InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB asks for comments on alternative disclosures for construction loans
On February 27, the CFPB announced it is in the final stages of reviewing an application for alternative mortgage disclosures for construction loans submitted by a trade group representing small U.S. banks. The applicant maintains that it is not uncommon for first-time homebuyers in rural communities to build their home instead of purchasing an existing home due to the scarcity of “existing affordable ‘starter’ homes.” The applicant seeks to adjust existing mortgage disclosures to facilitate the offering of loans that finance both the construction phase and the permanent purchase of a home. According to the applicant, a consumer’s understanding of construction loans would be improved if disclosures are more specifically tailored to these types of transactions. The Bureau stated that should it approve this “template” application, individual lenders will be able to apply for enrollment in an in-market testing pilot. However, the Bureau noted that, as indicated in its Policy to Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs (covered by InfoBytes here), the mere approval of a template neither permits a lender to unilaterally conduct a trial disclosure program without further approval by the CFPB, nor does it “bind the CFPB to grant individual applications.”
The disclosure of the application comes as a result of efforts undertaken by the Bureau to be more open and transparent when adjusting regulations for new business models. The Bureau stated that in addition to publicly releasing the application, it is seeking input from stakeholders who have experience with construction loans. Comments will be accepted through March 29.
CFPB shutters mortgage lender, alleging deceptive advertising
On February 27, the CFPB entered a consent order against a California-based mortgage lender (respondent) for alleged repeat violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, TILA (Regulation Z), and the Mortgage Acts and Practices Advertising Rule (Regulation N), in relation to a 2015 consent order. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2015, the Bureau claimed the respondent (which is licensed in at least 30 states and Puerto Rico and originates consumer mortgages guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and mortgages insured by the FHA) allegedly led consumers to believe it was affiliated with the U.S. government. Specifically, respondent allegedly used the names and logos of the VA and FHA in its advertisements, described loan products as part of a “distinctive program offered by the U.S. government,” and instructed consumers to call the “VA Interest Rate Reduction Department” at a phone number belonging to the mortgage lender, thus implying that the mailings were sent by government agencies. The 2015 consent order required the respondent to abide by several prohibitions and imposed a $250,000 civil money penalty.
The Bureau contends, however, that after the 2015 consent order went into effect, the respondent continued to send millions of mortgage advertisements that allegedly made deceptive representations or contained inadequate or impermissible disclosures, including that the respondent was affiliated with the VA or the FHA. Additionally, the Bureau alleges that the respondent misrepresented interest rates, key terms, and the amount of monthly payments, and falsely represented that benefits available to qualifying borrowers were time limited. Many of these alleged misrepresentations, the Bureau claims, were expressly prohibited by the 2015 consent order.
The 2023 consent order permanently bans the respondent from engaging in any mortgage lending activities, or from “otherwise participating in or receiving remuneration from mortgage lending, or assisting others in doing so.” The respondent, which neither admits nor denies the allegations, is also required pay a $1 million civil money penalty.
FDIC issues January enforcement actions
On February 24, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in January. The FDIC made public 11 orders, including “four combined orders of prohibition and orders to pay civil money penalties, one 8(b) consent order, one order to pay civil money penalty, three orders of prohibition, one order terminating a Section 19 order, and one order terminating consent order.”
The actions include a civil money order against a Pennsylvania-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA). The FDIC determined that the bank had engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the FDPA by failing to provide required notices of lender-placed flood insurance to borrowers in 16 instances.
Additionally, the FDIC issued a consent order against an Iowa-based bank alleging the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices and violations of law or regulations” relating to, among other things, its process for testing a proposed debit/prepaid card program. The FDIC stipulated that before starting the testing phase of any new debit card program or similar program, the bank “must develop, adopt, and implement an effective program addressing anti-money laundering (AML) / combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) controls” for the new program and conduct an independent assessment. The bank is also ordered to revise its AML/CFT policy and conduct a review of its information security program to ensure it reflects current risks.
DFPI modifies CCFPL proposal
On February 24, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released modifications to proposed regulations for implementing and interpreting certain sections of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) related to commercial financial products and services. As previously covered by InfoBytes, DFPI issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) last June to implement sections 22159, 22800, 22804, 90005, 90009, 90012, and 90015 of the CCFPL related to the offering and provision of commercial financing and other financial products and services to small businesses, nonprofits, and family farms. According to DFPI, section 22800 subdivision (d) authorizes the Department to define unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices in connection with the offering or provision of commercial financing. Section 90009, subdivision (e), among other things, authorizes the Department’s rulemaking to include data collection and reporting on the provision of commercial financing or other financial products and services.
After considering comments received on the NPRM, changes proposed by the DFPI include the following:
- Amended definitions. The proposed modification defines a “commercial financing transaction” to mean “a consummated commercial financing transaction for which a disclosure is provided in accordance with California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 920, subdivision (a).” The modifications to the definitions also amend a “covered provider” to exclude “any person exempted from division 24 of the Financial Code under Financial Code section 90002,” and defines a “small business” to be “a business entity organized for profit with annual gross receipts of no more than $16,000,000 or the annual gross receipt level as biennially adjusted by the Department of General Services in accordance with Government Code section 14837, subdivision (d)(3), whichever is greater.” In determining a business entity’s annual gross receipts, the proposed modifications state that covered providers “may rely on any relevant written representation by the business entity, including information provided in any application or agreement for commercial financing or other financial product or service.”
- UDAAP. In addition to making several technical changes, the proposed modifications clarify that “[i]t is unlawful for a covered provider to engage or have engaged in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with the offering or provision of commercial financing or another financial product or service to a covered entity.” The changes remove text that would have made it unlawful should a covered provider “propose to engage” in any if these practices.
- Annual reporting requirements. The proposed modifications specify that covered providers who offer commercial financing will be required to electronically file reports to the DFPI on or before March 15 of each year starting in 2025. The proposed changes to the reporting requirements also clarify certain terms, address when covered providers are not required to calculate or report certain information, and stipulate that covered providers “licensed under division 9 (commencing with section 22000) of the Financial Code shall not include in the report required under this section information for activity conducted under the authority of that license.”
Comments on the proposed modifications are due March 15.
New York AG sues crypto trading platform for failing to register
On February 22, the New York attorney general filed a petition in state court against a virtual currency trading platform (respondent) for allegedly failing to register as a securities and commodities broker-dealer and falsely representing itself as a cryptocurrency exchange. The respondent’s website and mobile application enable investors to buy and sell cryptocurrency, including certain popular virtual currencies that are allegedly securities and commodities. According to the AG, securities and commodities brokers are required to register with the state, which the respondent allegedly failed to do. The AG further maintained that the respondent claimed to be an exchange but failed to appropriately register with the SEC as a national securities exchange or be designated by the CFTC as required under New York law. Nor did the respondent comply with a subpoena requesting additional information about its crypto-asset trading activities in the state, the AG said. The state seeks a court order (i) preventing the respondent from misrepresenting that it is an exchange; (ii) banning the respondent from operating in the state; and (iii) directing the respondent to undertake measures to prevent access to its mobile application, website, and services from within New York.
FinCEN warns financial institutions of surge in mail theft-related check fraud
On February 27, FinCEN issued an alert to financial institutions on the nationwide surge in check fraud schemes targeting the U.S. mail. Mail theft-related check fraud, FinCEN explained, generally relates to the fraudulent negotiation of checks stolen from the U.S. postal service, and represents one of the most significant money laundering threats to the U.S. The alert is intended to ensure financial institutions file suspicious activity reports (SARs) that appropriately identify and report suspected check fraud schemes possibly linked to mail theft. The alert highlighted red flags to help financial institutions identify and report suspicious activity, and reminded financial institutions of their Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reporting requirements. According to FinCEN, BSA reporting for check fraud has increased significantly over the past three years. “In 2021, financial institutions filed over 350,000 [SARs] to FinCEN to report potential check fraud, a 23 percent increase over the number of check fraud-related SARs filed in 2020,” the agency said, adding that in 2022, SARs related to check fraud reached over 680,000. When suspecting this type of fraud, financial institutions are advised to refer customers to the United States Postal Inspection Service in addition to filing a SAR.
Supreme Court agrees to review constitutionality of CFPB’s funding, but not on an expedited basis
The Supreme Court granted the CFPB's request to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services Association of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but so far has not expedited consideration of the case. Without quick action to expediate consideration by the Court, all CFPB actions will be open to challenge until the Supreme Court issues a decision. At the current pace, the CFPB could remain in this limbo until June of 2024.
In this case, the 5th Circuit held that Congress violated the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause when it created what that Court described as a “perpetual self-directed, double-insulated funding structure” for the agency. As a result, the CFPB’s 2017 Payday Lending Rule is invalid because the CFPB would not have been able to issue it “without its unconstitutional funding.” The implication, as the CFPB itself pointed out in its petition for certiorari, is that all past and future actions that relied on the same funding mechanism—basically everything the agency has ever done or will ever do—are invalid as well.
Although the CFPB had ninety days to seek review of the 5th Circuit’s decision, it took the unusual step of filing the petition in less than 30 days, and specifically urged the Supreme Court to “set this case for argument this Term,” to guarantee a decision by June or early July of this year. The Court’s order issued Monday simply states that the CFPB’s petition is granted, without setting an expediated briefing schedule. As a result, without the Court taking some immediate steps to speed up consideration, the case will be decided under the Court’s standard briefing schedule. This means the matter will be briefed over the next several months with oral argument likely next fall, as part of the Supreme Court’s October 2023 Term. Although a decision could come out any time after oral argument, cases as significant as this case often come out towards the end of the term, i.e., by June 2024.
The Supreme Court’s unwillingness to expedite consideration of the case to date has serious practical implications for the CFPB’s ability to push forward its ambitious agenda. As the CFPB has itself acknowledged, the 5th Circuit’s decision binds lower courts in that circuit unless and until it is overturned. It will likely encourage challenges to CFPB rulemakings and potentially other actions in that circuit. Even outside of the 5th Circuit, lower courts adjudicating CFPB enforcement actions may be unwilling to move those cases forward until the Supreme Court provides direction on this fundamental funding issue. Thus, for the time being, we can expect more challenges and more delays in CFPB enforcement actions.
For financial institutions, our advice remains the same as when the 5th Circuit’s decision was issued. Generally, companies should maintain their day-to-day focus on compliance, as the CFPB may weather this latest constitutional challenge with its full authority, including its enforcement power, intact. In addition, other Federal agencies—for example, the Federal banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, the Federal Trade Commission—and state attorneys general and/or state regulators often have overlapping authority to enforce Federal consumer financial law. Finally, companies should continue to assume that rules issued by the Bureau are valid and that they will not be penalized for good-faith reliance on such rules.
FTC says fraud cost consumers $8.8 billion in 2022
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.
CFPB asks large auto lenders for origination and servicing data
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.
FHFA proposes changes to GSE regulatory capital framework
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.