InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CSBS provides tips on NMLS annual renewal
On October 20, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that individuals and businesses in the mortgage, money transmission, debt collection, and consumer financial services industry are encouraged by state regulators to prepare for November 1, which is the beginning of the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) annual license renewal. The announcement noted the number of individual state licenses eligible for renewal is 13 percent higher than the same time last year, while the number of company licenses eligible for renewal is up 16 percent compared to this time last year. CSBS provided five tips for licensees to prepare for NMLS renewal, which include, among other things, resetting NMLS passwords to conform with new requirements that went into effect this past March and to review state-specific renewal requirements. CSBS also noted that the renewal period in most states runs from November 1 to December 31.
Arizona streamlines DBA licensing requirements
At the end of September, amended financial services licensing provisions under Arizona SB 1394 took effect. SB 1394 streamlines licensing requirements for companies that are currently required to obtain separate licenses for trade names or assumed names (often known as “doing business as” or DBAs). Specifically, SB 1394 will allow most companies that the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions (DIFI) licenses to operate with additional trade names under a single license, provided the company notifies DIFI in writing prior to using the assumed name or trade name. Companies, however, may not use an assumed name or trade name that (i) is “so substantially similar” to another company’s name that it may cause public uncertainty or confusion; or (ii) may deceive or mislead the public as to the type of business conducted by the company. DIFI applauded the bill’s passage in an announcement released earlier this year, saying consumers will still be able to look up companies under a trade name and file complaints against a company’s trade name. “Licensees will save time and money by linking additional DBAs to a single license name without having to pay for and maintain multiple licenses,” DIFI said, noting that it still “maintains all regulatory authority including the ability to investigate, examine, and take action against the parent business.”
CFPB argues funding constitutionality holding does not make sense
On October 25, the CFPB responded to a notice of supplemental authority filed by a credit reporting agency (CRA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which sought to use a recent decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as justification for the dismissal of a lawsuit against the CRA. In April, the Bureau sued the CRA, two of its subsidiaries, and a former senior executive (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly violating a 2017 consent order in connection with alleged deceptive practices related to their marketing and sale of credit scores, credit reports, and credit-monitoring products to consumers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Following the 5th Circuit’s decision, in which a three-judge panel unanimously held in CFSA v. CFPB that the CFPB funding structure created by Congress violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), the defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority on October 20, arguing that the suit must be dismissed and that the Bureau may not use unappropriated funds when prosecuting the suit. The defendants further contended that the 2017 consent order is invalid because the Bureau used unappropriated funds in its preparation.
The Bureau countered in its response that the 5th Circuit’s holding does not “make sense,” is “without support in law,” and does not help the defendants’ defense. According to the Bureau, “the court mustered no case from more than 230 years of constitutional history that has ever held that Congress violates the Appropriations Clause or separation of powers when it authorizes spending by statute, as it did for the Bureau.” Moreover, the Bureau argued that the appellate court’s contention that the CFPB’s funding was “impermissibly ‘double-insulated’ from congressional oversight” was incorrect because “Congress is fully capable of overseeing the Bureau’s spending, including because of several provisions in the Bureau’s statute that ensure its ability to supervise.” Adding that the court “should reject” the 5th Circuit’s analysis and “join every other court to address the issue—including the en banc D.C. Circuit—in upholding the Bureau’s statutory funding mechanism,” the agency further argued that even if the district court should disagree with this contention, it should still deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss because any alleged defect in the agency’s funding authorization “would not deprive the Bureau of the power to carry out the responsibilities given it by Congress to enforce the law.”
SEC says exchanges must have policies on incentive compensation given in error
On October 27, the SEC announced final rules requiring securities exchanges to adopt listing standards that require issuers to develop and implement policies providing for the recovery of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation received by executive officers. The final rules require a listed issuer to file the policy as an exhibit to its annual report and to include disclosures related to its recovery policy and recovery analysis where a recovery is triggered. The SEC first proposed new rules for executive compensation disclosure in 2015, but they were not finalized. The SEC reopened consideration of the rules last year, and in August, adopted a new requirement that a reporting company’s proxy statement and other disclosures include a table showing executive compensation and financial performance measures.
According a statement released by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, the new rules will “strengthen the transparency and quality of corporate financial statements, investor confidence in those statements, and the accountability of corporate executives to investors.” Commissioner Hester M. Peirce also released a statement, where she noted that implementing the statutory clawbacks mandate is “commendable,” but “doing it—expansively, inflexibly, and impractically—is not.” Peirce noted that the final rule “does not permit company boards, guided by their fiduciary duty, to determine when clawing back compensation makes sense,” and that “[s]uch an approach would have served shareholders by ensuring that companies claw back erroneously awarded compensation when doing so yields a net benefit to shareholders.” The final rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Exchanges will be required to file proposed listing standards no later than 90 days following publication of the release in the Federal Register, with listing standards effective no later than one year following such publication.
OFAC sanctions Iranian leaders
On October 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13553 against 10 Iranian officials related to the ongoing crackdown on nationwide protests in Iran and internet censorship, as well as two Iranian intelligence actors and two Iranian entities involved in the Iranian government’s efforts to disrupt digital freedom. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on October 6, OFAC sanctioned seven senior leaders within Iran’s government and security apparatus for the shutdown of Iran’s internet access. OFAC also sanctioned Iran’s Morality Police along with seven senior leaders who oversee Iran’s security organizations (covered by InfoBytes here). According to OFAC, the recently announced sanctions “coupled with additional initiatives such as the release of Iran General License D-2, which expands and clarifies the range of U.S. software and internet services available to Iranians under OFAC’s sanctions program, demonstrate the United States’ commitment to support the Iranian people’s call for accountability and justice, as well as their right to freely exchange information, including online.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. U.S. persons are also prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, and “persons that engage in certain transactions with the individuals or entities designated today may themselves be exposed to sanctions,” OFAC said. Additionally, OFAC warned that “any foreign financial institution that knowingly facilitates a significant transaction or provides significant financial services for any of the individuals or entities designated today could be subject to U.S. correspondent or payable-through account sanctions.”
NYDFS revises state CRA regulations
On October 26, NYDFS released revisions to its proposed state Community Reinvestment Act regulation, which would allow the Department to obtain the necessary data to evaluate the extent to which New York-regulated banking institutions are serving minority- and women-owned businesses in their communities. The revised proposed regulation addresses comments received during a prior 60-day comment period that began last November (covered by InfoBytes here), and is intended to minimize compliance burdens by making sure the regulation’s proposed language complements requirements in the CFPB’s proposed rulemaking for collecting data on credit access for small and minority- and women-owned businesses. Among other things, the revised proposed regulation would require regulated entities to inquire as to whether a business applying for a loan or credit is minority- or women-owned or both, and submit a report to the Department providing application details, such as the date, type of credit applied for and the amount, whether the application was approved or denied, and the size and location of the business. Additionally, the revised proposed regulation (i) establishes processes for regulated entities when soliciting, collecting, storing, and reporting information related to their provision of credit to minority- and women-owned businesses, including when requests for information should be made, and notifications informing applicants of their right to refuse to offer information in response to a request and that the provided information may not be used for any discriminatory purpose; (ii) provides that, to the extent feasible, underwriters should not be able to access information provided by an applicant; (iii) stipulates how long a regulated entity is required to preserve gathered information; and (iv) provides a sample data collection form that regulated entities may choose to use. According to NYDFS, the revisions are designed to make sure regulated entities abide by fair lending laws when collecting and submitting the necessary data. Comments will be accepted for 45 days following publication in the State Register.
CFPB launches rulemaking on consumers’ rights to their data
On October 27, the CFPB released a 71-page outline of proposals and alternatives under consideration related to the Bureau’s Dodd-Frank Section 1033 rulemaking efforts. The outline describes proposals under consideration that “would specify rules requiring certain covered persons that are data providers to make consumer financial information available to a consumer directly and to those third parties the consumer authorizes to access such information on the consumer’s behalf, such as a data aggregator or data recipient (authorized third parties).” Emphasizing that “[c]lear data rights for consumers have the potential to give individuals more bargaining leverage,” the Bureau claimed that companies compiling vast amounts of personal data, including information about consumers’ use of financial products and services, are able to monopolize the use of this data, thereby blocking competition and stifling the development of competitors’ products and services.
Highlights from the outline include a series of discussion questions for small businesses and a list of topics, including:
- Data providers subject to the proposals under consideration. The proposals, if finalized, would impact data providers, including “depository and non-depository financial institutions that provide consumer funds-holding accounts or that otherwise meet the Regulation E definition of financial institution, as well as depository and non-depository institutions that provide credit cards or otherwise meet the Regulation Z definition of card issuer.” Notably, “a financial institution would be a covered provider if it issues an ‘access device’ (as the term is defined in Regulation E § 1005.2(a)(1)), such as a digital credential storage wallet, and provides EFT services, even if it does not hold consumer accounts.” Additionally, “a card issuer would be a covered data provider if it issues a ‘credit card’ (as the term is defined in Regulation Z § 1026.2(a)(15)(i)), such as by issuing digital credential storage wallets, even if it does not hold consumer credit accounts.” The outline also defines covered accounts and states the Bureau is considering potential exemptions for certain data providers.
- Recipients of information. To be considered an authorized third party under the proposals, a third party must: (i) provide an “authorization disclosure” informing consumers of key terms of access; (ii) obtain consumers’ informed, express consent to the key terms of access contained within the authorization disclosure; and (iii) certify to consumers that it will abide by certain obligations related to the collection, use, and retention of a consumer’s information. The Bureau is considering proposals that would address “a covered data provider’s obligation to make information available upon request directly to a consumer (direct access) and to authorized third parties (third-party access).”
- Types of information covered data providers would need to make available. The outline proposes six categories of information data providers would have to make available with respect to covered accounts, including (i) periodic statement information; (ii) information on certain types of prior transactions and deposits that have not-yet-settled; (iii) information regarding prior transactions not typically shown on periodic statements or online account portals; (iv) online banking transactions that have not yet occurred; (v) account identity information; and (vi) other information, such as consumer reports, fees, bonuses, discounts, incentives, and security breaches that exposed a consumer’s identity or financial information.
- Exceptions to the requirement to make information available. The outline provides four exceptions to the requirement for making information available: (i) confidential commercial information; (ii) information obtained to prevent fraud, money laundering, or other unlawful conduct; (iii) information that is required to be kept confidential; and (iv) information a “data provider cannot retrieve in the ordinary course of business.”
- How and when information would need to be made available. The outline states the Bureau is considering ways to define the methods and the circumstances in which a data provider would need to make information available with respect to both direct access and third-party access.
- Third party obligations. The Bureau is examining proposals to limit authorized third parties’ collection, use, and retention of consumer information to that which “is reasonably necessary to provide the product or service the consumer has requested.” This includes (i) limiting duration, frequency, and retention periods; (ii) providing consumers a simple way to revoke authorization; (iii) limiting a third party’s secondary use of consumer-authorized information; (iv) requiring third parties to implement data security standards and policies and procedures to ensure data accuracy and dispute resolution; and (v) requiring third parties to comply with certain disclosure obligations, including a mechanism for consumers to request information about the extent and purposes of a third party’s access to their data.
- Record retention obligations. Proposals under consideration would establish requirements for data providers and third parties to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under the rule.
- Implementation period. The Bureau is seeking feedback on time frames to ensure consumers are able to benefit from a final rule, while also considering implementation factors for data providers and third parties.
An appendix to the highlights provides examples of ways the proposals would apply to hypothetical transactions involving consumer-authorized data access to an authorized third party.
The Bureau’s rulemaking process will include panel convenings, as mandated under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, after which the panel will prepare a report for the Bureau to consider as it develops the proposed rule. “Dominant firms shouldn’t be able to hoard our personal data and appropriate the value to themselves,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in announcing the rulemaking outline. Chopra further elaborated on the rulemaking’s purposes during an industry event earlier in the week (covered by InfoBytes here) where he said the Bureau plans to propose requiring financial institutions that offer deposit accounts, credit cards, digital wallets, prepaid cards, and other transaction accounts to set up secure methods for data sharing as a way to “facilitate new approaches to underwriting, payment services, personal financial management, income verification, account switching, and comparison shopping.”
CFPB issues guidance on “junk fees”
On October 26, President Biden discussed guidance issued by the CFPB to help banks avoid charging illegal “junk fees” on deposit accounts. The Bureau’s Circular 2022-06 noted that overdraft fees can be considered an “unfair” practice and violate the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) even if such fees are in compliance with other laws and regulations. Specifically, the Circular noted that “overdraft fees assessed by financial institutions on transactions that a consumer would not reasonably anticipate are likely unfair.” The guidance further stated that unanticipated overdraft fees are likely to impose substantial injury on consumers that they cannot reasonably avoid and that are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. The Bureau’s compliance bulletin on surprise depositor fees explained that a returned deposited item is a check that a consumer deposits into their checking account that is returned to the consumer because the check could not be processed against the check originator’s account. The bulletin stated that “blanket policies of charging returned deposited item fees to consumers for all returned transactions irrespective of the circumstances or patterns of behavior on the account are likely unfair under the [CFPA].” The Bureau further explained that indiscriminately charging depositor fees, regardless of circumstances, are likely illegal and noted that the bulletin is intended to put regulated entities on notice regarding how the agency plans to exercise its enforcement and supervisory authorities in the context of deposit fees. The bulletin urged financial institutions to charge depositor fees only in situations where a depositor could have avoided the fee, such as when a depositor repeatedly deposits bad checks from the same originator. The Bureau emphasized the guidance as part of its Junk Fee Initiative, noting that since it launched the initiative in January 2022, the CFPB has taken action to constrain “pay-to-pay” fees (covered by InfoBytes here), and has announced an advance notice of proposed rulemaking soliciting information from credit card issuers, consumer groups, and the public regarding late payments, credit card late fees, and card issuers’ revenue and expenses (covered by InfoBytes here).
FDIC finds 96% of U.S. households are banked
On October 25, the FDIC announced that approximately 96 percent of U.S. households had a depository institution account in 2021, according to the FDIC’s 2021 National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households. According to the biennial survey, an estimated 4.5 percent of U.S. households (representing 5.9 million households) lacked a bank or credit union account, the lowest national unbanked rate since the FDIC survey began in 2009. The survey also found that approximately 1.2 million more households were banked since 2019. Nearly half of newly banked households that received government payments said these payments contributed to their decision to open an insured bank or credit union account. The survey also found that while unbanked rates were higher among some racial and ethnic minority groups, the gaps had shrunk since 2019, with the unbanked rate falling by 2.5 percentage points for Black households, 2.9 points for Hispanic households and 9.4 points for Native American and Alaska Native households, compared with a 0.4 point decrease for white households. According to the FDIC, other key findings include that: (i) 4.5 percent of U.S. households were “unbanked” in 2021; (ii) 2.1 percent of White households were unbanked, compared with 11.3 percent of Black households and 9.3 percent of Hispanic households; (iii) mobile banking use increased sharply among banked households between 2017 (15.1 percent) and 2021 (43.5 percent); (iv) 21.7 percent of unbanked households cited “don’t have enough money to meet minimum balance” as the main reason for not having an account; and (v) the use of some nonbank financial transaction services, such as check cashing, and nonbank credit products, including payday or pawn shop loans, continue to decrease. The FDIC noted that its #GetBanked (covered by InfoBytes here) was a way to inform consumers about how to open a bank account online and to facilitate the safe and timely distribution of Economic Impact Payments through direct deposit. The FDIC requested that community groups and government agencies “join the movement and help bring more people into the banking system.”
FDIC announces Illinois disaster relief
On October 25, the FDIC issued FIL-49-2022 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Illinois affected by severe storms and flooding from July 25-28. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things: (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.