Fake statistics have been a central feature of the banking industry's lobbying strategy on every major consumer credit issue since the 2005 bankruptcy amendments. 

In 2005, there was the phantom $400 bankruptcy tax used to push through the BAPCPA.  Then there was the Mortgage Bankers Association's 200 basis point interest rate increase claim about cramdown.  For credit cards, there was no fake statistic, but a pseudo-academic study funded by the American Bankers Association.  (In retrospect, lack of a scare number was a major strategic mistake for the industry.) 

Now we have the latest installment in the parade of phony numbers:  an American Bankers Association-funded study about the likely impact of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) on consumer credit cost and availability and economic growth.  The study is by David Evans of LECG and Joshua Wright of George Mason Law School (Wright may be familiar to some Credit Slips readers from his blog comments in the past). 

There's a lot of tendentious claims in Evans and Wright's study, but the heart of it are some very precise claims as to the impact of the CFPA on the cost of consumer credit (160 basis points), the demand for consumer credit (2.1% decrease), and the net job creation (4.3% slower).

How, you might ask, did anyone possibly arrive at such precise predictions based on legislation that does not create any substantive regulation of the credit industry, but would merely transfer largely existing powers to a new agency? 

The short answer:  just make up the numbers.  I kid you not.  Evans and Wright selectively chose a study on the impact of a different regulation (interstate banking restrictions) on credit cost.  They briefly argue it is analogous to the CFPA Act, which they claim will have double the impact.  (Why double?  Why not?)   Then they take that number and multiply it by an elasticity metric for the demand impact.  And for the coup-de-grace, they take a misleading number on net job creation and conjecture with no basis that it would be reduced by 5%.  These numbers are presented as "plausible, yet conservative" assumptions. 

There's a lot of room for good faith disagreement about methodology, but Evans and Wright's numbers don't come close to passing the straight-faced test.  (Even the Mortgage Bankers Association had some facially plausible basis for their cramdown claim.)  I am still shocked that two serious scholars would attach their names to this study. My short critique of their study is here.