September 26, 2025 • 30 mins
Annmarie Conboy-DePasquale from Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck breaks down crucial policy issues facing credit unions today, from the looming government funding deadline to major legislative wins. We examine the state of play in Washington and highlight recent victories that will impact how credit unions serve their members.
Here's what you need to know:
- Government funding expires September 30th, but a continuing resolution is likely to extend it until mid-November. Without an agreement, a shutdown could occur, with impacts increasing the longer it lasts. The thin margins in both the House and the Senate make bipartisan cooperation essential but challenging.
- Trigger leads legislation was signed into law on September 5th and will take effect on March 5th, 2026
- The Unified Agenda reveals upcoming regulatory actions from CFPB and NCUA. The CFPB plans to revise UDAAP interpretation and issue advanced notices on loan originator compensation.
- The Road to Housing Act was passed unanimously out of the Senate Banking Committee with 28 provisions.• The Housing Act includes measures on housing supply, manufactured housing, appraisal process reform, and small-dollar origination. The bill may be attached to the National Defense Authorization Act to improve passage chances
Don't miss this and more on this edition of the ONpoint Podcast, the Policy Series. Tune in now!
Sponsored by Loan Vision
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed in this
podcast do not necessarilyreflect the views or positions
of ACUMA, its board of directors, its management staff or its
members.
The podcast discussionpresented is conversational in
nature and for generalinformation only.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
This is ACMA's On Point Podcast.
On today's episode we'll diveinto policy issues facing our
members, ranging from the stateof play with government funding
to some details on the Road toHousing Act.
But before we get to it, just aquick word from our sponsor.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
This episode is being brought to you by Lone Vision,
but before we get to it, just aquick word from our sponsor.
And automations to streamlineworkflows and improve control
over financial performance.
Transform your cost centersinto revenue generators by
(01:14):
equipping your team with thetools needed to better serve
your members.
And don't miss our monthlywebinar series where we share
key strategies and bestpractices to help credit unions
optimize their mortgageoperations.
Register today atwwwloanvisioncom under our
upcoming events page.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, hello and
welcome to ACMA's On Pointpodcast, a series focused on
sharing the stories of peoplewho are making a positive impact
in the credit union mortgageindustry.
I'm your host, Peter Benjamin.
Today, I am joined by residentexpert Anne-Marie Conboy, policy
advisor with Brownstein AM.
What's going on?
(01:54):
Long time no see or long timeno speak.
How are you doing?
Speaker 4 (01:59):
I'm doing well.
I'm really glad to be back onthe pod always, but especially
this September, because we haveso much going on in Washington.
But I'm also really excited tobe stopping by the Acuma annual
conference next week.
Well, next week when we'rerecording this.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Have you.
I know we've been working withyou guys for about two years now
.
Is this your first annual withus.
This is my first annual yearsnow, is this your first annual
with us?
This is my first annual, okay,well, I mean, you know we were
at the Gaylord two two years ago.
That feels right, and I knowZach and Leah stopped in when we
(02:36):
were at the Gaylord.
They should have, they shouldhave brought you.
I mean, it's, it's, you're,you're, you're going to have a
good time, I promise, I promise.
Anyways, we're not here to talkabout that, although we
probably could spend the next 20minutes talking about it, but
we have a lot of things to goover, so let's dive in.
As I mentioned in my intro,first things first, probably one
(02:59):
of the most looming things onthe horizon.
I don't want to start negativein the pod or kind of be a
Douglas downer, but let's startwith the state of play with
government funding.
Is the shutdown really arealistic thing?
(03:22):
That's going to happen.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
I think, peter, that's the question on
everyone's mind right now.
We are today two weeks out fromthe expiration of current
levels of government funding, sogovernment funding annually
expires at the end of the fiscalyear, so September 30th.
There are a whole bunch ofother things that expire on
September 30th as well A wholerange of authorizations,
(03:46):
programs like the National FloodInsurance Program have elements
that expire on September 30th,the whole bunch of healthcare
things.
But government funding is thepiece that kind of gets the most
attention, and the resolutionof government funding also
usually carries a fix for all ofthese other things.
So the thing about governmentfunding is that we seem to find
(04:07):
ourselves in this position everysingle September.
It's kind of a groundhog dayscenario and it always wraps up
almost at the last possibleminute.
Often the solution is well,I'll say, for over two decades I
believe, the solution has beena short-term measure called a
continuing resolution, so thatcarries government funding.
(04:30):
It can be from anywhere to aweek to many months.
We're actually right nowoperating under a long-term
continuing resolution that wasenacted back in March.
That followed a series ofshorter continuing resolutions,
and these are kind of band-aidsthat take the place of a big
package of government funding.
So right now the most likelyscenario is that we will have a
(04:54):
continuing resolution that fundsthe government until mid
November, so probably November20th.
If Congress is not able to getthat through, we will be faced
with a shutdown.
And at that point the questionbecomes is this a true logjam?
Is this a multi-day shutdown,even a multi-week shutdown, or
(05:17):
is it something that's resolvedquite quickly?
Short shutdowns really have nomaterial impact on the federal
government apparatus.
The longer a governmentshutdown goes on, the more
significant the impacts.
If we end up looking at ashutdown, you know, less than a
few days, we won't really feelthe effects.
The longest shutdown was 35days.
(05:39):
That was back during the firstTrump administration.
You really start to feel it atthat point.
You know a huge amount of thefederal government is closed
during a shutdown.
The folks who are going inaren't getting their paychecks,
so it also makes life difficultfor them.
As we, as things kind of standtoday, two weeks out, the
(06:01):
complicating factor is thatCongress is in recess next week.
So while 14 days feels like alifetime in CR time, when you're
not in session for a week of it, it starts to eat away very
quickly.
So they're trying to solve thisproblem ahead of time and move
a bill through the House ofRepresentatives that, like I
(06:22):
said, would fund the governmentthrough mid-November.
Through the House ofRepresentatives that, like I
said, would fund the governmentthrough mid-November, it's easy
to get a bill.
I shouldn't say easy.
A bill can be moved through theHouse of Representatives with
support from just the majorityparty.
That's not true in the Senate,which makes things a little bit
more complicated over there.
In some ways, you cannot pass abill through the Senate under
regular order without supportfrom both parties, and so in the
(06:45):
event that the bill that theHouse passes is partisan,
meaning it passes only withsupport from Republicans, the
process in the Senate is muchharder because you'd have to
change the bill, most likely toget support from some Democrats,
in order to get it through thechamber.
So there are a lot of questionmarks right now.
You know what will bring theDemocrats to the table that the
(07:08):
Republicans can find palatable,being kind of the number one
question in everyone's mind, andthat might look like a mix of
some, some health care pieces,tbd, what else might find its
way into that negotiating table?
But that's a very long windedway of saying.
Nobody knows exactly how thenext two weeks will play out,
(07:30):
but hopefully the resolutionwill be that short term funding
patch until November.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
OK, so you know, appreciate that.
Now you know this is both sides.
Whether you look at the Houseand the Senate, you know the
margin of error or theseparation between the two
parties on either the House orthe Senate, is pretty thin right
.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
You can only lose two votes in the House actually and
still pass with just Republicansupport.
So an ultra thin majority rightnow.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
And so what's the one thing in your mind that really
could be the item that couldhold it up?
Not from both the House andSenate passing the budget and us
(08:27):
having to continue on witheither a continuing resolution
or a shutting down for a periodof time.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So for Democrats, I think a big piece of the puzzle
right now is whether Republicanswill agree to include an
extension of some of theseenhanced Obamacare or Affordable
Care Act credits that arelingering out there right now.
Senate Republican leadershiphas maintained that they're not
interested in attaching thosebecause they want to do full
(08:58):
year government funding when theshort-term patch expires in
November.
I think Republicans are keen tokeep the CR clean, and by clean
I mean not attaching otherthings to it, with minor
exceptions like thoseauthorizations I mentioned
earlier and some enhancedsecurity funding for members of
Congress and the judicial branch.
(09:19):
So that's kind of where the tworoads meet, where Democrats
want kind of a sweetener on theCR in exchange for their votes.
Republicans want to keep aclean CR, but Democrats nobody
wants to shut down thegovernment.
I should say, you know, from theDemocratic perspective, I think
this administration has leanedheavily on DOGE, leaned heavily
(09:42):
on rescissions and trying toreduce the size of spending at
the federal level, and so ashutdown in which massive
amounts of operations are ceased.
It makes the follow-upquestions very easy of well, how
much should we actually bebringing back online?
So I think there's a lot ofsensitivity on both sides.
(10:04):
No one really wants a shutdown.
No one really wins in ashutdown, but the path to
avoiding that is always kind oflittered with potholes.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
No, and you know, appreciate that, and you me
talking me personally, not you,and if I take flack, I take
flack.
It just seems like there's,with everything that's happened
with I'm not going to sayrecently, but with Doge and the
(10:35):
layoffs, and with a loomingshutdown, it almost seems like
you know from the house and somestandpoint they would almost.
There's, almost it seems likean added incentive for them to
push this forward or come tosome type of agreement, because
(10:55):
if you think about theirconstituents, you know people
who are actually voting them in.
Like there's, in my opinion, itjust seems like there's a
little bit more of an incentivefor them to kind of work this
out Right.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Yeah, I think that's right, Peter.
I think the federal governmentprograms that you know anything
from HUD to Treasury to any allthese cabinet agencies they
impact people's day-to-day livesin so many ways, whether you're
a recipient of a program or youwork for the federal government
in a, you know, a USDA regionaloffice or something like that.
(11:26):
There there really are hugeripple impacts and no one wants
that to come to fruition Allright?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Well, we'll move on past this one.
Let's go to something a littlebit more positive, um something
that we we've all been, you know, wanting to see move forward
for years.
At this point in time, triggerleads.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
give us an update on trigger leads so I think that is
a great pivot out of the thecurrent situation, the
negativity of a looming shutdownyes.
Exactly so.
Trigger leads is a greatexample of a few things.
Number one, I think, asuccessful legislative effort.
Of course, the bill was signedinto law on September 5th.
(12:09):
It will take effect March 5th2026.
So it's a 180-day periodbetween enactment and effect and
this is a piece of legislationor a statute.
Now I should say where the ballwas moved forward a little bit
every Congress and that's a verynormal series of events for
successful pieces of legislationis that it can take a few years
(12:32):
between when an idea comes tobeing and when it gains that
bipartisan traction and momentumto move excuse me, move through
Congress.
You know, if you look on paperat this bill, there were only, I
think, five months between whenit was introduced and when it
was signed into law.
But you know, you and I know andI think a lot of the listeners
here know that this was amulti-year effort that took a
(12:55):
lot, of, a lot of support fromboth sides and a lot of
conversation and a lot of buy-infrom members of Congress and
their staff and in the end Ithink we got to a place that the
stakeholders were happy withand it moved through with
bipartisan support in bothchambers.
The president signed into lawand it's hopefully going to meet
(13:18):
the goals that it laid out andfolks will be happy with it.
There is a study that'srequired by the bill, so that'll
kind of be, I think, one of thefirst pieces of follow-up
that's required.
The agencies have until, Isuppose, september of 2026 to do
a study on trigger leads thatare received by text message and
see whether there needs to be,you know, follow-up, legislation
(13:41):
or guidance or anything relatedto that segment.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
But I would definitely callthis a win and, I think, a great
example of of bipartisanshipand the legislative process
working right yep 100.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
That was, you said, perfect segue out of doom and
gloom.
But yeah, and like you said,this was multi-year but also
multi-versions of this potentialbill.
Happy to see it go forward.
Ask me to talk about, you know,the various issues that are
(14:17):
impacting our side of theindustry.
Trigger leads tends to be oneof those items that people often
ask me well, what's going onwith this?
You know, and obviously, thanksto you guys, I tend to always
know what's happening, but Iguess I can finally take this
off of my list.
Well, I'll probably take thisoff my list within the next six
months, once people realize thatit's finally done.
(14:39):
But, yes, good, all right.
So next thing on the list, wehave highlights from the latest
unified agenda, so let's walkthrough this.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
So the unified agenda is an interesting piece of the
federal government, piece of thefederal government.
So basically every singlecabinet, agency, independent
agency, they all have their ownplans right.
They have rulemakings that theypursue, they have RFIs, they
have pilot programs, all mannerof things.
(15:12):
The unified agenda is kind ofthe White House's effort to give
us an easy look into what allthese agencies are up to, at
least at a 30,000 foot level.
So the unified agenda livesonline.
Anyone can look at it.
All of the agencies covered byit submit to the executive
(15:35):
excuse me, to OMB, the Office ofManagement and Budget at the
White House a list of all of therulemakings that they're
actively working on.
So these can be things thatthey're working on right now.
You know open proposed rulescould be things that they are
hoping to publish in the nextfew months.
There's even a section of theUnified Agenda that's devoted to
(15:55):
long-term rulemaking, so thingsthat are years away but their
regulators want people to knowthey're starting to think about,
and it's published twice a year.
It's always fascinating to me,because the Unified Agenda is
both a little bit of a crystalball and a little bit
(16:16):
retrospective, because agenciessubmit all of their rules to OMB
and then it takes several weeks, sometimes a few months, for
the agenda to actually bepublished out in the world.
So once we go to take a look atit we might see which was the
case this year or with thisedition that an agency will say
(16:37):
we are going to do, you know, xrulemaking in Y month and by the
time it comes out that monthwill have passed and the
rulemaking will not yet exist.
So it's still a crystal ball.
But it's also showing us thatthey're also a little bit behind
where they thought they mightbe in that moment.
So it's a great tool.
It's.
I think it's great that thegovernment goes through the
(16:59):
effort to, you know, put thistogether and publish it.
We look at all manner ofagencies' agendas and, you know,
glean what we can.
And then it's a greatopportunity to go in and talk to
relevant Hill staff, hilloffices, agency staff and say
you know, we saw that you'reworking on this.
We would love to talk about it,we would love to provide input,
(17:21):
we would love to be helpful.
So it serves, I think, a lot offunctions and I'm happy to talk
kind of more specifically aboutwhat we saw at some of the
agencies, peter.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Yeah, by all means.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Great.
So you know, looking at CFPB, Iwould say generally a lot of
the agencies had fewerrulemakings listed than you know
they might have during the lastedition, which was and that's
not uncommon.
You know, agencies are stillgetting their staff in, they're
(17:54):
getting their confirmedleadership in place.
So it's very normal for thefirst unified agenda of a new
administration to contain morekind of repeals or rescissions
and to just take off some of thethings that the previous
administration had been workingon.
So, cfpb, one of the thingsthat they put in their agenda is
that they are going to reworktheir interpretation of UDAP.
(18:18):
You know, I think we know theBiden administration took a much
broader interpretation of theCFPB's responsibilities under
UDAP than previousadministrations would have
preferred.
So it doesn't surprise me thatwe're going to see them kind of
turn the wheel on that again.
They're also going to put outsome what we call advanced
(18:42):
notice of proposed rulemakings,which is a precursor even to a
proposed rule on loan originatorcompensation revisions and on
potential revisions todiscretionary servicing rules.
So those are a little bit morein the distance, I would say,
because you have to do that Ifyou're going to start with an
(19:02):
ANPRM, you still have a noticeof proposed rulemaking to go
after that, and there'stypically several months,
potentially a year, betweenthose two steps.
Several months, you know,potentially a year between those
two steps.
Looking at NCUA, I think some ofthe things that we noticed from
them were the removal ofdisparate impact liability from
(19:24):
its fair lending guide and thatso that the NCUA announced
separately but it linked up withsomething that we then saw in
the unified agenda separatelybut it linked up with something
that we then saw in the unifiedagenda which has to do with kind
of a fulsome rulemakingreinterpreting the FHFA's
disparate impact standard.
So there's kind of aninextricable tether between what
(19:47):
the agency is doing in realtime and what they're putting in
their unified agenda and it'sall pieces of the one big puzzle
.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
No, it's fascinating.
It really is how it'sinteresting.
That's all I'm sayinginteresting.
So let's pivot onto our lasttopic Now.
I'm gonna preface this bysaying a few weeks ago we did a
fly-in with a few of our membersand we had the pleasure of
(20:18):
meeting with several, you know,policymakers, and they were all
amazing meetings.
Everyone was very warm andinviting, you know, and in every
single instance, you know, Ithink we had 11 meetings, you
know we always talked about, youknow, credit unions matter and
(20:41):
if you ever have a question oryou ever, before you make a
decision, call a credit union,let that hear from them.
But one of the common talkingpoints and one of the common
topics that was always broughtup, regardless whether it's the
House or the Senate, was theRoads Act or the Road to Housing
(21:07):
Act.
Now, you know this is notsomething that's that's new and
obviously you know this has beenout since early August or past
the Senate at the end of July.
And now it's currently in theHouse and it'll probably be part
(21:27):
of the NBA, sorry, passed outof committee at the end of.
July.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
I'm getting ahead of myself.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
You are, and it was unanimous right.
Was it all?
24, right.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
Yes, it was a 24-0 vote out of the Senate Banking
Committee and it still has to goto the Senate floor.
But bills that come out ofcommittee with unanimous support
like that, generally the issueis getting them floor time, not
getting them the votes to passthe chamber.
(21:58):
And I should say the fact thatthe Senate Banking Committee is
holding markups at all is a bigdeal.
They were famous in recentyears for not holding markups,
which can be a hurdle in gettinglegislation to the floor,
because markups are a veryessential part of the
legislative process.
But this bill coming out of theSenate Banking Committee with
(22:19):
all of that support is a bigdeal.
It is a package of 28 pieces oflegislation.
So there was a lot of buy infrom members of committee and it
took a lot of hard work fromstaff to put this together.
In from members of committeeand it took a lot of hard work
from staff to put this together.
Anytime a big package like thismakes it into the dais for
(22:42):
those votes.
There's so much work that goeson behind the scenes and the 28
bills being packaged together isjust a great sign that everyone
kind of got a piece of the pieat the end of the day, and there
may have been something thatthey weren't as favorable on,
but they were committed tosupporting the bill in its
entirety because they werebought in on provisions one, two
and three, if not five and six.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
And correct me if I'm wrong.
It was the Warren and Scottteams that really put this
together.
Right, they were spearheadingit.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Yes, Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott are the the chair
and ranking of the committee.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
So the majority and minority staff on committee are
the drivers for things like thisum, so yeah, do you by chance
have you know the main itemswithin the roads that we know we
could, that our members reallycould look forward to?
Speaker 4 (23:34):
Yeah.
So, like I said, there's quitea lot of things in this bill.
There are measures that youknow work to expand housing
supply.
There are bills that supportmanufactured housing.
There are targeted reformprograms.
There are provisions that wouldmake the appraisal process run
more efficiently, you know,letting licensed and
(23:56):
credentialed appraisers conductappraisals for FHFA properties.
There are provisions to helpincentivize small dollar
origination.
Really are quite a number ofthings that made it into the
bill that, like I said, kind ofmake it a mosaic of housing
(24:16):
policy as opposed to a billfocused on, you know, one narrow
, specific issue.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
No, it's a good one.
It really is.
Even after I came back fromthat fly in, I did a little
research on it and it's there'sa lot of really, really good
provisions in here.
I see why it did pass theSenate banking unanimously.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
I guess more and more .
Speaker 2 (24:41):
to come on it Right.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
More to come.
There is an effort.
So the bill has two options forgetting out of the Senate so it
can move under regular order.
In the event that it isconsidered on the floor.
It's likely that Senate staffwill run a hotline on the bill,
so they'll just double check.
No one has any major issuesthat can make the process move
(25:03):
more smoothly on the floor.
But the real challenge, like Isaid, is that Senate floor time
is really limited and a lot ofit's taken up right now by
nominations.
Some will be taken up bydealing with the continuing
resolution.
So another avenue that SenatorScott and more are working on is
potentially attaching it to theNational Defense Authorization
(25:26):
Act, which is a very big defensebill that passes every single
year.
The NDAA is one of the onlybills that passes every single
year, so there's always aneffort to attach other things to
it.
Because this is a bipartisanbill, it has a better chance.
But at the end of the day theymay decide not to include any
non-defense pieces on the bill.
(25:47):
They may decide to include them.
We're a little too far out tosay right now how things will go
down, but in the event thatthat is a viable avenue.
I know they're working hard atmaking sure that the Road Act is
a contender for that.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
It's interesting that you brought that up.
In our meetings I think we had10, 11 meetings.
I specifically remember two ofthe people that we met with
mentioned that odds are thatit's going to be part of the NDA
, so they're alreadyanticipating that.
(26:22):
That it's just.
It's just going to end up goingthat path.
Whether that's good or bad,they're just already
anticipating it, which is fine,right, it's good to keep all
options open.
That's right, that's right.
Well, any trivia for us todaybefore we go, or fun?
Speaker 4 (26:47):
facts.
So I am aware, peter, thatduring the fly-in you had an
opportunity to get kind of a vip.
Look at the capital.
Is that correct?
I sure did yes so I thought itmight be fun if we ran through
some of the the some of mypersonal favorite fun facts
(27:08):
about the capital and you canlet me know whether this aligned
with your experience okay, okay, I love it, let's do it.
So did you guys find yourselvesdown on the crypt level at all?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Is that where George Washington was supposedly was
was supposed to be buried?
Speaker 4 (27:26):
Exactly that was going to be.
The topic of my question waswas he ever buried there?
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Um.
The topic of my question waswas he ever buried there?
Um?
I think he was, but then he wasrelocated to mount vernon right
he.
Speaker 4 (27:40):
I think they came very close to putting him down
there and then they they changedcourse.
Then he was at mount vernon.
Um, so it's just an empty tomb.
It's an empty crypt down thereat the Capitol.
Yeah, did you see any pawprints while you were on your
tour?
Speaker 2 (27:56):
I did not.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
So there are some famous paw prints in the Capitol
.
I will tell you they're catpaws and they were from back in
the day, any number of years agoI guess, from when the stones
weren't quite set yet.
And there's just cute littlecat paw prints roaming around
from back when they used to usethem to catch all the mice in
the Capitol.
(28:18):
I don't know how they catch themice now.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
That's awesome.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
And then my last one, I guess, will be did you
experience the whisper spotwhile you were in the old house
chamber?
It's a beautiful room with reddrapings and With all the
statues.
Yes, statuary Hall.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I did not.
No, when we were in there, whenwe went into the old house
chamber, it was jam-packed withpeople that makes sense.
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
So there is there.
You probably witnessed peoplecrowded together in two spots,
separated by maybe 15, 20 yards,and that is the whisper spot,
which the shape of the ceilingin that room allows your voice
to carry in an arc of theceiling in that room allows your
(29:15):
voice to carry in an arc.
So back in the day therepresentatives used to kind of
spy on each other because theycould hear what the other people
were whispering, and so peoplefigured that out and they moved,
you know, away from those thoseparts of the chamber.
But now it's just kind of afamous spot on the tour.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
That's awesome.
That's awesome.
Well, I appreciate you comingprepared with you, know, some
fun facts or trivia, whateveryou want to frame it up as.
Thank you very much for that.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
I could do a whole podcast episode on US capital
trivia, so if that's ever on thedocket, please invite me back
100%, 100%.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
We can make that happen.
We can make that happen, well,am.
Thank you so much for your timetoday.
Truly do appreciate it and, asalways, appreciate everything
that you and the Brownstein teamdo for ACMA and our members.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Of course, and to close out, thank you again to
Lone Vision for sponsoringtoday's episode and to all of
you.
We know your time is valuable.
Thank you for tuning in to thelatest episode of ACMA's On
Point Podcast.
We hope you enjoyed it.
Until next time.
Be well, my friends.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Thanks for listening.
We'll see you next time at theACMA On Point Podcast.
If not already, be sure tosubscribe and give us a
five-star rating For more greatepisodes and information.
Be sure to visit us online atacmaorg and to get the latest
updates.
Head over to our LinkedIn page.
The views and opinions expressed in this
podcast do not necessarilyreflect the views or positions
of ACUMA, its board of directors, its management staff or its
members.
The podcast discussionpresented is conversational in
nature and for generalinformation only.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
This is ACMA's On Point Podcast.
On today's episode we'll diveinto policy issues facing our
members, ranging from the stateof play with government funding
to some details on the Road toHousing Act.
But before we get to it, just aquick word from our sponsor.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
This episode is being brought to you by Lone Vision,
but before we get to it, just aquick word from our sponsor.
And automations to streamlineworkflows and improve control
over financial performance.
Transform your cost centersinto revenue generators by
(01:14):
equipping your team with thetools needed to better serve
your members.
And don't miss our monthlywebinar series where we share
key strategies and bestpractices to help credit unions
optimize their mortgageoperations.
Register today atwwwloanvisioncom under our
upcoming events page.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, hello and
welcome to ACMA's On Pointpodcast, a series focused on
sharing the stories of peoplewho are making a positive impact
in the credit union mortgageindustry.
I'm your host, Peter Benjamin.
Today, I am joined by residentexpert Anne-Marie Conboy, policy
advisor with Brownstein AM.
What's going on?
(01:54):
Long time no see or long timeno speak.
How are you doing?
Speaker 4 (01:59):
I'm doing well.
I'm really glad to be back onthe pod always, but especially
this September, because we haveso much going on in Washington.
But I'm also really excited tobe stopping by the Acuma annual
conference next week.
Well, next week when we'rerecording this.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Have you.
I know we've been working withyou guys for about two years now
.
Is this your first annual withus.
This is my first annual yearsnow, is this your first annual
with us?
This is my first annual, okay,well, I mean, you know we were
at the Gaylord two two years ago.
That feels right, and I knowZach and Leah stopped in when we
(02:36):
were at the Gaylord.
They should have, they shouldhave brought you.
I mean, it's, it's, you're,you're, you're going to have a
good time, I promise, I promise.
Anyways, we're not here to talkabout that, although we
probably could spend the next 20minutes talking about it, but
we have a lot of things to goover, so let's dive in.
As I mentioned in my intro,first things first, probably one
(02:59):
of the most looming things onthe horizon.
I don't want to start negativein the pod or kind of be a
Douglas downer, but let's startwith the state of play with
government funding.
Is the shutdown really arealistic thing?
(03:22):
That's going to happen.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
I think, peter, that's the question on
everyone's mind right now.
We are today two weeks out fromthe expiration of current
levels of government funding, sogovernment funding annually
expires at the end of the fiscalyear, so September 30th.
There are a whole bunch ofother things that expire on
September 30th as well A wholerange of authorizations,
(03:46):
programs like the National FloodInsurance Program have elements
that expire on September 30th,the whole bunch of healthcare
things.
But government funding is thepiece that kind of gets the most
attention, and the resolutionof government funding also
usually carries a fix for all ofthese other things.
So the thing about governmentfunding is that we seem to find
(04:07):
ourselves in this position everysingle September.
It's kind of a groundhog dayscenario and it always wraps up
almost at the last possibleminute.
Often the solution is well,I'll say, for over two decades I
believe, the solution has beena short-term measure called a
continuing resolution, so thatcarries government funding.
(04:30):
It can be from anywhere to aweek to many months.
We're actually right nowoperating under a long-term
continuing resolution that wasenacted back in March.
That followed a series ofshorter continuing resolutions,
and these are kind of band-aidsthat take the place of a big
package of government funding.
So right now the most likelyscenario is that we will have a
(04:54):
continuing resolution that fundsthe government until mid
November, so probably November20th.
If Congress is not able to getthat through, we will be faced
with a shutdown.
And at that point the questionbecomes is this a true logjam?
Is this a multi-day shutdown,even a multi-week shutdown, or
(05:17):
is it something that's resolvedquite quickly?
Short shutdowns really have nomaterial impact on the federal
government apparatus.
The longer a governmentshutdown goes on, the more
significant the impacts.
If we end up looking at ashutdown, you know, less than a
few days, we won't really feelthe effects.
The longest shutdown was 35days.
(05:39):
That was back during the firstTrump administration.
You really start to feel it atthat point.
You know a huge amount of thefederal government is closed
during a shutdown.
The folks who are going inaren't getting their paychecks,
so it also makes life difficultfor them.
As we, as things kind of standtoday, two weeks out, the
(06:01):
complicating factor is thatCongress is in recess next week.
So while 14 days feels like alifetime in CR time, when you're
not in session for a week of it, it starts to eat away very
quickly.
So they're trying to solve thisproblem ahead of time and move
a bill through the House ofRepresentatives that, like I
(06:22):
said, would fund the governmentthrough mid-November.
Through the House ofRepresentatives that, like I
said, would fund the governmentthrough mid-November, it's easy
to get a bill.
I shouldn't say easy.
A bill can be moved through theHouse of Representatives with
support from just the majorityparty.
That's not true in the Senate,which makes things a little bit
more complicated over there.
In some ways, you cannot pass abill through the Senate under
regular order without supportfrom both parties, and so in the
(06:45):
event that the bill that theHouse passes is partisan,
meaning it passes only withsupport from Republicans, the
process in the Senate is muchharder because you'd have to
change the bill, most likely toget support from some Democrats,
in order to get it through thechamber.
So there are a lot of questionmarks right now.
You know what will bring theDemocrats to the table that the
(07:08):
Republicans can find palatable,being kind of the number one
question in everyone's mind, andthat might look like a mix of
some, some health care pieces,tbd, what else might find its
way into that negotiating table?
But that's a very long windedway of saying.
Nobody knows exactly how thenext two weeks will play out,
(07:30):
but hopefully the resolutionwill be that short term funding
patch until November.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
OK, so you know, appreciate that.
Now you know this is both sides.
Whether you look at the Houseand the Senate, you know the
margin of error or theseparation between the two
parties on either the House orthe Senate, is pretty thin right
.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
You can only lose two votes in the House actually and
still pass with just Republicansupport.
So an ultra thin majority rightnow.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
And so what's the one thing in your mind that really
could be the item that couldhold it up?
Not from both the House andSenate passing the budget and us
(08:27):
having to continue on witheither a continuing resolution
or a shutting down for a periodof time.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So for Democrats, I think a big piece of the puzzle
right now is whether Republicanswill agree to include an
extension of some of theseenhanced Obamacare or Affordable
Care Act credits that arelingering out there right now.
Senate Republican leadershiphas maintained that they're not
interested in attaching thosebecause they want to do full
(08:58):
year government funding when theshort-term patch expires in
November.
I think Republicans are keen tokeep the CR clean, and by clean
I mean not attaching otherthings to it, with minor
exceptions like thoseauthorizations I mentioned
earlier and some enhancedsecurity funding for members of
Congress and the judicial branch.
(09:19):
So that's kind of where the tworoads meet, where Democrats
want kind of a sweetener on theCR in exchange for their votes.
Republicans want to keep aclean CR, but Democrats nobody
wants to shut down thegovernment.
I should say, you know, from theDemocratic perspective, I think
this administration has leanedheavily on DOGE, leaned heavily
(09:42):
on rescissions and trying toreduce the size of spending at
the federal level, and so ashutdown in which massive
amounts of operations are ceased.
It makes the follow-upquestions very easy of well, how
much should we actually bebringing back online?
So I think there's a lot ofsensitivity on both sides.
(10:04):
No one really wants a shutdown.
No one really wins in ashutdown, but the path to
avoiding that is always kind oflittered with potholes.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
No, and you know, appreciate that, and you me
talking me personally, not you,and if I take flack, I take
flack.
It just seems like there's,with everything that's happened
with I'm not going to sayrecently, but with Doge and the
(10:35):
layoffs, and with a loomingshutdown, it almost seems like
you know from the house and somestandpoint they would almost.
There's, almost it seems likean added incentive for them to
push this forward or come tosome type of agreement, because
(10:55):
if you think about theirconstituents, you know people
who are actually voting them in.
Like there's, in my opinion, itjust seems like there's a
little bit more of an incentivefor them to kind of work this
out Right.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
Yeah, I think that's right, Peter.
I think the federal governmentprograms that you know anything
from HUD to Treasury to any allthese cabinet agencies they
impact people's day-to-day livesin so many ways, whether you're
a recipient of a program or youwork for the federal government
in a, you know, a USDA regionaloffice or something like that.
(11:26):
There there really are hugeripple impacts and no one wants
that to come to fruition Allright?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Well, we'll move on past this one.
Let's go to something a littlebit more positive, um something
that we we've all been, you know, wanting to see move forward
for years.
At this point in time, triggerleads.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
give us an update on trigger leads so I think that is
a great pivot out of the thecurrent situation, the
negativity of a looming shutdownyes.
Exactly so.
Trigger leads is a greatexample of a few things.
Number one, I think, asuccessful legislative effort.
Of course, the bill was signedinto law on September 5th.
(12:09):
It will take effect March 5th2026.
So it's a 180-day periodbetween enactment and effect and
this is a piece of legislationor a statute.
Now I should say where the ballwas moved forward a little bit
every Congress and that's a verynormal series of events for
successful pieces of legislationis that it can take a few years
(12:32):
between when an idea comes tobeing and when it gains that
bipartisan traction and momentumto move excuse me, move through
Congress.
You know, if you look on paperat this bill, there were only, I
think, five months between whenit was introduced and when it
was signed into law.
But you know, you and I know andI think a lot of the listeners
here know that this was amulti-year effort that took a
(12:55):
lot, of, a lot of support fromboth sides and a lot of
conversation and a lot of buy-infrom members of Congress and
their staff and in the end Ithink we got to a place that the
stakeholders were happy withand it moved through with
bipartisan support in bothchambers.
The president signed into lawand it's hopefully going to meet
(13:18):
the goals that it laid out andfolks will be happy with it.
There is a study that'srequired by the bill, so that'll
kind of be, I think, one of thefirst pieces of follow-up
that's required.
The agencies have until, Isuppose, september of 2026 to do
a study on trigger leads thatare received by text message and
see whether there needs to be,you know, follow-up, legislation
(13:41):
or guidance or anything relatedto that segment.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
But I would definitely callthis a win and, I think, a great
example of of bipartisanshipand the legislative process
working right yep 100.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
That was, you said, perfect segue out of doom and
gloom.
But yeah, and like you said,this was multi-year but also
multi-versions of this potentialbill.
Happy to see it go forward.
Ask me to talk about, you know,the various issues that are
(14:17):
impacting our side of theindustry.
Trigger leads tends to be oneof those items that people often
ask me well, what's going onwith this?
You know, and obviously, thanksto you guys, I tend to always
know what's happening, but Iguess I can finally take this
off of my list.
Well, I'll probably take thisoff my list within the next six
months, once people realize thatit's finally done.
(14:39):
But, yes, good, all right.
So next thing on the list, wehave highlights from the latest
unified agenda, so let's walkthrough this.
Speaker 4 (14:51):
So the unified agenda is an interesting piece of the
federal government, piece of thefederal government.
So basically every singlecabinet, agency, independent
agency, they all have their ownplans right.
They have rulemakings that theypursue, they have RFIs, they
have pilot programs, all mannerof things.
(15:12):
The unified agenda is kind ofthe White House's effort to give
us an easy look into what allthese agencies are up to, at
least at a 30,000 foot level.
So the unified agenda livesonline.
Anyone can look at it.
All of the agencies covered byit submit to the executive
(15:35):
excuse me, to OMB, the Office ofManagement and Budget at the
White House a list of all of therulemakings that they're
actively working on.
So these can be things thatthey're working on right now.
You know open proposed rulescould be things that they are
hoping to publish in the nextfew months.
There's even a section of theUnified Agenda that's devoted to
(15:55):
long-term rulemaking, so thingsthat are years away but their
regulators want people to knowthey're starting to think about,
and it's published twice a year.
It's always fascinating to me,because the Unified Agenda is
both a little bit of a crystalball and a little bit
(16:16):
retrospective, because agenciessubmit all of their rules to OMB
and then it takes several weeks, sometimes a few months, for
the agenda to actually bepublished out in the world.
So once we go to take a look atit we might see which was the
case this year or with thisedition that an agency will say
(16:37):
we are going to do, you know, xrulemaking in Y month and by the
time it comes out that monthwill have passed and the
rulemaking will not yet exist.
So it's still a crystal ball.
But it's also showing us thatthey're also a little bit behind
where they thought they mightbe in that moment.
So it's a great tool.
It's.
I think it's great that thegovernment goes through the
(16:59):
effort to, you know, put thistogether and publish it.
We look at all manner ofagencies' agendas and, you know,
glean what we can.
And then it's a greatopportunity to go in and talk to
relevant Hill staff, hilloffices, agency staff and say
you know, we saw that you'reworking on this.
We would love to talk about it,we would love to provide input,
(17:21):
we would love to be helpful.
So it serves, I think, a lot offunctions and I'm happy to talk
kind of more specifically aboutwhat we saw at some of the
agencies, peter.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Yeah, by all means.
Speaker 4 (17:33):
Great.
So you know, looking at CFPB, Iwould say generally a lot of
the agencies had fewerrulemakings listed than you know
they might have during the lastedition, which was and that's
not uncommon.
You know, agencies are stillgetting their staff in, they're
(17:54):
getting their confirmedleadership in place.
So it's very normal for thefirst unified agenda of a new
administration to contain morekind of repeals or rescissions
and to just take off some of thethings that the previous
administration had been workingon.
So, cfpb, one of the thingsthat they put in their agenda is
that they are going to reworktheir interpretation of UDAP.
(18:18):
You know, I think we know theBiden administration took a much
broader interpretation of theCFPB's responsibilities under
UDAP than previousadministrations would have
preferred.
So it doesn't surprise me thatwe're going to see them kind of
turn the wheel on that again.
They're also going to put outsome what we call advanced
(18:42):
notice of proposed rulemakings,which is a precursor even to a
proposed rule on loan originatorcompensation revisions and on
potential revisions todiscretionary servicing rules.
So those are a little bit morein the distance, I would say,
because you have to do that Ifyou're going to start with an
(19:02):
ANPRM, you still have a noticeof proposed rulemaking to go
after that, and there'stypically several months,
potentially a year, betweenthose two steps.
Several months, you know,potentially a year between those
two steps.
Looking at NCUA, I think some ofthe things that we noticed from
them were the removal ofdisparate impact liability from
(19:24):
its fair lending guide and thatso that the NCUA announced
separately but it linked up withsomething that we then saw in
the unified agenda separatelybut it linked up with something
that we then saw in the unifiedagenda which has to do with kind
of a fulsome rulemakingreinterpreting the FHFA's
disparate impact standard.
So there's kind of aninextricable tether between what
(19:47):
the agency is doing in realtime and what they're putting in
their unified agenda and it'sall pieces of the one big puzzle
.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
No, it's fascinating.
It really is how it'sinteresting.
That's all I'm sayinginteresting.
So let's pivot onto our lasttopic Now.
I'm gonna preface this bysaying a few weeks ago we did a
fly-in with a few of our membersand we had the pleasure of
(20:18):
meeting with several, you know,policymakers, and they were all
amazing meetings.
Everyone was very warm andinviting, you know, and in every
single instance, you know, Ithink we had 11 meetings, you
know we always talked about, youknow, credit unions matter and
(20:41):
if you ever have a question oryou ever, before you make a
decision, call a credit union,let that hear from them.
But one of the common talkingpoints and one of the common
topics that was always broughtup, regardless whether it's the
House or the Senate, was theRoads Act or the Road to Housing
(21:07):
Act.
Now, you know this is notsomething that's that's new and
obviously you know this has beenout since early August or past
the Senate at the end of July.
And now it's currently in theHouse and it'll probably be part
(21:27):
of the NBA, sorry, passed outof committee at the end of.
July.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
I'm getting ahead of myself.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
You are, and it was unanimous right.
Was it all?
24, right.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
Yes, it was a 24-0 vote out of the Senate Banking
Committee and it still has to goto the Senate floor.
But bills that come out ofcommittee with unanimous support
like that, generally the issueis getting them floor time, not
getting them the votes to passthe chamber.
(21:58):
And I should say the fact thatthe Senate Banking Committee is
holding markups at all is a bigdeal.
They were famous in recentyears for not holding markups,
which can be a hurdle in gettinglegislation to the floor,
because markups are a veryessential part of the
legislative process.
But this bill coming out of theSenate Banking Committee with
(22:19):
all of that support is a bigdeal.
It is a package of 28 pieces oflegislation.
So there was a lot of buy infrom members of committee and it
took a lot of hard work fromstaff to put this together.
In from members of committeeand it took a lot of hard work
from staff to put this together.
Anytime a big package like thismakes it into the dais for
(22:42):
those votes.
There's so much work that goeson behind the scenes and the 28
bills being packaged together isjust a great sign that everyone
kind of got a piece of the pieat the end of the day, and there
may have been something thatthey weren't as favorable on,
but they were committed tosupporting the bill in its
entirety because they werebought in on provisions one, two
and three, if not five and six.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
And correct me if I'm wrong.
It was the Warren and Scottteams that really put this
together.
Right, they were spearheadingit.
Speaker 4 (23:12):
Yes, Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott are the the chair
and ranking of the committee.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
So the majority and minority staff on committee are
the drivers for things like thisum, so yeah, do you by chance
have you know the main itemswithin the roads that we know we
could, that our members reallycould look forward to?
Speaker 4 (23:34):
Yeah.
So, like I said, there's quitea lot of things in this bill.
There are measures that youknow work to expand housing
supply.
There are bills that supportmanufactured housing.
There are targeted reformprograms.
There are provisions that wouldmake the appraisal process run
more efficiently, you know,letting licensed and
(23:56):
credentialed appraisers conductappraisals for FHFA properties.
There are provisions to helpincentivize small dollar
origination.
Really are quite a number ofthings that made it into the
bill that, like I said, kind ofmake it a mosaic of housing
(24:16):
policy as opposed to a billfocused on, you know, one narrow
, specific issue.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
No, it's a good one.
It really is.
Even after I came back fromthat fly in, I did a little
research on it and it's there'sa lot of really, really good
provisions in here.
I see why it did pass theSenate banking unanimously.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
I guess more and more .
Speaker 2 (24:41):
to come on it Right.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
More to come.
There is an effort.
So the bill has two options forgetting out of the Senate so it
can move under regular order.
In the event that it isconsidered on the floor.
It's likely that Senate staffwill run a hotline on the bill,
so they'll just double check.
No one has any major issuesthat can make the process move
(25:03):
more smoothly on the floor.
But the real challenge, like Isaid, is that Senate floor time
is really limited and a lot ofit's taken up right now by
nominations.
Some will be taken up bydealing with the continuing
resolution.
So another avenue that SenatorScott and more are working on is
potentially attaching it to theNational Defense Authorization
(25:26):
Act, which is a very big defensebill that passes every single
year.
The NDAA is one of the onlybills that passes every single
year, so there's always aneffort to attach other things to
it.
Because this is a bipartisanbill, it has a better chance.
But at the end of the day theymay decide not to include any
non-defense pieces on the bill.
(25:47):
They may decide to include them.
We're a little too far out tosay right now how things will go
down, but in the event thatthat is a viable avenue.
I know they're working hard atmaking sure that the Road Act is
a contender for that.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
It's interesting that you brought that up.
In our meetings I think we had10, 11 meetings.
I specifically remember two ofthe people that we met with
mentioned that odds are thatit's going to be part of the NDA
, so they're alreadyanticipating that.
(26:22):
That it's just.
It's just going to end up goingthat path.
Whether that's good or bad,they're just already
anticipating it, which is fine,right, it's good to keep all
options open.
That's right, that's right.
Well, any trivia for us todaybefore we go, or fun?
Speaker 4 (26:47):
facts.
So I am aware, peter, thatduring the fly-in you had an
opportunity to get kind of a vip.
Look at the capital.
Is that correct?
I sure did yes so I thought itmight be fun if we ran through
some of the the some of mypersonal favorite fun facts
(27:08):
about the capital and you canlet me know whether this aligned
with your experience okay, okay, I love it, let's do it.
So did you guys find yourselvesdown on the crypt level at all?
Speaker 2 (27:22):
Is that where George Washington was supposedly was
was supposed to be buried?
Speaker 4 (27:26):
Exactly that was going to be.
The topic of my question waswas he ever buried there?
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Um.
The topic of my question waswas he ever buried there?
Um?
I think he was, but then he wasrelocated to mount vernon right
he.
Speaker 4 (27:40):
I think they came very close to putting him down
there and then they they changedcourse.
Then he was at mount vernon.
Um, so it's just an empty tomb.
It's an empty crypt down thereat the Capitol.
Yeah, did you see any pawprints while you were on your
tour?
Speaker 2 (27:56):
I did not.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
So there are some famous paw prints in the Capitol
.
I will tell you they're catpaws and they were from back in
the day, any number of years agoI guess, from when the stones
weren't quite set yet.
And there's just cute littlecat paw prints roaming around
from back when they used to usethem to catch all the mice in
the Capitol.
(28:18):
I don't know how they catch themice now.
Speaker 2 (28:22):
That's awesome.
Speaker 4 (28:25):
And then my last one, I guess, will be did you
experience the whisper spotwhile you were in the old house
chamber?
It's a beautiful room with reddrapings and With all the
statues.
Yes, statuary Hall.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
I did not.
No, when we were in there, whenwe went into the old house
chamber, it was jam-packed withpeople that makes sense.
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (28:54):
So there is there.
You probably witnessed peoplecrowded together in two spots,
separated by maybe 15, 20 yards,and that is the whisper spot,
which the shape of the ceilingin that room allows your voice
to carry in an arc of theceiling in that room allows your
(29:15):
voice to carry in an arc.
So back in the day therepresentatives used to kind of
spy on each other because theycould hear what the other people
were whispering, and so peoplefigured that out and they moved,
you know, away from those thoseparts of the chamber.
But now it's just kind of afamous spot on the tour.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
That's awesome.
That's awesome.
Well, I appreciate you comingprepared with you, know, some
fun facts or trivia, whateveryou want to frame it up as.
Thank you very much for that.
Speaker 4 (29:38):
I could do a whole podcast episode on US capital
trivia, so if that's ever on thedocket, please invite me back
100%, 100%.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
We can make that happen.
We can make that happen, well,am.
Thank you so much for your timetoday.
Truly do appreciate it and, asalways, appreciate everything
that you and the Brownstein teamdo for ACMA and our members.
Speaker 4 (30:01):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Of course, and to close out, thank you again to
Lone Vision for sponsoringtoday's episode and to all of
you.
We know your time is valuable.
Thank you for tuning in to thelatest episode of ACMA's On
Point Podcast.
We hope you enjoyed it.
Until next time.
Be well, my friends.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Thanks for listening.
We'll see you next time at theACMA On Point Podcast.
If not already, be sure tosubscribe and give us a
five-star rating For more greatepisodes and information.
Be sure to visit us online atacmaorg and to get the latest
updates.
Head over to our LinkedIn page.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.