InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB reports larger banks charge higher interest rates on credit cards than smaller banks
On February 16, the CFPB published the results of a report that found, on average, larger banks charged higher credit card interest rates than smaller banks and credit unions. The CFPB’s data suggested larger banks charge interest rates eight to 10 points higher than non-large banks. If a consumer were to pick a large bank credit card over a smaller bank, the consumer would see an estimated difference of “$400 to $500” in additional annual interest.
Other findings from the report suggested that large issuers offered higher rates across credit scores: e.g., the median interest rate for people with scores between 620 and 719 was 28.20 percent for large banks and 18.15 percent for small ones. The CFPB also found that 15 bank-issued credit cards with interest rates above 30 percent: nine of the largest issuers reported at least one product over that rate. Lastly, the report found that large banks were more likely to charge annual fees, with 27 percent of large banks charging an annual fee, compared to 9.5 percent of small banks. The CFPB published a table between large and small banks that showed median purchase APR by credit tier.
New York State Attorney General wins $77 million judgment against short-term lenders for predatory lending
On February 8, New York State Attorney General (AG) Letitia James announced a more than $77 million judgment against three merchant cash advance (MCA) companies for usury and fraud based on allegations the lenders used short-term loans to charge illegally high-interest and undisclosed fees.
In a June 2020 announcement, Attorney General James detailed her office’s investigation, which concluded that the companies employed practices including (i) extending MCAs to small business owners at illegal interest rates over short durations; (ii) imposing undisclosed fees; (iii) withdrawing excess amounts from merchants’ bank accounts; and (iv) procuring judgments against merchants through the submission of falsified affidavits in New York State courts.
The judgment follows a September 2023 court decision finding violations of New York’s prohibitions against, among other things, usury and predatory lending, and requiring the companies to cease collections and to repay thousands of small businesses the interest they paid. The companies were ordered to provide the full restitution and damages within 60 days to all merchants who entered into MCAs, including refunding all amounts taken from merchants or their guarantors in connection with the MCAs, minus the principal amounts funded to the borrowers. After the companies failed to pay the damages, the AG sought the entry of the monetary judgment from the court.
Title lender reaches settlement with Pennsylvania AG
On January 10, Pennsylvania AG Michelle Henry announced a settlement with a national auto title lending company, resolving alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Loan Interest and Protection Law (LIPL). According to the settlement, since 2016, the lender made thousands of vehicle title loans to Pennsylvania residents, with interest rates exceeding 100 percent without the necessary license required by the Consumer Discount Company Act.
The AG also noted that some of the loans resulted from leads that they bought from third parties who purported to have physical offices in Pennsylvania, when in fact, neither the lender nor its lead generators were in Pennsylvania. The AG also said that most Pennsylvania-based borrowers drove to one of the lender’s Delaware locations. Nonetheless, the AG said, “Pennsylvania usury laws apply because [the lender] collected money from Pennsylvania consumers and repossessed vehicles in Pennsylvania.” In the settlement, the lender denies all allegations of unlawful conduct, including the assertion that it knowingly acquired leads from third parties leading to loans for Pennsylvania residents. The lender explained its position that until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rendered its opinion in another matter in January 2022, it held a “good faith and reasonable belief” based on then-existing law, particularly the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that its operations were lawful.
Among other things, the settlement (i) requires the lender to pay $2.2 million in consumer restitution; (ii) requires the lender to cancel approximately $3.7 million in existing loans; (iii) enjoins and prohibits the lender from violating the LIPL; and (iv) requires the lender to return any repossessed vehicles at no charge and refund consumers of all repossession fees previously charged.
CFPB report reveals high credit card costs, growing debt, digital shift in 2022
On October 25, the CFPB released its biennial report on the credit card market pursuant to the Credit Card Act. The report found that credit card companies charged consumers more than $105 billion in interest and $25 billion in fees, with the bulk of the fees being late fees. According to the 175-page report, consumers are rolling balances month to month, and more consumers are falling into debt over time, while credit card companies’ profit margins remain high. The CFPB highlighted additional trends, including how: (i) the profits of major credit card companies have increased, surpassing pre-pandemic levels, which the CFPB suggests could indicate a lack of competition in the industry; (ii) annual Percentage Rates (APRs) for credit cards continue to rise; (iii) many cardholders with subprime credit scores paid a significant percentage of their average balance in interest and fees; (iv) late fees charged to cardholders have risen to pre-pandemic levels, and more consumers are delinquent; (v) credit card debt reached a record $1 trillion by the end of 2022, and annual spending on credit cards increased, returning to pre-pandemic levels; (vi) consumers who roll debt from month to month are paying a significant portion of interest and fees but earning only a small percentage of rewards. The report also notes a rise in digital communication—around 80 percent of cardholders, especially those under 65, use mobile apps for card management, which exhibits a shift in how consumers and financial institutions interact in the credit card industry.
CFPB report reveals high credit card costs, growing debt, and digital shifts led to consumers’ revolving debts in 2022
On October 25, the CFPB released a report on credit card interest rates and fees in 2022 highlighting the impact of the cost to consumers. The report found that credit card companies charged consumers more than $105 billion in interest and $25 billion in fees, with the bulk of the fees being late fees.
According to the 175-page report, consumers are rolling balances month-to-month, falling into debt, while credit card companies’ profit margins remain high. The CFPB highlighted additional trends, including how (i) the profits of major credit card companies have increased, surpassing pre-pandemic levels, which could indicate a lack of competition in the industry, with a few dominant players; (ii) Annual Percentage Rates (APRs) for credit cards continue to rise above the cost of offering credit (meaning cardholders are paying more in interest); (iii) many cardholders with subprime credit scores paid a significant percentage of their average balance in interest and fees; (iv) late fees charged to cardholders have risen to pre-pandemic levels, and more consumers are delinquent; (v) credit card debt reached a record $1 trillion by the end of 2022, and annual spending on credit cards increased, returning to pre-pandemic levels; and (vi) consumers who roll debt from month to month are paying a significant portion of interest and fees but earning only a small percentage of rewards. The report also notes a rise in digital communication—around 80 percent of cardholders, especially those under 65, use mobile apps for card management, which exhibits a shift in how consumers and financial institutions interact in the credit card industry.
New Hampshire amends rules for interest on escrow accounts
On June 20, New Hampshire enacted HB 520 (the “Act”) to amend provisions relating to escrow accounts maintained by licensed nondepository mortgage bankers, brokers, and servicers. The Act amends guidelines surrounding interest payments to escrow accounts maintained for the payment of taxes or insurance premiums related to loans on single family homes in New Hampshire and property secured by real estate mortgages. For both (single family homes and property) accounts, payments must be at a rate no less than the National Deposit Rate for Savings Accounts. Further, interest payments during the six-month period beginning on April 1 of each year, must be no less than the FDIC published rate in January of the same year, whereas interest payments during the six-month period beginning on October 1 of each year, must be no less than the FDIC published rate in July of the same year.
The Act was effective upon its passage.
Fintech fined over interest charges billed as tips and donations
A California-based fintech company recently entered separate consent orders with California, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia to resolve allegations claiming it disguised interest charges as tips and donations connected to loans offered through its platform. The company agreed to (i) pay a $100,000 fine in Connecticut and reimburse Connecticut borrowers for all loan-related tips, donations, and fees paid; (ii) pay a $30,000 fine in the District of Columbia, including restitution; and (iii) pay a $50,000 fine in California, plus refunds of all donations received from borrowers in the state. The company did not admit to any violations of law or wrongdoing.
The Connecticut banking commissioner’s consent order found that the company engaged in deceptive practices, acted as a consumer collection agency, and offered, solicited, and brokered small loans for prospective borrowers without the required licensing. The company agreed that it would cease operations in the state until it changed its business model and practices and was properly licensed. Going forward, the company agreed to allow consumers to pay tips only after fully repaying their loans. The consent order follows a temporary cease and desist order issued in 2022.
A consent judgment and order reached with the D.C. attorney general claimed the company engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the cost of its loans and by not clearly disclosing the true nature of the tips and donations. The AG maintained that the average APR of these loans violated D.C.’s usury cap. The company agreed to ensure that lenders accessing the platform are unable to see whether a consumer is offering a tip (or the amount of tip) and must take measures to make sure that withholding a tip or donation will not affect loan approval or loan terms. Among other actions, the company is also required to disclose how much lenders can expect to earn through the platform.
In the California consent order, the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) claimed that the majority of consumers paid both a tip and a donation. A pop-up message encouraged borrowers to offer the maximum tip in order to have their loan funded, DFPI said, alleging the pop-up feature could not be disabled without using an unadvertised, buried setting. These tips and/or donations were not included in the formal loan agreement generated in the platform, nor were borrowers able to view the loan agreement before consummation. According to DFPI, this amounted to brokering extensions of credit without a license. Additionally, the interest being charged (after including the tips and donations) exceeded the maximum interest rate permissible under the California Financing Law, DFPI said, adding that by disclosing that the loans had a 0 percent APR with no finance charge, they failed to comply with TILA.
CFPB publishes BNPL borrower profiles
On March 2, the CFPB released a report examining the financial profiles of Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) borrowers using data pulled from the agency’s Making Ends Meet survey and its access to credit bureau data. The report follows previous Bureau research conducted on the BNPL market (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau observed that, while many BNPL borrowers used the product without any noticeable markers of financial stress, these borrowers (as compared to non-BNPL borrowers) were, on average, more likely to have higher credit card debt and utilization rates and were more likely to have revolving balances on their credit cards. BNPL borrowers also had lower credit scores and higher utilization rates of alternative financial services such as payday loans and pawn loans that charge high interest rates and were more likely to incur bank account overdrafts. The report noted, however, that while BNPL borrowers generally have access to traditional credit products, they are more likely to borrow using retail accounts, personal loans, student loans, and auto loans compared to non-BNPL borrowers (BNPL borrowers were more than twice as likely to be delinquent on at least one of those products by 30 days or longer). The Bureau commented though “that many of these differences pre-date [BNPL] use and [the report] highlights the need for further research into whether the products have any causal impact on consumer indebtedness.” Black, Hispanic, and female consumers are also more likely than average to use BNPL products, the report found, along with consumers with income between $20,001-$50,000.
8th Circuit affirms almost $20 million in damages and attorney’s fees in RMBS action
On February 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court order requiring a mortgage lender to pay $5.4 million in damages and $14 million in attorney’s fees for selling mortgages that did not meet agreed-upon contractual representations and warranties to a now-defunct company that packaged and resold the loans to residential mortgage-back securities (RMBS) trusts. The now-defunct company was sued by the RMBS trusts after loans underlying the securitizations began defaulting at a high rate during the 2008 financial crisis. A liquidating trust was established to oversee wind-down measures after the company filed for bankruptcy. The liquidating trust later began suing originators for indemnification over the allegedly defective mortgages. In 2020, the district court ruled in favor of the liquidating trust and entered judgment for $5.4 million in damages, $10.6 million in attorney’s fees, $3.5 million is costs, $2 million in prejudgment interest, and $520,212 in “post-award prejudgment interest.” The district court found, among other things, that the lender had breached its client contracts, and that in doing so, contributed to the now-defunct company’s “losses, damages, or liabilities within the scope of the contractual indemnity.” The court also found the liquidating trust’s damages methodology to be reasonable and nonspeculative. The lender appealed, disagreeing with how the underlying contracts were interpreted, as well as the allocation of multi-party damages and the post-trial award of fees, costs, and interest.
On appeal, the 8th Circuit disagreed, concluding that the terms of the parties’ contract made the lender liable. The appellate court also rejected the lender’s contention that it should not be expected to pay the claims against the now-defunct company because they were extinguished in bankruptcy, and that the methodology used to calculate the damages was inaccurate. In awarding $5.4 million in indemnification damages, the appellate court held that the district court properly found that the expert’s “‘calculation of damages was reasonable and non-speculative,’ and that his methodology produced a reasonably certain measure of [the liquidating trust’s] indemnifiable damages.” The 8th Circuit further concluded that the fee award was fair and that the district court had accounted for the complexity of the case and the importance of conducting a detailed loan-by-loan analysis. The appellate court also accused the lender of relitigating already decided issues and driving up the costs. However, the 8th Circuit did order the district court to recalculate the post-judgment interest award using guidance under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) rather than the 10 percent prejudgment interest rate under Minnesota law.
Arizona establishes new limits on consumer debt collection
Recently, the Arizona governor approved Proposition 209, which decreases the maximum lawful annual interest rate on “medical debt” from 10 percent to three percent. Among other things, the proposition defines “medical debt” as “a loan, indebtedness, or other obligation arising directly from the receipt of health care services or of medical products or devices.” Accordingly, in addition to judgments on medical debt, the three percent annual rate limit applies to loans or other financing for health care services or medical products or devices. The proposition also decreases the share of borrowers’ wages that lenders can garnish. The current limit is 25 percent, but that percentage will decrease to 10 percent for many consumers, and to five percent for consumers dealing with extreme economic hardship. Additionally, the proposition increases various exemption amounts, including: (i) $400,000 (up from $150,000) for the homestead exemption; and (ii) $15,000 (up from $6,000) for household furniture, furnishing, goods, and appliances. The proposition is effective immediately.
On December 7, a state court granted a temporary restraining order, which stopped the enactment of the approved measure. An evidentiary hearing is set to happen in December where the plaintiffs are seeking to have the proposition nullified.