InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies defeat states’ valid-when-made challenge
On February 8, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of the OCC and FDIC (see here and here), upholding their respective rules which clarify that interest charges that are permissible when a loan is originated “shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.” The judgments resolve lawsuits brought by several state attorneys general in 2020, challenging both the OCC’s final rule on “Permissible Interest on Loans that are Sold, Assigned, or Otherwise Transferred” (known also as the valid-when-made rule) and the FDIC’s final rule which clarified that under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), whether interest on a loan is permissible is determined at the time the loan is made and is not affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.
In the OCC matter, the states’ argued that the agency’s valid-when-made rule (which effectively reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision, and was covered by InfoBytes here) impermissibly preempts state law, is contrary to the plain language of section 85 (and section 1463(g)(1)), and contravenes the judgment of Congress, which declined to extend preemption to nonbanks. Moreover, the states contended that the OCC failed to give meaningful consideration to the commentary received regarding the rule, essentially enabling “‘rent-a-bank’ schemes.” The OCC countered that its rule does not preempt state law but rather “merely interprets” banks’ authority to charge interest. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The court agreed with the OCC, holding that the OCC was interpreting the scope of 12 U.S.C. § 85, not determining whether to preempt state laws, and therefore was not required to follow the procedures set forth in 12 U.S.C. § 25b as the states alleged, including consulting with the CFPB. Applying the Chevron framework, the court upheld the OCC’s interpretations of the National Bank Act and Home Owners’ Loan Act. Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu issued a statement following the decision, in which he emphasized that while the court’s order “affirmed the validity of the OCC’s rule,” the “legal certainty should be used to the benefit of consumers and not be abused.” He added that the agency “is committed to strong supervision that expands financial inclusion and ensures banks are not used as a vehicle for ‘rent-a-charter’ arrangements.”
In the FDIC matter, the states argued, among other things, that the FDIC did not have the power to issue the final rule under 12 U.S.C. § 1831d, and asserted that while the FDIC may issue “regulations to carry out” the provisions of the FDIA, it cannot issue regulations that would apply to nonbanks. The states also claimed that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would facilitate evasion of state law by enabling “rent-a-bank” schemes. The FDIC countered that the states’ arguments misconstrue the rule, which does not regulate nonbanks, does not interpret state law, and does not preempt state law. Rather, the FDIC argued that the rule clarifies the FDIA by “reasonably” filling in “two statutory gaps” surrounding banks’ interest rate authority. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The court rejected the states’ argument that the FDIC exceeded its authority, and held that under Chevron, the agency’s interpretation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831d is not unreasonable. In upholding the FDIC’s interpretation, the court stated that the final rule “does not purport to regulate either the transferee’s conduct or any changes to the interest rate once a transaction is consummated.”
Fed releases synthetic identity fraud mitigation toolkit
Recently, the Federal Reserve released a synthetic identity fraud mitigation toolkit to help financial institutions, businesses, and consumers improve awareness, detection, measurement, and mitigation of identity fraud. The Fed emphasized that synthetic identity fraud (in which fictitious people are created to penetrate the financial system) is a challenge facing the payments industry and other businesses and continues to grow in frequency and impact. Synthetic fraud accounted for an estimated $20 billion in losses to U.S. financial institutions in 2020, the Fed stated, stressing the need for synthetic identity fraud awareness and continued discussions about detection and mitigation strategies. The toolkit contains several modules, including resources on the basics of synthetic identity fraud, how fraudsters use synthetic identities, what to do when synthetic identities become a reality, and how to detect synthetic identities. Additional resources will be added in the future, including more on synthetic identity fraud detection and mitigation.
Fannie Mae to pay $53 million to settle fair housing violations
On February 7, the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, along with the National Fair Housing Alliance and 19 local fair housing organizations from across the country announced a $53 million settlement with Fannie Mae to resolve allegations that Fannie Mae allowed foreclosed homes in predominantly White neighborhoods to be better maintained and marketed than similar homes in communities of color, a claim corroborated by a four year-long investigation of over 2,300 Fannie Mae real estate owned (REO) properties in 39 metropolitan areas. The plaintiffs alleged that they attempted to get Fannie Mae to voluntarily comply with the Fair Housing Act and change its discriminatory policies and practices, but claimed that Fannie Mae “continued to maintain its REO properties differently based on the predominant race and national origin of neighborhoods” and caused “particularized and concrete injury to those homeowners and residents.”
Under the terms of the settlement, Fannie Mae is required to pay $53 million to cover claims for damages, attorneys’ fees, and cost. Nearly $35.4 million of the settlement amount will be used to address community needs, including “addressing home ownership, neighborhood and/or community stabilization, access to credit, property rehabilitation, residential development in African American and Latino communities, fair housing education and outreach, counseling, and other fair housing activities” in the allegedly harmed areas.
The announcement further noted that the plaintiffs—who will manage and disburse the settlement funds—intend to provide grants that will go towards down-payment assistance for first-generation homebuyers and renovations for homes that languished in foreclosure, as well as innovative programs and partnerships to promote fair housing. The announcement also noted that Fannie Mae has implemented several measures to avoid similar occurrences in the future, such as increasing its oversight of maintenance of its REO properties, prioritizing owner-occupants instead of investors as purchasers of REOs, ensuring compliance with fair housing laws, and providing fair housing training to its employees and vendors. According to the announcement, this case marks the first time a federal court confirmed that the Fair Housing Act has covered the maintenance and marketing of REO properties.
Following the announcement, HUD released a statement applauding the settlement. “It is our hope that settlement of these cases will bring about much needed positive outcomes for these undeserved communities,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Demetria L. McCain said. “We also hope mortgage lenders across the country will take steps to avoid fair housing violations in their own REO portfolios.”
OCC to host risk management workshops
On February 7, the OCC released its lineup of free, virtual workshops for boards of directors of community national banks and federal savings associations. Included as part of the workshops to be held this spring is a risk management series focusing on credit risk, operational risk, compliance risk, and risk governance. Another workshop will present guidance for directors and senior managers on building blocks for success. A schedule of the upcoming workshops and registration information is available here.
McWilliams discusses her tenure at FDIC
On February 3, outgoing-FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams spoke at the Bipartisan Policy Center on both her tenure and technology’s role in facilitating a more inclusive financial system. In reflecting upon her time as Chairman, McWilliams opined that the “story of how financial regulators, central banks, and the global financial system responded to the pandemic is one of great success. Only three banks failed since the start of the pandemic, and none due to the pandemic itself.” She also pointed out that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the FDIC prioritized “improving supervision and resolution planning” and “the importance of strong capital levels,” particularly for large banks. McWilliams listed some of her accomplishments as Chairman, including “implement[ing] a recordkeeping rule,” “simplify[ng] the deposit insurance rules for trust accounts,” and “enhancing the FDIC’s readiness if it is ever called upon to resolve non-bank firms, such as central counterparties.” Central counterparties, McWilliams explained, play a critical role in the financial system as their clearing services are central to U.S. financial markets. McWilliams discussed the ways in which the FDIC enhanced competition, fostered innovation, and “supported third-party partnerships,” extolling these virtues as “the guiding principles of my chairmanship that helped forge the most vibrant financial market in the world.”
McWilliams also stated that a “key aspect of our pro-competition agenda” was to “moderniz[e] a broad range of our rules while maintaining our core safety and soundness focus.” In connection with “crypto assets,” McWilliams opined that her personal “view is that generally bank-issued stablecoins closely resemble digital representations of deposits.” She urged the FDIC to “to build off the work we have done and provide clarity to the public as soon as practicable, which could include promulgating amendments to the deposit insurance rules.” McWilliams said that she hopes regulators will be more welcoming of the “endless possibilities” that digital assets and blockchain technology have in enhancing the efficiency of payments.
Treasury stresses importance of regulating stablecoins
On February 8, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Nellie Liang testified before the House Financial Services Committee that more must be done to clearly and consistently regulate stablecoins. Stablecoins’ “exponential growth” heightens “the urgency of ensuring that an appropriate regulatory framework is in place,” Liang stressed, adding that the value of stablecoins has grown over the last two years from roughly $5 billion in 2020 to approximately $175 billion today.
Liang encouraged lawmakers to consider two additional issues as they create policy: (i) regulations for “intermediaries” in the digital asset markets, including traditional financial actors such as banks and investment companies, as well as stablecoin issuers, custodial wallet providers, and digital asset exchanges; and (ii) potential systemic risk that may result from the build-up of leverage against digital assets, which “can play a key role in catalyzing and accelerating financial instability.” Liang compared the second issue to the 2007-2008 financial crisis. To address this risk, Liang stated that the Biden Administration is examining the role that leverage plays in the digital asset market, as well as the implications that leverage may have on the rest of the financial system. She also reiterated concerns raised in the President’s Working Group (PWG) on Financial Markets’ report on stablecoins (covered by InfoBytes here), which emphasized that stablecoins may be more widely used in the future as a means of payment and could increase “risks to users and the broader system.” Liang stressed that “[w]hile Treasury and the PWG fully support efforts by state and federal agencies to use existing authorities in support of their statutory mandates, we do not believe existing authorities provide a sufficient basis for comprehensive and consistent oversight of stablecoins.”
CFPB publishes 2022 reportable HMDA data reference chart
On January 27, the CFPB published the Reportable HMDA Data: A Regulatory and Reporting Overview Reference Chart for HMDA Data Collected in 2022. The chart serves as a reference tool for data points that are required to be collected, recorded, and reported under Regulation C, as amended by HMDA rules, which were most recently issued in April 2020 (covered by InfoBytes here). The chart also provides relevant regulation and commentary sections and guidance for when to report “not applicable or exempt.” The Bureau notes that the “chart does not provide data fields or enumerations used in preparing the HMDA loan/application register (LAR).” For additional information on preparing the HMDA LAR, financial institutions should consult FFIEC guidance here.
Five agencies launch effort to address romance scams
On February 7, the CFTC, FinCEN, CFPB, ICE, and U.S. Postal Inspection Service launched the nationwide awareness effort “Dating or Defrauding?” to remind the public about the ongoing dangers of romance scams that target individuals through dating apps or social media. The agencies draw attention to new types of scams that have costs victims millions of dollars, and highlight recent FTC studies showing that 2020 was a record year for romance scams with the number of these types of complaints continuing to increase in 2021. According to a January FTC blog post (covered by InfoBytes here), more than 95,000 people reported about $770 million in losses to fraud initiated on social media platforms in 2021, with investment scams and romance scams having the most reported dollars lost. A recent FTC data spotlight showed that consumers reported losing $547 million to romance scams in 2021 alone. The agencies’ initiative provides guidance on how to recognize scams before individuals give away any money or assets, as well as measures to take if they have been victimized.
House passes America COMPETES Act
On February 4, the U.S. House passed, by a vote of 222-210, the “America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength (COMPETES) Act” H.R. 4521, which aims to strengthen the competitiveness of the U.S. economy and U.S. businesses, and counters anti-competitive actions taken by the People’s Republic of China. The COMPETES Act includes provisions affecting financial services, such as:
- U.S. Policy on World Bank Group and Asian Development Bank Loans to China. This provision would, among other things, direct Treasury to vote against any loans to China from the World Bank or Asian Development Bank under certain circumstances, and allow borrowing countries to seek restructuring of China loans in official multilateral debt relief forums.
- Prohibitions or Conditions on Certain Transmittal of Funds. This provision would streamline the process by which special measures may be introduced and modernizes the authorities granted to the FinCEN by permitting the agency to pursue bad actors.
- Study on Chinese Support for Afghan Illicit Finance. This provision would direct Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to brief Congress on the identification and analysis of Chinese economic, commercial, and financial connections to Afghanistan, to include illicit financial networks involved in narcotics trafficking, illicit financial transactions, official corruption, natural resources exploitation, and terrorist networks.
- Support for Debt Relief for Developing Countries. This provision would direct the Treasury secretary and U.S. representatives at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to engage with international financial institutions, official creditors, and relevant commercial creditor groups to advocate for the effective implementation of the G-20’s Common Framework.
OCC hosts virtual Innovation Hours
On February 3, the OCC announced it will host virtual Innovation Office Hours on March 16 through 17, to promote responsible innovation in the federal banking system. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC established the Office of Innovation in 2016 to implement certain aspects of the OCC’s responsible innovation framework, including, among other things: (i) creating an outreach and technical assistance program; (ii) conducting awareness and training activities for OCC staff, such as implementing an internal web page that provides OCC staff a ‘one-stop-shop’ to access information on industry trends and innovative products, services, and processes; and (iii) encouraging coordination and facilitation among the regulatory community and industry stakeholders. According to the OCC’s recent announcement, office hours are one-on-one meetings with representatives from the OCC Office of Innovation to discuss fintech, new products or services, partnering with a bank or fintech company, or other matters. Each meeting will last no longer than one hour. Interested parties should request a virtual office hours session by February 18.