Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • FTC says fraud cost consumers $8.8 billion in 2022

    Federal Issues

    On February 23, the FTC released data showing 2.4 million consumers reported losing a total of nearly $8.8 billion to fraud in 2022—a more than 30 percent increase from the prior year. Investment scam losses totaled more than $3.8 billion (the most of any category in 2022 and double the amount of investment scam losses reported in 2021). Imposter scam losses came in at $2.6 billion, up from $2.4 billion in 2021. The FTC reported receiving more than 5.1 million reports directly from consumers, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, the Better Business Bureau, industry members, and non-profit organizations. In addition to fraud reports, the FTC received identity theft reports and complaints related to issues concerning problems with credit bureaus, banks, and lenders. Reports received through the FTC’s database serve as the starting point for many of the FTC’s enforcement investigations, the agency said, adding that reports are also shared with federal, state, local, and international law enforcement professionals. Full coverage of the reports received in 2022 can be accessed here.

    Federal Issues FTC Consumer Finance Fraud Enforcement Consumer Complaints

  • CFPB asks large auto lenders for origination and servicing data

    Federal Issues

    On February 23, the CFPB sent market-monitoring orders to nine large auto lenders representing a cross-section of the auto finance market asking for information on their lending portfolios. Data collected from the responses on auto loans originated or serviced from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022, will be used in the Bureau’s new data set for monitoring the auto loan market. The Bureau announced its intention to create the data set last November (covered by InfoBytes here), explaining that while available data permits market participants to identify and measure certain trends, it is insufficiently granular to fully explore the causes of those trends. Since November, the Bureau has held multiple discussions with stakeholders and has gathered public input into areas in need of greater transparency, including lending channel differences; data granularity, consistency and quality; and loan performance trends. Stakeholders told the Bureau they want insights into the types of technology used during repossession, as well as “access to high-quality, consistent, and regularly published auto lending data.” The Bureau explained that the data set will provide insights into lending channels, loan performance, and inform possible future data collection efforts. The data will not include consumers’ personally identifiable information.

    Federal Issues CFPB Auto Finance

  • FHFA proposes changes to GSE regulatory capital framework

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On February 23, FHFA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework (ERCF) that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (See also FHFA fact sheet here.) Changes include modifications to the capital requirements for commingled securities, the introduction of a 0.6 risk multiplier for calculating multifamily mortgage exposures backed by properties with certain government subsidies, the introduction of a standardized approach for calculating counterparty credit risk for derivatives and cleared transactions, and modifications for how representative credit scores for single-family loans are determined. Fannie and Freddie would also be required to “assign an original credit score of 680 to single-family mortgage exposure without a permissible credit score at origination” instead of 600. The NPRM also modifies “guarantee assets, mortgage servicing assets, time-based calls for [credit risk transfer] exposures, interest-only [mortgage-backed securities], the single-family countercyclical adjustment, the stability capital buffer, and the compliance date for the advanced approaches.” Comments on the NPRM are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Issues FHFA Fannie Mae Freddie Mac GSEs Mortgages

  • CFPB finalizes updates to Rules of Practice for Adjudication Procedures

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On February 24, the CFPB finalized updates to the agency’s Rules of Practice for Adjudication Procedures (Rules of Practice). Under Section 1053(e) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bureau is required to establish procedures for administrative adjudications. Last February, the Bureau issued a request for comments on proposed amendments to the Rules of Practice, which are intended to provide greater procedural flexibility, provide parties earlier access to relevant information, expand deposition opportunities, and make various other changes (covered by InfoBytes here). After considering comments received, the Bureau said it will retain the proposed updates in the final procedural rule. According to the Bureau, the updated Rules of Practice expand opportunities for parties in adjudication proceedings to conduct depositions of potential witnesses to allow hearings to “proceed more efficiently and focus more on issues central to the proceeding.” The final rule also makes several amendments related to “timing and deadlines, the content of answers, the scheduling conference, bifurcation of proceedings, the process for deciding dispositive motions, and requirements for issue exhaustion, as well as other technical changes.” The final rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register. The Bureau noted in its announcement that while it “still plans to bring the vast majority of its matters in district court,” it will continue to conduct administrative adjudications in certain circumstances.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Issues CFPB Enforcement Adjudication CFPA

  • Agencies warn banks of crypto-asset liquidity risks

    On February 23, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and OCC released a joint statement addressing bank liquidity risks tied to crypto-assets. The agencies warned that using sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities may expose banks to elevated liquidity risks “due to the unpredictability of the scale and timing of deposit inflows and outflows.” The agencies addressed concerns related to deposits placed by crypto-asset-related entities for the benefit of end customers where the deposits may be influenced by the customer’s behavior or crypto-asset sector vulnerabilities, rather than the crypto-asset-related entity itself, which is the bank’s direct counterparty. The agencies warned that the “uncertainty and resulting deposit volatility can be exacerbated by end customer confusion related to inaccurate or misleading representations of deposit insurance by a crypto-asset-related entity.” The agencies also addressed issues concerning deposits that constitute stablecoin-related reserves, explaining that the stability of these types of deposits may be dependent on several factors, including the “demand for stablecoins, the confidence of stablecoin holders in the stablecoin arrangement, and the stablecoin issuer’s reserve management practices,” and as such, may “be susceptible to large and rapid outflows stemming from, for example, unanticipated stablecoin redemptions or dislocations in crypto-asset markets.”

    The agencies’ statement reminded banking organizations to apply effective risk management controls when handling crypto-related deposits, commensurate with the associated liquidity risk of those deposits. The statement suggested certain effective risk management practices, which include: (i) understanding the direct and indirect drivers of potential deposit behavior to ascertain which deposits are susceptible to volatility; (ii) assessing concentrations or interconnectedness across crypto deposits, as well as the associated liquidity risks; (iii) incorporating liquidity risks or funding volatility into contingency funding planning; and (iv) performing robust due diligence and ongoing monitoring of crypto-asset-related entities that establish deposit accounts to ensure representations about these types of deposit accounts are accurate. The agencies further emphasized that banks are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including brokered deposit rules, as applicable, and Call Report filing requirements. The joint statement also reminded banks that they “are neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing banking services to customers of any specific class or type, as permitted by law or regulation.”

    As previously covered by InfoBytes, the agencies issued a statement in January highlighting key risks banks should consider when choosing to engage in cryptocurrency-related services.

    Bank Regulatory Federal Issues Digital Assets FDIC Federal Reserve OCC Cryptocurrency Risk Management Fintech

  • OFAC issues more Russian sanctions and metals and mining determination

    Financial Crimes

    On February 24, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced significant measures targeting the metals and mining sector of the Russian Federation economy under Executive Order 14024. OFAC also imposed sanctions on 22 individuals and 83 entities to further isolate Russia from the international economy and hinder the country’s access to capital, materials, technology, and military support sustaining its war against Ukraine. (See also OFAC’s fact sheet on sanctions measures taken during the past year.) According to OFAC, the designations target “over 30 third-country individuals and companies connected to Russia’s sanctions evasion efforts, including those related to arms trafficking and illicit finance.” The agency added that “[w]hile Russian banks representing over 80 percent of total Russian banking sector assets are already subject to U.S and international sanctions,” it is now “designating over a dozen financial institutions in Russia, including one of the top-ten largest banks by asset value.” OFAC explained that sanctioned actors are known to turn to smaller banks and wealth-management firms to evade sanctions and access the international financial system. As a result, several wealth management-related entities and associated individuals playing key roles in Russia’s financial services sector have been sanctioned. OFAC also issued a determination (effective February 24), in consultation with the Department of State, allowing for sanctions to be imposed on any individual or entity determined to operate or have operated in the metals and mining sector of the Russian Federation economy.

    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 are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Further, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons unless authorized by an OFAC-issued general or specific license, or exempt.                   

    The announcement further noted that additional measures have been taken by the Departments of State and Commerce, as well as the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, in coordination with allies and G7 partners.

    In conjunction with the sanctions, OFAC issued several Russia-related general licenses (see GLs 8F, 13D, 60, and 61), as well as five associated frequently asked questions.

    Financial Crimes Of Interest to Non-US Persons Department of Treasury OFAC OFAC Sanctions OFAC Designations Russia Ukraine Ukraine Invasion

  • FATF suspends Russia’s task force membership

    Financial Crimes

    On February 24, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the international standard-setting body on illicit finance, suspended the Russian Federation’s membership, saying the country’s “actions unacceptably run counter to the FATF core principles aiming to promote security, safety, and the integrity of the global financial system.” This marks the first time the FATF has ever suspended a country from its membership. Despite the suspension, the FATF emphasized that Russia “remains accountable for its obligation to implement the FATF Standards” and “must continue to meet its financial obligations.” According to the statement, the FATF will continue to monitor the situation and will consider whether to lift or modify these restrictions during each of its plenary meetings.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen issued a statement following the suspension. Explaining that “FATF members lead the global effort on combatting money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation and members are expected to uphold and promote core principles that safeguard the global financial system,” Yellen stressed that “Russia’s ongoing war undermines the principles of international cooperation and mutual respect that underpin the mandate of the FATF.” She further commented that the “United States commends the FATF’s historic decision to suspend Russia’s membership in the body,” and added that “Russia’s disregard for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is at odds with the FATF’s foundational values of international cooperation and the rule of law. Further, Russia’s dealings with suppliers of last resort such as Iran and North Korea, its government-driven efforts to evade international sanctions and export controls, and other activities … make it a haven for illicit finance—the very thing the FATF works to combat.”

    Financial Crimes Of Interest to Non-US Persons Russia Department of Treasury FATF Illicit Finance

  • CFPB orders nonbank title lender to pay $15 million for numerous violations

    Federal Issues

    On February 23, the CFPB entered a consent order against a Georgia-based nonbank auto title lender (respondent) for alleged violations of the Military Lending Act (MLA), the Truth in Lending Act, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. According to the Bureau, the respondent allegedly charged nearly three times the MLA’s 36 percent annual interest rate cap on auto title loans made to military families. The respondent also allegedly changed military borrowers’ personal information in an attempt to hide their protected status, included mandatory arbitration clauses and unreasonable notice provisions in its loans, and charged fees for an insurance product that provided no benefit to the borrower. The Bureau noted that the respondent has been under a consent order since 2016 for allegedly engaging in unfair and abusive acts related to its lending and debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here). While neither admitting nor denying any of the allegations, the respondent has agreed to pay $5.05 million in consumer redress and a $10 million penalty. The respondent must also implement robust measures to prevent future violations.

    Federal Issues CFPB Enforcement Auto Finance Military Lending Act Consumer Finance Nonbank Repeat Offender Title Loans UDAAP CFPA Unfair Abusive

  • FHA reduces mortgage insurance premiums to improve home affordability

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On February 22, FHA announced a 30 basis point reduction in the annual premium charged to mortgage borrowers, resulting in mortgage insurance premiums of 0.55 percent for most borrowers seeking FHA-insured mortgages (down from 0.85 percent). (See also Mortgagee Letter 2023-05.) The reduction will apply to nearly all FHA-insured Single Family Title II forward mortgages, and is applicable to all eligible property types including single family homes, condominiums, and manufactured homes, all eligible loan-to-value ratios, and all eligible base loan amounts. According to the announcement, the reduction is intended to build on steps taken by the Biden administration to make homeownership more affordable and accessible, particularly for households of color, and could save an estimated 850,000 borrowers an average of $800 annually. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last September HUD modified FHA’s underwriting policies to allow lenders to consider a first-time homebuyer’s positive rental payment history as an additional factor in determining eligibility for an FHA-insured mortgage, and in March, the Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity Task Force outlined steps for addressing alleged racial bias in home appraisals (covered by InfoBytes here). Additional actions taken by HUD to improve homeownership accessibility can be found here.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Issues HUD FHA Consumer Finance Mortgages Mortgage Insurance Mortgage Insurance Premiums Biden

  • VA reduces funding fee for certain loans

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On February 14, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced a funding fee charge update for loans closed on or after April 7, 2023. According to Circular 26-23-06, funding fees are charged on VA transactions involving a home loan where a borrower does not qualify for a fee waiver. A reduced funding fee also applies to borrowers purchasing or constructing a home with a five or 10 percent down payment. The VA explained that lenders are to continue charging non-exempt veterans the current funding fee percentage for loans closed prior to April 7 (fee rates are listed here). For loans closed on or after April 7, lenders must charge the new funding fee percentage (fee rates are listed here).

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Federal Issues Department of Veterans Affairs Consumer Finance Fees Mortgages

Pages

Upcoming Events