InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority imposes its second highest fine against a bank
On January 30, UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) fined a large bank £57,417,500, the second highest fine ever imposed by the PRA, for allegedly failing to properly implement Depositor Protection Rule requirements. The bank allegedly exhibited shortcomings in depositor protection like maintaining information integrity, which is relied upon by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) to make payments to depositors in the event of a firm failure. In addition, the PRA alleged that the bank did not identify eligible deposits for FSCS protection from 2015 to 2022. The bank also allegedly failed to notify the PRA of inaccuracies in its account of eligible FSCS-protected accounts in a timely manner or to appoint a senior manager responsible for ensuring compliance with Depositor Protection Rules. The bank agreed to settle this matter at an early stage of the PRA’s investigation.
OCC and FDIC announce their CRA evaluations
On February 2, OCC and the FDIC released their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) evaluations. The OCC disclosed a list of evaluations of national banks, federal savings associations, and insured federal branches of foreign banks that became public in January 2024. Out of the 18 evaluations, six were rated “outstanding,” nine were rated “satisfactory,” and three were rated as “needs to improve.” The evaluations can be accessed on the OCC’s website, including a searchable list of all public CRA evaluations. Simultaneously, the FDIC released its list of state nonmember banks that were evaluated for CRA compliance in November 2023. Out of 57 evaluations, 56 were rated as “satisfactory” and one bank was rated as “outstanding.”
Federal Reserve releases January SLOOS report on bank lending practices from Q4 2023
On February 5, the Federal Reserve Board released the results from their January 2024 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey (SLOOS) on bank lending practices. The SLOOS addressed changes in standards, terms, and the demand over bank loans over the past three months (i.e., Q4 of 2023). The SLOOS’s topics included commercial and industrial lending, commercial and residential real estate lending, and consumer lending. The SLOOS included questions on banks’ expectations for changes in lending standards, borrower demand and asset quality over 2024.
The SLOOS provided specific findings for each of its topics. On loans to businesses, banks generally reported tighter standards and weaker demand for commercial and industrial loans, as well as all commercial real estate loan categories. Demand weakened for all residential real estate loans. On loans to households, banks generally reported tighter lending standards for residential real estate loans, but the standards were unchanged for government-sponsored enterprise-eligible residential mortgages. For home equity lines of credit, banks reported tighter standards and weaker demand; this falls in line with credit card, auto, and other consumer loans, generally. Last, on the banks’ 2024 expectations, they expect lending standards to remain unchanged for commercial and industrial loans, and residential real estate loans, but to tighten further for commercial real estate, credit card, and auto loans. Banks also reported that they expect demands for loans to strengthen, but loan quality to weaken, across all categories. The SLOOS includes 67 pages of data gleaned from its questions.
Federal bank regulatory agencies seek comment on interagency effort to reduce regulatory burden
On February 6, the FDIC, Fed, and OCC initiated a series of requests for public comment aimed at reducing regulatory burden on supervised institutions. This effort is mandated by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, which required a review of regulations every 10 years. The agencies have divided regulations into 12 categories, with the first round focusing on three categories: Applications and Reporting, Powers and Activities, and International Operations. The public has 90 days to comment on the regulations in these categories. Over the next two years, the agencies will seek public feedback on more, remaining categories to identify regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. Additionally, outreach meetings will be held to allow interested parties to provide direct input on regulatory requirements. Further details about these meetings will be shared as they are finalized.
House Committee calls for new quantitative analysis from Basel III “Endgame” original proposal
On January 31, the House Financial Services Committee issued a press release after holding its hearing on “Federal Banking Proposals Under the Biden Administration,” which invited two leaders from trade organizations, a lawyer, and a business school professor. The Committee’s main takeaway was that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from July 2023, as released by the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC, provides “little quantitative analysis” of the potential economic impacts (covered by InfoBytes, here). This Notice initially opened the comment period for the Basel III “Endgame” meant to revise the capital requirements for large banking organizations.
The Committee took the position, through bipartisan agreement, that the Biden Administration “must withdraw” its Basel III “Endgame” implementing proposal and replace it with one that offers a sound and objective economic analysis that is not skewed by politics but supported by data. The Committee supports its position that the Notice provides a “paltry” economic and regulatory analysis by noting that it devotes only 17 out of 1087 pages to the analysis. The press release cited comments from various congressional members, some of whom raised concerns about the proposal’s potential impact on homebuyers and mortgage lending, and the proposal’s potential to disincentivize financing for renewable energy projects. Finally, the Committee linked several members’ comment letters over the past few months.
FTC bans student loan “scammers” from debt relief industry
On February 6, the FTC announced two orders (here and here) that will ban a group of student loan debt relief “scammers” (defendants) from the debt relief industry. As previously covered by InfoBytes, defendants allegedly misled consumers by charging them for services that are free through the Department of Education, claiming consumers needed to pay fees or make payments to access federal student loan forgiveness. As a consequence, the FTC filed a temporary restraining order resulting in an asset freeze, among other things.
As a result of the FTC’s action, and subject to court approval, defendants are banned from operating in the debt relief industry, as well as prohibited from making false statements about financial products or services and from using deceptive tactics to gather consumers’ financial information. Moreover, the proposed orders include a monetary judgment of $7.4 million, with a significant portion suspended due to financial constraints. Defendants must surrender personal and business assets, and if any of them materially misrepresent their finances, the entire monetary judgment will become immediately payable.
DOJ announces settlement against Pennsylvanian bank for alleged redlining
On February 5, the DOJ, together with the State of North Carolina, announced a settlement with a Pennsylvania-based bank (respondent) to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by engaging in “redlining” in Charlotte and Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ECOA. The DOJ’s complaint alleged that from at least 2017 through 2021, the bank failed to provide mortgage lending services to predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Charlotte and Winston-Salem and discouraged people seeking credit in those communities from obtaining home loans. The DOJ compared the respondent’s performance with other lenders, noting that other lenders generated applications in predominantly Black and Hispanic neighborhoods at two-and-a-half times the rate of respondents in Charlotte, and four times the rate of respondents in Winston-Salem.
Under the two proposed consent orders, the respondent will, among other things (i) invest at least $11.75 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to home mortgage, home improvement, and home refinance loans for residents of majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods; (ii) spend $1 million on community partnerships; (iii) spend $750,000 for advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling focused on the areas at hand; (iv) open three new branches in the areas at hand, with at least one mortgage banker assigned to each branch; (v) hire a director of community lending who will oversee the continued development of lending in communities of color; (vi) retain independent consultants to enhance its fair lending program and better meet communities’ needs for mortgage credit; (vii) conduct a community credit needs assessment and offer a staff training; and (viii) evaluate its fair lending compliance management systems.
FTC orders tax filing software company to cease and desist following ALJ decision
On January 22, the FTC issued an opinion and order against the maker of a popular tax filing software. The FTC found that the company engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices by marketing the software as “free” when it was not available as free to more than two-thirds of consumers and ordered the company to “cease and desist making the deceptive claims.”
The FTC’s opinion and order were issued after its de novo review following the September 2023 ruling from an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), in the FTC’s March 2022 administrative complaint against the company (previously reported by InfoBytes here), in which the ALJ found that the company engaged in deceptive advertising.
The company is a publicly traded corporation that offers a variety of software programs. The software in question is a program that assists customers with preparing and filing their taxes. The FTC alleged that since 2016 the company marketed its tax filing software in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act through television and online ads, stating consumers could file their taxes for free when less than one-third of taxpayers were eligible for the company’s free edition of the software.
The FTC took issue with the company’s claim that the software was “free” when it restricted its eligibility for the free version to those with “simple tax returns.” While the definition of “simple tax returns” has changed over time, in 2022 it was limited to filed returns that included a Form 1040 with limited attached schedules. However, the FTC alleged most taxpayers do not have “simple tax returns” as defined by the company, including those with mortgage or property income, investment income, or charitable donations over $300.
According to the FTC, from 2016 to 2022, the company ran “dozens” of unique ads through television, radio, the internet, social media, and other advertising channels, that garnered “billions of impressions.” The company and its ad agency understood that advertising its product as free would be a “powerful” lure to entice new customers, stating “Lead with [f]ree to raise heads and drive traffic and acquisition[.]” Although disclaimers are present in the ads, the FTC alleged the company’s disclaimers are inadequate to “cure the misrepresentations” faced by the consumer.
The company continued to market its products as free for three years after multiple lawsuits were filed by the Los Angeles City Attorney and the County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara, California, alleging unfair and deceptive marketing of free versions of the software. Various state Attorneys General opened subsequent investigations that led the company to enter into a settlement agreement with all fifty states pursuant to which the company agreed to pay $141 million and submit to restrictions on its advertising and marketing of the software. Among other restrictions, the FTC’s final order prohibits the company from making any misrepresentations of the cost of its products and services, or the requirement that a consumer use its paid products or services in order to accurately file their taxes online or claim a credit or deduction. Additionally, the order imposes record-keeping and reporting requirements that will remain effective for a period of twenty years after the issuance date of the order.
FDIC issues December 2023 enforcement actions
On January 26, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in December 2023. During that month, the FDIC made public 12 orders consisting of “four orders of termination of deposit insurance; three orders terminating consent orders; two consent orders; one order terminating supervisory prompt corrective action directive; one order of prohibition from further participation; one order to pay a civil money penalty (CMP); and one Decision and Order to Prohibit from Further Participation and Assessment of Civil Money Penalty.”
Included is a consent order with a Mississippi-based bank for alleged Bank Secrecy Act violations, along with violations of a previous consent order from 2020, imposing a $600,000 civil money penalty. Also included is a consent order with a Kentucky-based bank, alleging the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices and violations of law or regulation” relating to, among other things, the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed to create a written plan to recover its losses from the bank’s relationship with a third-party loan program, to reduce the bank’s risk position in the program, and to stop granting any extensions of credit through adversely classified or criticized loans related to the third-party loan program. The consent order additionally requires the bank’s board to assess the sufficiency of the bank’s allowance for credit losses (ACL), ensuring the establishment of an appropriate ACL and to uphold and accurately report it. Specifically, “management shall review updated credit risk metrics and loss data for the third-party loan programs referenced in the ROE and ensure appropriate provisions to the ACL relative to this information.”
FCC Chairwoman proposes making all AI-generated robocalls “illegal” to help State Attorneys General
On January 31, FCC Chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, released a statement proposing that the FCC “recognize calls made with AI-generated voices are ‘artificial’ voices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which would make voice cloning technology used in common robocalls scams targeting consumers illegal.” Specifically, the FCC’s proposal would make voice cloning technology used in robocall scams illegal, which has been used to impersonate celebrities, political candidates, and even close family members. Chairwoman Rosenworcel stated, “No matter what celebrity or politician you favor… it is possible we could all be a target of these faked calls… That’s why the FCC is taking steps to recognize this emerging technology as illegal… giving our partners at State Attorneys General offices… new tools they can use to crack down on these scams and protect customers.”
This action comes after the FCC released a Notice of Inquiry last month where the FCC received comments from 26 State Attorneys General to understand how the FCC can better protect consumers from AI-generated telemarking, as covered by InfoBytes here. This is not the first time the FCC has targeted robocallers: as previously covered by InfoBytes in October 2023, the FCC proposed an inquiry into how AI is used to create unwanted robocalls and texts; in September 2023, the FCC updated its rules to curb robocalls under the Voice over Internet Protocol, covered here.