory capital requirement note as you noted, and mixing it with that, so it has reached common vernacular and understanding that this is not just about how much capital the banks have to hold.
It is about what really that lending environment looks like and what impact that has again on businesses of all sizes and their ability of these institutions to support and serve them, which means it has an impact on employment, it has an impact on the economy.
We just saw a.
I think it was PwC, but a study that was just done in the last couple of days on exactly this, saying, look, this is this regulation, if it were implemented, would have a massive impact on the economy and on GDP in fact, so you get to things that just don't make sense fundamentally.
So yes, we're opposed to it as it was proposed and think there is a better way to go about this, And in fact, it sounds like with all of the pushback that particularly the Federal Reserve has been, you know, leading the charge on this and thinking about it.
Though it is a.
Multi agency banking regulation, there are going to be pretty significant changes to it, and that means it's going to have to be a reproposal, and it also sounds like they're slowing things down a little bit in terms of not rushing this next iteration out. So I would say I am personally at least hopeful that this gets to a better place.
So, you know, assuming the rule gets watered down once finalized, whether it's you know, via a reproposal or a finalization of the current proposal, but assuming it gets watered down, do you think there's any chance that it gets watered down so much that that industry doesn't sue the government over it, or do you think, you know litigation is inevitable.
Well, you know, I certainly wouldn't want to opine on that a bitter early to do that. I do think there's going to be a reproposal. All directions seem to point to that. So giving them that opportunity to say, yes, there are enough changes from that last proposal that it's worth going to comment again. I'm guessing your listeners tend to know that process, but it is an important one because if you change enough, you can't go final and so there is a much longer tail now on when
that can be finalized and another comment period. So I see all of that as definitely positive and would say we should reserve judgment on litigation.
It's not and you both know this too.
It is not an easy decision to decide to litigate and sue your regulator and your primary regulator. It's not something that the banking industry has tended to do very frequently. And I will say in the last two years you see a lot, or the last three years, you see a lot of it, and I think with good reason.
Like you know, we've talked about this on this podcast many times, so we're sort of in this perfect storm right now where you have very aggressive value and at least a federal judiciary who is, you know, skeptical of government overreached. So thus the many lawsuits, speaking of which I want to ask you a little bit about your time at the CFPB, where you were director from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty one. You were there as the sale of law case was won in through the courts
and eventually reached the Supreme Court. And for those who don't know or don't remember, the issue in sale a law or some pronounced it seal a law, I pronounced it sale a law was whether the president could fire the CFPB director at will or not. The Supreme Court ultimately held in June of twenty twenty that the president could indeed fire the CFPB director at will before the director's five year term ended, and that you know, the
president didn't need cause to remove the CFPB director. And the result, of course, was that the CFPB director then became less independent from the president more aligned with the political priorities of you know, whoever the president was at that time. If I recall, the CFPB originally took the position that the four cause removal restriction in Dodd Frank
was fine, it was constitutional. Under your tenure, the CFPB's position changed, I believe, and in the Supreme Court, the cfb's official position was that the four cause removal restriction was unconstitutional and the president should be able to fire the CFPB director at will. I'd love to know your thoughts, you know, on why you think it's important that the president should be able to fire the CFPB director at will.
It ultimately that decision ultimately wound up in you know, your removal from the agency when President Biden.
Came in, Yes, which is certainly the outcome that we knew was possible. Given a presidential election year, but one that certainly I thought was the right decision.
Look that that four.
Cause terminology is frankly, you look at some of the dynamics happening politically today and you could just eviscerate someone if you want to come up with or debate what the cause truly is and and really tear somebody to shreds. I did not see that as productive. So I would say there are some who argued that there was the ability to remove regardless, but you you'd literally do it by destroying a person's reputation and having perhaps uh you know, some some a lot of different ways to do it
at any rate. So it really came down to was that meaningful or not meaningful in terms of some kind of limitation and if if there needs to be the appointment of a CFPB director, of course that is the purview of the president. So you get to the right to a point, but not the right to remove.
And so it does get.
You know, from a practical standpoint, some of those things were things that we thought about and considered and looking in general at you know, what what exactly makes an independent agency? We could have a lot of conversation about that as a lawyer myself. Whether there are any truly independent agencies and what that actually means and whether that was foreseen in the Constitution at all is also an interesting,
you know, process for lawyers to debate. But my personal belief was that it really.
Did not make any sense.
And as we looked at the law and the history here, as I said, the appointment, the ability to appoint, but not remove the ability or remove for cause, But what does that really mean if you're practically talking about it that in some respects it got to be a distinction without a difference. And I believe too that the president should have the right to actually appoint he was elected by the public. That is not and by our process
with the Electoral College. It's not that agency heads should just be able to live on and operate outside of that elected process. So that's also part of this. But when we looked at really the decision that the CFPP had taken in the past, I get it. The law was passed and signed by democratic You had Democrats in that role and they were looking to uphold that congressional action. We came in with a different posture and perspective on it.
So it the position made sense to me in terms of changing what had been the agency's position based on you know, looking at the Constitution and being a constitutional officer. It was absolutely an odd situation to be sitting there listening to oral arguments inside the Supreme Court when they were talking about my job and my.
Name even came up a few times.
So those things that was that was definitely a surreal experience. And as you noted, it is how you know, the President was able to ask for my resignation and I resigned. In fact, I was very prepared to resign, recognizing that that was what was going to happen. But I do think it the president should have the ability to put the team around him in these agencies or again in the future, around her.
So that that's an important, I think.
Message to send and it and it is definitely the direction that that seems to be going with other agencies too.
I was at that argument as well. And but but I'm wondering, you know, we had, uh, we had Mark Calabria on on this podcast a few weeks ago, who former director of the f HF a similar issue with him, and in fact, you know, he talked about how the case that affected the fh F HF A director was Collins versus Yellen, and he was, you know, uh wait, he was refreshing the Supreme Court website just like I do, you know, waiting for your decision, and he was waiting
for the Collins decision, and ultimately it came out and then he got, you know, asked to resign. But I'm wondering if you think it varies, you know, whether your view changes depending on the agency. I mean, he was of the view that the f hif a director should be should be independent, should not be terminable at will. You know, one of the arguments is that it provides for more continuity in terms of policies. But you know, I was wondering what your thoughts on are on that.
Yeah, I won't I won't get in too much of an argument with Mark over that. He is a good friend and he actually supported his senators in writing the law that created FHFA too, so he felt he certainly felt some affinity to Hara end upholding Congress's purview and setting it up, and so I appreciate where he was.
Coming from on that.
But but I think that you know, you get to if the agency head is the way to maintain consistent policy, I think we're we're talking about other challenges that we have as a society. I frankly think that there is way too much pendulum swinging, you know, in all of these processes. If we are are looking and I don't think it's what the American people want, and it's certainly
not the way I tried to govern. But if you want literally to see things go from from you know, everybody putting one set of policies into place, and then every four years you're literally undoing what the last you know, administration did completely and try to put in your own policies.
That is not going to be good for our economy.
It's not good for business, and it's definitely then therefore not good for the American consumer and American people. So I think there is probably some other things that we should talk about in terms of how you bring stability and consistency of philosophy into how you govern.
I want to ask you about, you know, the most current litigation challenging the CFPB's existence really had to do with how it's funded, because it's not you know, funded out of the normal congressional appropriations process, and its funding comes out of the Federal Reserve. You know, obviously the Supreme Court decided that in May it upheld the current
funding mechanism. But now there's rumblings of new arguments challenging the funding mechanism based on you know, what the term earnings means in Dodd Frank and you know that the funding has to come out of its earnings. But the argument is that because the FED hasn't been profitable since like twenty twenty two, it doesn't have earnings, and you know, there's a dispute as to what that term actually means.
I'm curious your thoughts on this whole issue. Is it time for industry groups to stop challenging the cispb's you know, existence, whether it's in terms of its funding or its constitutional structure. Is it time to move on and focus on other things? Just curious about your thoughts on this.
No, I.
Was also for a good part of my career and appropriation staff or so I'm and working at the Office of Management and Budget on federal budget issues, so it's not an issue that I'm unfamiliar with. I certainly think that the Supreme Court, you know, took a fair look at this, and I can appreciate that people wanted to
raise the issue. Fundamentally, I don't think this is the right way to fund an agency, but that's a policy consideration, that's not a constitutional position that I would take, or even you know, whether it's lawful to fund the agency the way it has been funded. I think that is a you know, if there are other and I have heard the kind of the latest argument as you as you laid it out, Elliott, I've heard it. I don't
know that I find it all that compelling. But at the same time, if that is one that people want to raise and bring to the courts, I would say, in this day and age, it's helpful actually to have the courts opining on some of these issues. So it's it's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do think, you know, it is challenging for the CFPB to be in this position constantly, and and so you know, we know the agency was created, it has a legal mandate
to do certain things. I think it is going far beyond that legal mandate personally in terms of what is happening there. And I've written at least a little bit about that. I tend to be fairly measured so the fact that I'm willing to say what I just did is a demonstration perhaps of where I really.
Think things are.
But it is an important role to be, you know, making sure consumers have information to make the best decisions that there is not you know, that things are fair. There's a deception and abuse in the system in terms of how products and services are sold to consumers. So I do think all of that is fundamentally important, but you really do have to carry that out in a measured way.
It's a fine line between.
Telling to making sure consumers have the right information to make a good decision on their own and limiting what decisions they're actually able to make for themselves, and trying to take all risk out of the process in general, because I think without risk, there's really no life. So how do we balance those things out? Not an easy thing to do, but definitely kind of part of that core you know, thought process for the agency as they look at how they should carry out their mandate.
You know, one of the questions, or I guess one of the theories that I've had over the CFBB is that it's been a very subdued CFBB under director Rohit Chopra until that Supreme Court decision came out. And now that the Supreme Court decision has come up and is upheld the CFPB's funding. My theory is the Director Chopra is going to be jumping at the gun, if you will, trying to pursue a lot of other you know, we've seen talk on overdrafts, credit card late fees, and so
forth like that. I'm curious for your banks, for the Florida banks that are in particular, so the smaller banks. How much of a concern is CFPB compared to other regulators. It's is it something that the banks stay up at night wondering about when that CFPB examiner is coming in? Or is it still just more of a Washington exercise that it hasn't hit the ground yet.
It is, It is definitely a significant concern. I think though if I had to rate it, this CFPB is not at the top of the list. It really is fundamentally the posture that regulators have been taking that does
swing and I don't know that it should. I mean, it's there, are you the empire calling you know, balls and strikes or are you literally looking to make sure that everything that touches the line is identified and therefore blown out or proportion because that's not over the line yet, but it's on the line, and therefore, you know, we should call you out on it and tell you how close you are. Those are the dynamics that I think are being faced now.
It's you all know this too. But for an institution to get.
An MRA or other, you know, let's call it, some some kind of of notice that there might be a potential risk or concern that is.
A big deal in this endy.
And so to have those that, you know, you've got to then follow up of course with your boards, and you've got to take all of the mitigating and remediation actions and report out and it usually has a very long tail to close out those types of examination findings. And so we are in a posture now where if you, as an examiner come in and don't identify something, then you didn't do your job.
So you know, they're they're literally.
Sitting there having to just anything that maybe looks anything at all like something that might potentially sometime in the future be an issue. They need to identify it now. And so that is a different posture that is being taken, and that's not just at this at the CFPB. That's that's really the experience the bankers are having and they're saying, look, where did this become the new standard and how can we possibly meet that?
Yeah, I mean at the agencies, no one wants to be the person who missed made off for who mans FTX or who missed SVB. I have one one more question about your time at the CFPB, Just curious to get your thoughts on you know, what you're proudest about about your time there and if you have any regrets about things you wish you could have gotten accomplished but didn't.
Look certainly, there are so many things that the pandemic intervened on and lives lost and people who suffered quite a bit. So that is that is the one thing that was obviously a massive wild card in my tenure. I had one year and three months prior to that, you know, that shutdown, and so we were really making a lot of progress. I had brought actually all of Washington headquarters into one headquarters building. It was not because I was looking to you know, actually reduce the head
count or anything. It was walking around a building that was brand new and we had spent a ridiculous amount of funding to renovate, and most of the offices were empty because we had a pretty liberal work from home policy, so as you look at just space utilization and efficiency and bringing people into one place, we brought everyone into
one building. We also moved the Southeast headquarters, the Southeast Region headquarters to Atlanta, so it was really closer to its workforce of examiners and it was actually you know, in the Southeast instead of being out of headquarters. And so those two moves were big in terms of again streamlining how we operate and getting everybody in one place
at headquarters. So we had literally in February of twenty twenty, had a little, you know, kind of celebration to get us all aligned in the headquarters building and then pretty much everyone went home.
So I will say I did save quite.
A bit of money from the agency that year because I wasn't paying for two empty buildings, I was only paying for one.
I would wander around.
But that is something in terms of how we were really trying to bring the agency together, really focusing on the four things that I said it were its mission. You know, it's really about preventing harm. So that's that upfront education of consumers and that's doing the right job by regulation and supervision and then when you need to using the enforcement hammer. And so we were really kind of consistent on that drum beat.
So if there were.
Any regret, it's that I didn't get to kind of carry that through forward beyond a one year focus that was really focused on that. But I'm also really proud of the things that we did in responding to the pandemic.
You know, we at the CFPB, we're really in the middle of helping you know, IRS and SBA and Treasury on a lot of the communications issues, particularly as it comes to you know, PPP and looking at trying to counter some of the fraud and again making sure people were getting the benefits that Congress pass asked for them. And so those kinds of things were things that we
did spent a lot of time on. Did a bunch of moratoriums again to make sure that servicers were able to clearly communicate with consumers and they could take actions that were appropriate. And so, you know, all of those things were I think were very positive, but definitely.
Not not what I went in planning to do. For sure.
Well, I will say for any non Washingtonians that are listening. The CFPB headquarters is one of the best locations of all the financial regulators in Washington because they're right next to the White House. They're not over it by Union
Station with the SEC or so forth like that. But I bring up the SEC because I want to talk a little bit about crypto and you know, the SEC in particular has been fairly aggressive in terms of their enforcement actions, and they've taken a position that's a little bit different than the CFTC, for example, in terms of whether bitcoin and maybe ethereum should be securities subject to SEC jurisdiction. And we're wondering on your thoughts on what do you think the SEC should do? Maybe what would
the SEC do under a Trump administration? And has the SEC gotten anything right or wrong? Or should Congress step in and say legislation is needed.
I mean I right now, in terms of the FBA, I can say I'm speaking for myself.
I'm not speaking for.
The FBA as I talk about this topic. I am very excited with the fact that we have a lot of fintech activity and you know, really kind of cutting edge things that are happening in Florida, and so later on in the in the FBA's agenda, we'll definitely be talking more about that, because we do have some banks doing some innovative things, and we do have some banks that are that are working with crypto and thinking about it,
though the regulators are less excited about that. So look, personally, I do think that it is necessary for Congress to step in. I mean, even with the topics we've been talking about, in general, Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities to legislate and therefore leaving the door or open for you executive agencies to go well beyond what their sphere is in regulating. And so I think this is another
example of it. I personally thought, and I still do again, you've got to look at each token or project separately and certainly apply what are the typical at least notwithstanding I have Congress acted, they could change, but what the typical interpretations are of what is a security and what's a commodity. But I tend to think that most of the tokens or commodities, and so the CFDC is a
more natural regulator. But I'd also tell you I spent a lot of my time overseas, talking to regulators across the globe, talking to policymakers across the globe about this topic. And point of fact too, we have too many regulators in the US. We actually have way too many regulators. It is. It is an unusual thing to have two markets regulators, much less to have the number of banking regulators we have and everything else, much less to have a dual system. So we have the system we have
right now. But I do think that is something that eventually is worth looking at because at the end of the day, that's that's creating now perhaps more friction and more challenges for US competitiveness than you know, than it has in the past, when when regulators probably more clearly knew their lanes and when the world was just less complicated. I think that's also the dynamic that you see. But I think it creates it creates a lot of regulatory arbitrage opportunity.
And that's another thing that is happening.
You see playing agencies against each other, which again I don't blame anyone who's doing that, but you start going down that road, and where does that again leave the consumer or the investor or the public.
So would you would you advocate from merging the SEC and the CFTC into one.
I'd say personally, I have seen the merit in those who have argued it. I don't know that I would necessarily argue it yet, but I think it's certainly worth looking at.
Because it's one of our favorite memes on Twitter, you know, where there's like some global problem and someone says, oh, you know this would be solved if the SEC and CFTC had emerged.
Yes, it just that I know it would create other problems too. I mean, frankly, at the end of the day, where you have any seams or gaps, or even where you have things consolidated, there'll be other gaps if that were to happen. But it is certainly something worth looking at.
So you mentioned fintech, and that's one of the things that I love, is one of our emerging themes, just because it's such a broad theme. But you know, for the Florida banks that you're working with, when they are engaging with fintech fintech projects, are they looking for Washington to be a leader in terms of standards or like to tell them how the rules of the game should be played, or is Washington a hindrance for them.
Ah, I would say, I'm you know, I'm seven months on the job, So I don't know that I can answer that definitively on behalf of my membership, But I can tell you my my personal perspective on that. I think it's a it's a it's a little bit of both. I think fundamentally, you know and and every company in this day and age, particularly when you're talking about it or any tech components, when it comes to cyber or
other things, everything's interconnected. You absolutely have to do your due diligence and appropriate you know, risk mitigation when it comes to any third party relationship or service provider. So I mean that that comes first and foremost. But again, the banks already know what that should look like. That's that's absolutely the case. I'll say some of the FinTechs don't, but they if they fast learn if they want to work with banks, they're gonna they're gonna have to figure.
That out pretty quickly too.
So that is that is one area where I don't think you're gonna find much much daylight.
But then when you get to the all.
Right, now, what why are regulators actually dictating what things can and cannot be, you know, partnerships.
There clearly is a bias.
Right now against you know, really any third party relationships. And you get to that point you say, okay, why
why is government making those decisions? You know what basis is there for that, if it is properly managed, the business should be able to make that decision about which things need to be in house and which things can be best done, you know, through a third party relationship and not you know, inherently interfering with that, but it but it is the direction that it seems to be coming out of the regulators is very much more of
you know, we know better. It's a risk you can't mitigate because we've decided it's so significant that you just shouldn't have these third party relationships.
And I don't think that's the right role for them.
So I think in the interest of time, we are gonna wrap up the substance of questions. But we always i'd like to end our podcast episodes with a little fun question, and we asked this of all our guests, and it is, if you were stranded on a desert island, what three pieces of music would you want to take with you? Or have with you, you know, and it could be an album or a song or an artist. We're pretty flexible in the rules here, but we're curious to get your thoughts on that.
No, and trust me, out of all the things we just talked about, I struggled mightily on this question.
I even had to phone a friend.
I've owed my brother, who is one of the people that supplies like all of my music collection always because I have very eclectic taste. And if I had to literally pick three, I don't know what I would do, but I would say one thing is my mother was is I guess I should say, is a big lover of music and musicals, so I love musical theater. I'll say the Angel Lloyd Weber era and having those songs all played through our house.
It's, you know, a whole bunch of you know.
I still listen to that periodically, so it certainly makes me think of her and all of those shows. Billy Joel was at least my first kind of good, you know, quality concert. I think I saw quite a few that I don't even want to admit to now prior to that, but but.
I definitely where that show.
It was in Cleveland, at the old Yeah, exactly, at the old Richfield Coliseum, So that was where where I saw and I've seen him several times since, and there aren't that many people I've seen more than once, So Billy Joel's greatest hits would definitely have to be on that list too. And then the other thing is my my brothers and I getting ready for you know, school in the morning. All of the rap that would come out, just early rap music, and you know, there's there are
just too many. And then you know, Michael Jackson really pop music too in the eighties, so all of that stuff getting ready for school is also brings back fond memories. So I guess that's that's my list, though I'm I I expanded quite a bit on your three.
I think, yeah, yeah, you want you went you went to four. But that's okay. Again, the rules are flexible and it is an eclectic mix, and I think you're the first guest to listen musical theater as as one of your choices, so kudos. No, that's a good list, all right. I think with that we'll wrap up this episode of Votes and Verdicts. We are extremely grateful to
Kathy Craininger for appearing on this episode. As a reminder to our listeners, you can read all of our Bloomberg intelligence research on the Bloomberg terminal at b I Go. Thank you for listening, and have a great day.