CreditSlips

Now that my last few posts have bludgeoned consumer financial education and at least bloodied disclosure, and given that my suggestion of comprehension requirements is completely untested as a means of consumer protection for financial products, what about “nudges

Given the limitations of Disclosure 2.0 and Disclosure 2.5 I described in my last posts, what is to be done? To answer this question, we might first ask what financial product disclosure is attempting to achieve. Although disclosure has several aims, one is consumer comprehension to the degree necessary to enable good decisions. Disclosure rules require particular information to be imparted, often in a specified format.

Thank you to the Credit Slips team for inviting me to guest blog.  First I must warn the reader that I am not a real blogger (I’m a bit of a Luddite - I don’t even have a smartphone).  But I’m going to join the 21st Century for a bit here.  Over the next couple of weeks I’ll be sharing my thoughts and some recent research pertinent to modes of consumer financial protection, from financial literacy education to policy defaults to product regulation.  As some of you already know, I have been critical of all of these.  But here I will also sug

Some recent moves in the Senate Judiciary Committee should be of interest to bankruptcy specialists.  The committee has approved a new subcommittee to be called "Bankruptcy and the Courts" with Senator Chris Coons of Delaware as the subcommittee chair. The new subcommittee is essentially a name change from the old "Administrative Oversight and the Courts" subcommittee, which also had jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters.

It's with a bit of Schadenfreude that a White Sox fan like me reads about the NY Yankees being straddled with A-Rod's bloated contract. (Remember, A-Rod was one of the largest unsecured creditors of the Texas Rangers.) But I can't help but wonder if there isn't a legal out for the Yankees.