Staff Reports
Enova’s surprise decision to withdraw its bank‑related applications tied to the Grasshopper Bank deal is a warning shot. Regulators, activists, state attorneys general, and a handful of senators turned a routine review into a political battlefield. The result: one less potential source of banking services for Americans who already struggle to find basic accounts and loans.
The direct hit: Enova walks away
Enova said it pulled its filings with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve after a bruising review marked by intense public pressure. The proposed acquisition of Grasshopper Bank was a multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar deal tied to Enova’s move toward a bank charter, and the company blamed unclear rules for nonbank‑to‑bank transitions plus “political pressure” for its withdrawal. That should alarm anyone who cares about clearer rules, not just who wins partisan fights.
How the public‑comment process was turned into a political tool
Who pushed back and how they did it
State attorneys general, consumer groups, and high‑profile senators used the regulators’ notice‑and‑comment and public‑file systems to press for denials, hearings, and delays. The result was a voluminous record of objections that regulators had to consider. Call it civic engagement or call it a coordinated pressure campaign — either way, it showed how easy it is to weaponize administrative procedures to stop a market entrant without an open courtroom or new law.
Why this matters for banking access and “banking deserts”
Fintechs and new bank charters have been filling gaps left by branch closures. The FDIC found millions of households remain unbanked or underbanked, and nontraditional providers helped reduce that number in recent years. When activists and politicians successfully block charters, the tradeoff is real people losing new options for checking accounts, small loans, and credit. If regulators treat every comment as a political grenade, communities in banking deserts pay the price.
Fix the rules — stop the political theater
If the goal is good policy, Congress and the regulators must stop letting review windows become a substitute for legislation. The OCC and the Fed should publish clear standards for nonbank conversions and merger approvals so applicants know what to expect. Regulators also need procedures that distinguish legitimate consumer‑protection concerns from delay tactics. Consumers deserve both protection and access — not another arena where political theater decides economic outcomes.
