InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Borrowers may request SBA loan review of partially forgiven PPP loans
On January 27, SBA issued Procedural Notice 5000-827666 outlining a new process for borrowers to request an SBA loan review of partially approved forgiveness decisions by their Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) lenders. Effective immediately, when a PPP lender receives a forgiveness remittance from SBA on a partial approval decision (including instances when the lender required a borrower to apply for forgiveness in an amount less than the full amount of the loan), the lender must inform the borrower that the borrower has 30 calendar days from receipt of the notification to seek an SBA loan review of the lender’s partial approval decision. The lender must then notify SBA within 5 calendar days of receiving the borrower’s timely request for review. If SBA selects the loan for review, the borrower must continue to make payments on the remaining balance. Additionally, SBA noted that borrowers should be aware that the agency “may determine that the borrower is entitled to forgiveness in an amount less than what the [l]ender decided (including zero if, for example, the borrower is determined to be ineligible for the PPP loan), an amount more than what the [l]ender decided, or the same amount as the [l]ender decided.” The SBA notice outlined details related to forgiveness payment remittances resulting from a partial approval loan review, and noted that SBA will provide lenders additional guidance through the platform, including step-by-step instructions. The notice expires January 1, 2023.
Agencies emphasize illegality of appraisal discrimination
On February 4, CFPB Fair Lending Director Patrice Ficklin, along with senior staff from the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, HUD, FHFA, and DOJ, sent a joint letter to The Appraisal Foundation (TAF) emphasizing that discrimination prohibitions under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and ECOA extend to appraisals. The joint letter, sent in response to a request for comments on proposed changes to the 2023 Appraisal Standards Board Ethics Rule (Ethics Rule) and Advisory Opinion 16, noted that while provisions prohibit an appraiser from relying on “unsupported conclusions relating to characteristics such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender, marital status, familial status, age, receipt of public assistance income, disability, or an unsupported conclusion that homogeneity of such characteristics is necessary to maximize value,’” the “provisions do not prohibit an appraiser from relying on ‘supported conclusions’ based on such characteristics and, therefore, suggest that such reliance may be permissible.” The letter noted that the federal ban on discrimination under the FHA and ECOA is not limited only to “unsupported” conclusions, and any discussions related to potential appraisal bias should be consistent with all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The joint letter encouraged TAF to present the nondiscrimination requirements as “an essential part of any guidance provided in the Ethics Rule or Advisory Opinion 16 to ensure compliance with fair housing and fair lending laws.”
In a blog post, Ficklin noted that despite the fact that federal law prohibits racial, religious, and other discrimination in home appraisals, there are still reports of appraisers making “value judgments on biased, unfounded assumptions about borrowers and the neighborhoods in which they live.” Additionally, Ficklin noted that the Bureau is carefully reviewing findings presented in a report funded by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's Appraisal Subcommittee, which raised serious concerns related to existing appraisal standards and provided recommendations with respect to fairness, equity, objectivity, and diversity in appraisals and the training and credentialing of appraisers.
Acting FDIC Chairman Gruenberg outlines priorities
On February 7, acting FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg released a statement and summary of the FDIC’s priorities for the coming year. According to Gruenberg, the federal banking agencies intend to act on a notice of proposed rulemaking to strengthen and enhance the Community Reinvestment Act which is the FDIC’s “top priority.” For evaluating crypto-asset risks, Gruenberg noted the need for “robust guidance to the banking industry on the management of prudential and consumer protection risks raised by crypto-asset activities.” Additionally, Gruenberg stated that the financial risks of climate change to the financial system will also be a top priority of the FDIC, and that the FDIC’s actions “will include seeking public comment on guidance designed to help banks prudently manage these risks, establishing an FDIC interdivisional, interdisciplinary working group on climate-related financial risks, and joining the international Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System.” Other priorities include reviewing the bank merger process and finalizing the Basel III Capital Rule.
FSOC reports on NBFIs
On February 4, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) released a statement regarding nonbank financial intermediation. According to the statement, FSOC received updates on progress over the past year regarding three types of nonbank financial institutions (NBFIs), which include hedge funds, open-end funds, and money market funds (MMF). The statement noted that FSOC reestablished its Hedge Fund Working Group in 2021, with the primary objective of providing updates to FSOC’s “assessment of potential risks to U.S. financial stability from hedge funds, their activities, and their interconnections with other market participants.” FSOC “supports the Hedge Fund Working Group’s recommendation that the Office of Financial Research (OFR) consider ways to obtain better data on the uncleared bilateral repurchase agreement market, an important source of leverage for hedge funds.” In 2021, FSOC also established an interagency staff-level Open-end Fund Working Group, which assessed potential risks to U.S. financial stability arising from open-end funds. FSOC noted that it “supports the Open-end Fund Working Group’s continued analysis of the potential risks to financial stability that may arise from liquidity transformation at open-end funds.” In respect to MMF, FSOC noted that it supports the SEC’s efforts to reform MMFs and strengthen short-term funding markets.
OCC looks at compliance with state laws in CRA evaluations
On February 2, the OCC issued Bulletin 2022-2 addressing the agency’s processes for considering state banking commissioner input related to the performance of national banks under state community reinvestment laws, as well as state consumer complaint referrals. Among other things, the Bulletin outlines OCC policy and procedures for considering state input on the community reinvestment performance of OCC-supervised banks, including the implementation of Riegle–Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act community reinvestment-related provisions. Noting that several states and the District of Columbia have adopted community reinvestment laws that are similar to the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the OCC states that it will consider input from state banking commissioners regarding a national bank’s performance under applicable state community reinvestment laws when evaluating the bank’s CRA performance. The Bulletin also provides general guidance related to the OCC’s expectations concerning the handling of consumer complaints that state officials refer to national banks and federal savings associations, as well as state referrals of complaints to the OCC. The Bulletin “reminds banks that the OCC’s exclusive visitorial authority is not a basis for declining to address consumer complaints referred by state or local officials,” and “encourages banks to explain to state officials how complaints were resolved but without compromising consumers’ privacy interests or other confidential information.” Additionally, state officials are encouraged to refer to the OCC complaints alleging violations of federal fair lending laws or illegal, predatory, unfair, or deceptive acts or practices.
Bulletin 2022-2 rescinds OCC Advisory Letters 99-1 and 2004-2.
FDIC expands #GetBanked campaign
On February 2, the FDIC announced the expansion of its #GetBanked public awareness campaign into the Los Angeles, Dallas, and Detroit metropolitan areas in continuation of the agency’s efforts to increase financial inclusion to the unbanked population. The FDIC stated that the campaign “is focused on areas where research finds that a significant number of Black and Hispanic households are unbanked,” with the goal of “encourag[ing] unbanked consumers to consider opening a checking account.” With a series of English- and Spanish-language digital, audio, and video advertisements, the FDIC intends to reach unbanked consumers, specifically during the tax filing season. The campaign also includes resources to help consumers choose the best account to meet their needs and identify low-cost bank accounts.
CSBS reminds Senate that FDIC Board must include a member with state bank supervisory experience
On January 31, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) sent a letter to Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), asking Congress to “uphold its commitment to the dual banking system” and confirm a member of the FDIC Board with state bank supervisory experience as required by Congress’ 1996 amendment to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act). CSBS explained that “the spirit of the law” and legislative history “indicate that this requirement is only met by a person who has worked in state government as a supervisor of state-chartered banks.” This requirement, CSBS pointed out, has not been met since former Massachusetts State Bank Commissioner Thomas Curry finished his term in 2012, thus leading to a nine-year period in which no one on the Board has had the legally mandated state regulatory experience. CSBS published a blog post the same day outlining three points for consideration: (i) the FDI Act’s legislative history shows Congress’s clear intent to include on the Board an individual (not including the Comptroller of the Currency or the CFPB director) with state government experience supervising state banks; (ii) an individual with “[e]xperience working for the FDIC or the Federal Reserve System does not meet the FDI Act’s requirement of an independent director with ‘state bank supervisory experience’”; and (iii) additional FDI Act provisions concerning state bank supervision reinforce that “‘state bank supervisory experience’ clearly refers only to service as a state government official with bank supervisory responsibilities.’” The letter added that “[a]s regulators of both banks and fintechs, state regulators have unique insight into emerging technologies and their impact on the financial services ecosystem. The FDIC Board would benefit tremendously from state regulators’ practical, real-life experience with innovation.”
Agencies file lawsuit in scheme targeting the elderly
On February 1, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), along with the CFTC and 26 other state regulators, announced a complaint against a precious metals dealer and its owner (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly perpetrating a $68 million fraudulent scheme against more than 450 individuals nationwide, specifically against the elderly. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly utilized false statements on its website regarding the risk and safety of their traditional retirement accounts and used fear tactics to convince senior citizens to purchase the precious metals. The complaint alleged that the company violated the federal Commodity Exchange Act by targeting the elderly and advising them to dissolve their savings and traditional retirement accounts in order to purchase their highly inflated and overpriced products, and that defendants had misrepresented their credentials and advised customers that the products were “a safe and conservative investment.” The complaint seeks disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, restitution, permanent registration and trading bans, and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, state regulatory laws, and CFTC regulations.
The same day, the SEC filed a complaint against the defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for allegedly violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, plus interest, and civil penalties.
FDIC discusses post-financial crisis legal claims and enforcement proceedings
Recently, the FDIC reported on legal claims and enforcement proceedings taken by the agency during the financial crisis in the years from 2008 to 2013. During this time period, the FDIC stated it “pursued and defended more legal claims in both its receivership and corporate capacities than during the savings and loan and banking crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s.” In its receivership capacity, the FDIC investigated and litigated many professional liability claims and sought to enter and collect on criminal restitution and forfeiture orders related to failed banks. The agency also pursued many enforcement claims and other actions related to both open and failed banks in its corporate capacity. The report discussed numerous topics, including the FDIC’s investigation into the residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) portfolios of failed insured depository institutions (IDIs), which often “revealed that RMBS portfolios suffered heavy losses because the credit quality of loans collateralizing the RMBS was much lower than the credit quality represented in the RMBS offering documents.” Ultimately, 19 lawsuits were filed by the FDIC on behalf of eight receiverships seeking damages based on the IDIs’ purchases of RMBS. Other significant topics discussed within the report focus on LIBOR suppression claims, residential mortgage malpractice and/or mortgage fraud, criminal claims and recovery, income tax refund litigation, and administrative enforcement proceedings, among others.
CFPB studies criminal justice financial ecosystem
On January 31, the CFPB published a report studying the criminal justice financial ecosystem, which addressed financial challenges people and families face at every stage of the criminal justice process. According to Justice-Involved Individuals and the Consumer Financial Marketplace, contact with the criminal justice system is very common in the U.S. In 2019, 2.1 million adults were in jail or prison, 4.4 million were under community supervision, and 77 million adults (1 in 3) had a criminal record. These statistics, the Bureau stated, do not account for family members or friends who are often responsible for providing financial support for incarcerated individuals, and who often encounter financial impacts as a result. The Bureau reported that individuals often struggle to pay criminal justice debt and often face steep fines, including additional fees tacked on by third-party debt collectors that, if not paid, may result in incarceration. Additionally, the Bureau reported that the choice of financial service providers is limited within the criminal justice system, and that faced with little or no choice as to how to receive funds upon release from prison or jail, individuals often incur high fees to access their money and may experience difficulties resolving errors. Last October, the Bureau issued a consent order against a provider of financial services to prisons and jails, which alleged that the company engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA by charging consumers fees to access their own funds on prepaid debit cards that they were required to use (covered by InfoBytes here). The report also found that governments are increasingly shifting incarceration costs to the incarcerated individuals and their families. These costs, the Bureau said, are often sourced to private companies that inflate prices above typical market costs, and raise serious concerns about the transparency, fairness, and availability of consumer choice in markets associated with the justice system.