InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Spotlight on Auto Finance (Part One of Three): A New Road for Auto Finance Companies
Traditionally, non-bank lenders looked to the states and the FTC for industry regulations. But, this has changed with the introduction of the CFPB. Recent reports show that the federal government is stepping up efforts to regulate and review auto finance companies, many of whom have never been subject to bank-style examinations.
“The CFPB has created a new layer of regulation,” according to John Redding, Counsel in the Southern California office of BuckleySandler. “Auto lenders have to be alert and aware of their fair and responsible lending risks.”
Redding says one of the ways to minimize these risks is to be proactive when reviewing a company’s policies, procedures, discretionary underwriting and pricing practices. The CFPB is likely to conduct statistical reviews for loans that the company has made or purchased to ensure there is no unexplained or improper disparity between protected and non-protected classes , so companies should consider performing such analyses in advance of the regulator conducting such an analysis.
“This will help mitigate risks for the companies by identifying areas that may present risk and allowing them to proactively take steps to modify policies and practices. When the regulators are conducting an exam, companies will have to explain why the business is conducted as it is, including steps taken to ensure fair and responsible lending to all consumers, regardless of status, and address any issues that may arise,” says Redding.
The bottom line: Recognize that there are new regulators and more scrutiny on the industry and begin taking steps to perform these important reviews now.
Redding suggests the following steps auto finance companies can take to prepare for the CFPB:
- Evaluate the institution’s risk profile and prepare an operations and compliance strategy
- Update policies and procedures (review CFPB exam guidelines)
- Monitor, address, and retain records regarding consumer complaints
- Monitor third-party sources of complaints
- Appoint an ombudsman
- Conduct internal audits
- Consider patterns and practices that emerge regarding operations
- Focus on areas that may lead to consumer harm, as well as technical violations
- Include the compliance team to monitor, analyze and advise on specific proposals
Buckley Sandler Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of Industry Groups in Tenth Circuit TILA Case
On May 3, BuckleySandler filed an amicus brief on behalf of three industry trade groups in a Tenth Circuit case addressing the right to rescind a mortgage under the Truth in Lending Act. The CFPB previously filed an amicus brief in Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, No. 10-1442 (10th Cir.), in which it argued that borrowers who do not receive certain TILA-required disclosures should be permitted to rescind so long as they notify their lenders within three years—even if they did not file suit within TILA’s three-year repose period. The industry amicus brief, filed on behalf of the American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, and Consumer Mortgage Coalition, urges the Tenth Circuit to hold that TILA’s statute of repose requires that any right of rescission expire three years after origination even if the consumer previously notified the lender. The industry amicus brief argues that holding otherwise contravenes the purpose of TILA's statute of repose and creates unnecessary uncertainty that will negatively affect the industry and consumers alike.
Lawmakers Request CFPB Budget Details
On May 2, Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to CPFB Director Cordray following up on their initial request and the CFPB’s response, seeking additional details regarding the CFPB’s budget and plans. Although Congress does not appropriate funds to the CFPB, the members argue that the CFPB still must provide the committee with detailed budget information. The CFPB, according to the letter, cannot act as other non-appropriated federal banking regulators because the CFPB budget impacts the national debt while the others do not. In an attempt to exercise some oversight over CFPB spending, the members seek (i) a financial operating plan for the agency; (ii) a detailed fiscal year 2013 budget justification, (iii) performance measures, (iv) a commitment to notify Congress prior to seeking funds from the Federal Reserve Board, (v) information about the CFPB headquarters design and renovation, and (vi) the process for determining employment needs.
CFPB Announces Director of Diversity Office, Outlines Planned Activities
On April 30, the CFPB announced that Stuart Ishimaru will lead its Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. A former Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner, Mr. Ishimaru will lead an office that plans to (i) develop standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of CFPB-regulated entities, (ii) provide advice on the impact of CFPB policies and regulations on minority and women-owned businesses, (iii) coordinate with the Director to create and implement solutions to civil rights violations, and (iv) develop and implement standards of equal employment for the CFPB. In announcing Mr. Ishimarus hiring, Director Cordray stated that the financial industry has not traditionally reflected all of its customers and the new office will work with banks and nonbanks to develop systems that encourage diversity.
FDIC Issues Statement Regarding Applicability of CFPB Mortgage Compensation Rules
On April 17, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter 2012-02 to apply the recent CFPB guidance on compensation for mortgage originators to FDIC-regulated institutions. The statement directs covered institutions to ensure that their policies and practices are consistent with the compensation rules as interpreted by the CFPB.
CFPB Begins Study of Arbitration Clauses, Extends Comment Period for Overdraft Inquiry
On April 24, the CFPB released a request for information to inform its study of the use and impact of arbitration clauses in consumer financial services agreements. Through June 23, 2012, the CFPB is seeking information from the public regarding (i) the prevalence of use of these arbitration clauses, (ii) what claims consumers bring in arbitration against financial services companies, (iii) whether claims are brought by financial services companies against consumers in arbitration, and (iv) how consumers and companies are affected by actual arbitrations and outside of actual arbitrations. The study is required by the Dodd-Frank Act and must be completed before the CFPB can begin exercising its Dodd-Frank authority to conduct rulemakings regarding arbitration agreements. Therefore, at this time the CFPB is not seeking comments on whether and how the use of such agreements should be regulated.
The CFPB also this week extended through June 29, 2012, the comment period for its inquiry into overdraft programs and their costs, benefits, and risks to consumers.
CFPB Clarifies Transitional Licensing for Mortgage Loan Originators
On April 19, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2012-05 to clarify issues related to the transitional licensing of mortgage loan originators under the SAFE Act and Regulation H. According to the Bulletin, (i) states are allowed to provide a transitional license to an individual with a valid license from another state, but (ii) states are prohibited from providing a transitional license for a registered loan originator who leaves a federally regulated financial institution to act as a loan originator while pursuing a state license.
CFPB Files Briefs in Three TILA Actions
On April 13, the CFPB filed amicus briefs in TILA cases pending in the Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits. As it did previously in a brief filed in the Tenth Circuit, the CPFB argued that borrowers who do not receive the material disclosures required by TILA are not required to file suit within the three-year rescission period. Rather, the CFPB argues that a borrower can rescind the transaction as long as they provide notice to the lender of the cancellation within three years of consummation.
Key Considerations in Drafting Mobile Disclosures
Recent developments at the FTC and CFPB provide some guidance on how regulators may approach disclosures on smartphones and other mobile devices.
The recent CFPB Remittance Rule on international remittance transfers indicates some flexibility in the provision of disclosures in the remittances context via a mobile device. Additionally, the FTC’s recent report on best practices in consumer data privacy notes the difficulty in providing privacy notices on the smaller screens of mobile devices and encourages shorter, more effective privacy policies as a result.
These developments raise a series of questions for corporate counsel to consider when advising on the drafting and delivery of mobile disclosures. Specifically, questions include:
- Is the length of the mobile disclosure document as brief and succinct as it can be? Does it use concrete, everyday words and the active voice? Do the disclosures avoid multiple negatives, technical jargon and ambiguous language?
- Are the mobile disclosures presented in a logical sequence? Are they laid out in clear, concise sentences, paragraphs and sections? Are they placed in equal prominence to each other, absent any other specific regulatory format or placement requirements? Is the content placed on a particular page appropriate for the sizing of the page on the mobile screen? If not, are textual or visual cues used to encourage scrolling?
- Does the mobile disclosure "call attention to itself?" Is it on a screen the mobile user must access or will likely access frequently? If not, is it behind a hyperlink on an introductory screen that is clearly labeled so as to convey the importance of the linked disclosure? Is it presented with a clear, visible heading and an easy-to-read typeface and typesize?
- Have various technical and other applicable industry standards been consulted in the process of designing, developing and displaying mobile disclosures?
CFPB Puts Consumer Lenders on Notice Regarding Discriminatory Practices
The CFPB today put consumer lenders on notice that it “will use all available legal avenues, including disparate impact, to pursue lenders whose practices discriminate against consumers.” The CFPB intends to employ disparate impact when examining auto lenders, credit card issuers , student lenders, mortgage lenders, and other providers of consumer credit, allowing the CFPB to claim an institution has engaged in discriminatory lending based on the effects and not the intent of the lending practices. In remarks to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition today, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that “[t]he consequences of ‘disparate impact’ discrimination are very real and they affect consumers just as significantly as other forms of discrimination.” To help consumers identify and avoid credit discrimination, the CFPB also compiled and released new lending discrimination “tips and warning signs.”
Concurrent with the announcement, the CFPB published Bulletin 2012-04 to specifically reaffirm its commitment to applying disparate impact when conducting supervision and examination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation B. In support of this application, the CFPB cites what it refers to as the “consensus approach” outlined by a 1994 interagency Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending, which notes court findings that discriminatory lending in violation of ECOA can be established through (i) overt evidence of discrimination, (ii) evidence of disparate treatment, and (iii) evidence of disparate impact. The CFPB also argues that the ECOA legislative history, as characterized in the original Regulation B adopted by the Federal Reserve Board, supports application of the disparate impact doctrine.