20 years ago those equitable provisions would limit the bureau's authority his likely to occur that phh corporation conduct would likely occur. >> there is a notice that what is your position that phh corporation was on notice that it was of a lawful? eric babysat on a 1997 letter. >> i am asking a slightly different question what affirmation as an actor in the market what is your reading that you know?. >> so section 8 of respa on page number three in the left-hand column at the bottom it says no persian show except a fee or kickback or value for referrals. >> but then the neck section says there is nothing in this section as to prohibiting any person of day bonafide compensation or other payment with service is actually performed so that means to have a huge payment foretokens services. and then there is another requirement to be multiplied with notified that means on good faith. so we discuss that in our brief before the court but the supreme court explained but not for purposes of the region but that is exactly what phh corporation was doing with their reinsurance operation. >> with

now phh corporation also made arguments the bureau was more powerful than the federal trade commission in 1935. commission in 1935 i would draw the attention to the court's decision of national petroleum refiners that cited in the phh corporation reply brief on page six. the issue in the case is whether the federal trade commission had the authority to issue the rule and that is the phh corporation focus that the ftc could not to issue rules in 1935. the bureau would issue them. but this court was asked to see if the ftc the original statute as enacted 1914 whether they had rulemaking authority and to conclude that it did before reaching that conclusion this court observed that it was a quibble to distinguish the pervasiveness of the ftc authority, but it was a quibble to distinguish from that of other regulatory agencies that could engage in substantive rulemaking, and the court also noted on the same page that the federal trade commission based solely on its authority to pursue administrative education resulting in cease and desist orders, based on that authority, the federal trade c

. >> judge henderson and may it please the court before forget one to address 1.that was raised by phh corporation which was a holdover provision in the consumer financial protection act that gives the director a five-year term but after that the director may hold over until a successor is appointed and confirmed that this court explained the 1996 decision that this court to will not infer for cause the holdover period of less it makes a specific provision for that. >> lead is our position so yes for craft to a five-year term expires in july of next year he is removable at will by the president. now judge, you raise the point that the president may have more control over the head of the bureau bin the five members of the federal trade commission in redid do the math. with respect to the bureau the president has a 80 percent chance to have a net opportunity to be guaranteed to replace the bureau's director with respect to the five members of the ftc who serve staggered seven year terms, is 4/7 chance he is guaranteed the opportunity it is 50%. so to turn to read the president's party it