InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Freddie Mac launches pilot program on loan repurchase alternatives
On January 1, Freddie Mac is launching a pilot program intended to improve the quality of performing loans for sellers. This pilot program, titled “Fee-Based Repurchase Alternative for Performing Loans,” is the fourth initiative from Freddie Mac’s Pilot Transparency programs, which included pilot programs on appraisal modernization, shared equity conversion, and asset and income modeler for direct deposits. This fee-based repurchase alternative pilot program for 2024 focuses on replacing Freddie Mac’s current repurchase policy for defective performing loans. “[L]enders will not be subject to repurchases on most performing loans and will instead be subject to a fee-based structure based on non-acceptable quality (NAQ) rates.” According to Freddie Mac, the fee-based structure will be more efficient and transparent and rewards lenders that deliver high-quality loans. Freddie Mac also notes that loans that are non-performing in 36 months or have life of loan defects could be repurchased. The pilot program is active; accordingly, the fee structure will begin rolling out in early 2024 to targeted lenders.
New York Governor highlights NYDFS in 2024 State of the State proposal
On January 2, New York Governor Kathy Hochul revealed a proposed plan focused on consumer protection and affordability as the initial part of the Governor’s 2024 State of the State address. The plan includes changes to New York’s consumer protection laws, regulations for buy now pay later products, increased paid medical and disability leave benefits, measures to eliminate co-pays for insulin in specific insurance plans, and legislation addressing medical debt.
Changes to consumer protection laws would give the Attorney General more power to enforce the laws and help the state to address unfair and abusive business practices. Additionally, proposed legislation would require buy now pay later providers to obtain licenses and introduce regulations focusing on disclosure, dispute resolution, credit standards, fee limits, data privacy, and preventing excessive debt.
NYDFS also detailed Governor Hochul’s plan to update and broaden New York’s hospital financial assistance law to provide increased protection against medical debt. The proposed legislation aims to limit hospitals’ ability to sue low-income patients (earning less than 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) for medical debt and expand financial assistance programs. It also seeks to cap monthly payments and interest rates on medical debt while enhancing access to financial aid. This consumer protection and affordability plan builds on Governor Hochul and her administration’s efforts to make New York more affordable and livable.
FDIC releases November enforcement actions
On December 29, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in November. The FDIC made 12 orders public including, “five consent orders, three prohibition orders, two orders terminating consent orders, one order to pay a civil money penalty (CMP), and one order dismissing both a notice of assessment of CMPs and an order to pay.” Included is a stipulated order and written agreement with a Tennessee-based bank (the Bank) to resolve alleged violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and weaknesses in board and management oversight of its information technology function. The Bank agreed to the conditions of the consent order which requires the Bank to, among other things (i) establish an action plan to correct the bank’s Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing for Terrorism (AML/CFT) program deficiencies and alleged violations; (ii) retain qualified IT management; (iii) perform a cybersecurity assessment; and (iv) designate someone responsible for coordinating and monitoring day-to-day compliance with the BSA.
FTC settles with lead generator for deceiving consumers
On January 2, the FTC filed a complaint against a California-based lead generator (the “Company”), alleging that the Company operated as a “consent farm” that deceived consumers into providing their consent to be contacted for telemarketing purposes, then selling those consents to telemarketers, sellers, or intermediaries. Relying on the Company’s purported consent from consumers, those parties then inundated consumers with telemarketing calls. These calls included robocalls and calls made to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Since 2019, the defendants are alleged to have operated over 50 websites focused on lead generation.
The FTC charged the Company with violating the FTC Act for misrepresenting the collection of consumers’ personal information, and for violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule for assisting and facilitating telemarketers in breaking the Rule.
On the same day the complaint was filed, the FTC announced a proposed settlement in which the Company was ordered to pay $7 million for its alleged use of deception and dark patterns to trick consumers into providing personal information. Additionally, the proposed stipulated order banned the Company from initiating or helping anyone make telemarketing robocalls, calling phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, and selling consumer information connected with lead generation. The stipulated order must first be approved by the court before it comes into effect. The Company neither admits nor denies any of the allegations
Fannie Mae releases notice on loan limit changes
On January 3, Fannie Mae updated its mortgage loan underwriting system, Desktop Underwriter (DU), to support changes made to FHA and VA loan limits. The update will take place during the weekend of January 20. For FHA loan casefiles submitted before the weekend of January 20, the FHA National Low Cost Area Limit amounts will be updated in DU to reflect the new values. For FHA loan casefiles submitted on or after the weekend of January 20, DU will display the 2024 FHA National Low Cost Area Limit. Fannie Mae notes that lenders are responsible for verifying the correct information when determining eligibility. For VA 2024 county loan limits, cases submitted before the weekend of January 20 will be underwritten using the 2023 VA county loan limits. All case files submitted on or after the weekend of January 20 will be underwritten using the 2024 VA county loan limits. Fannie Mae notes since the “2024 VA county loan limits will not be implemented on the date they are in effect[;] lenders are responsible for ensuring that the correct VA county loan limit is applied to all VA loans underwritten through DU from Jan. 1 to Jan. 20.”
Large bank agrees to proposed settlement agreement; to be decided in February
On November 27, 2023, a large Canadian bank agreed to pay $15.9 million to accountholders in a proposed settlement agreement stemming from a class action suit in which the bank allegedly charged improper non-sufficient fund (NSF) fees. NSF fees are charges by a financial institution when they decline to make a payment from an accountholder’s account after determining the account lacks sufficient funds. Plaintiffs alleged that from February 2, 2019, to November 27, 2023, the bank charged accountholders multiple NSF fees on a single attempted transaction. In the agreement, the bank continues to deny liability. While an agreement has been reached between the two parties, the agreement has yet to be approved by the courts. A hearing has been scheduled for February 13, 2024, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to approve the settlement and award the payouts. Accountholders will receive their payouts, “estimated to be in the range of approximately $88 CAD,” deposited directly to their account with the bank. Under the proposed settlement agreement, the representative plaintiff will receive an honorarium of $10,000. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FDIC warned that supervised financial institutions that charge multiple NSF fees on re-presented unpaid transactions may face increased regulatory scrutiny and litigation risk.
INTERPOL seizes $300 million in international financial crime operation
On December 19, INTERPOL announced the conclusion of a transcontinental police operation against online financial crime called HAECHI IV. The operation ended with around 3,500 arrests and seizures of $300 million USD worth of assets across 34 countries. Of the $300 million, about two-thirds of was hard currency and one-third was virtual assets. HAECHI IV targeted seven types of cyber scams, including voice phishing, romance scams, online sextortion, investment fraud, and money laundering associated with illegal online gambling, among others. Through INTERPOL’s stop-payment mechanism to block criminal proceeds, authorities blocked 82,112 “suspicious” bank accounts. Next on INTERPOL’s radar is a new scam in Korea that involves the sale of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that are a “rug pull,” a crypto scam where developers abandon a project and investors lose their money. Interestingly, the UK team of the operation reported on how scammers used artificial intelligence to create synthetic content, which criminals primarily used for impersonation scams.
Montana AG opines that EWA products are not loans
On December 22, the Attorney General from the State of Montana opined that Earned Wage Access (EWA) products are not loans under a certain set of conditions. EWA products provide employees with fast access to cash by accessing cash before they are paid by their employer. In Montana, the Speaker from the House of Representatives asked the Attorney General whether EWA products meet the definition of either a “consumer loan” or “deferred deposit loan” under the Montana Code. If so, then EWAs would have a right to repayment and a presumption of interest or other fees, as do other loans under Montana law. The Attorney General opined, however, that EWAs are not loans given a certain set of conditions: (i) they are fully non-recourse, (ii) they do not have interest fees or other expenses, and (iii) they do not exceed the cash value of the consumer’s accrued income. The Attorney General cited the CFPB’s Payday Lending Rule as evidence that the “accrued cash value of income is effectively the worker’s own money and providing no-cost access to that income does not constitute a loan.”
CFPB distributes nearly $6 million in relief payment to veterans harmed by bad-faith lenders
On January 2, the CFPB reported it had sent nearly $6 million to consumers harmed by illegal lending practices that specifically targeted veterans. Between 2019 and 2020, the CFPB filed four suits against several loan brokers, which InfoBytes previously covered. In 2019, the CFPB entered into a settlement with an online loan broker that promised to connect veterans with companies offering high-interest loans in exchange for the assignment of some or all of their military pension payments. Again in 2019, InfoBytes covered another settlement between the CFPB and a pension-advance broker for allegedly misrepresenting the contracts offered to veterans and other consumers between 2011 and 2016. In 2020, the CFPB entered into a settlement with and a loan broker who offered high-interest loans to veterans in exchange for assignment of some of their monthly pension or disability payments. Lastly, and again in 2020, InfoBytes covered a complaint brought by the South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs against a pension-advance scheme in violation of the CFPA for brokering contracts offering high-interest credit to disabled veterans and other consumers in exchange for the assignment of some of the consumers’ unpaid earnings, monthly pensions, or disability payments.
The recent payments totaled $5.1 million from the CFPB’s victims’ relief fund and over $720,000 from money paid by the defendants. The CFPB sent checks in December to certain customers, but an individual who believes they are eligible can submit a claim for a refund.
SEC charges DAO for unregistered sale of crypto smart yield bonds
On December 22, 2023, the SEC announced a settlement with a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) and a second settlement with its founders. The SEC alleged that the DAO failed to register with the Commission for its offering and sale of structured crypto-asset securities. The SEC additionally charged the organization for operating certain pools as unregistered investment companies. According to the SEC, the organization compared its structured crypto-asset securities to asset-backed securities and marketed them to the public. Furthermore, investors could acquire “senior” or “junior” interest which could be pooled and used to generate returns. The orders state that the structured crypto-asset securities attracted significant investments, totaling over $509 million, with fees paid to the organization by investors based on investment size and chosen yield.