InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB releases spring 2022 semi-annual report
On December 6, the CFPB issued its semi-annual report to Congress covering the Bureau’s work for the period beginning October 1, 2021 and ending March 31, 2022. The report, which is required by Dodd-Frank, addresses several issues, including complaints received from consumers about consumer financial products or services throughout the reporting period. The report highlighted that the Bureau, among other things, has: (i) conducted an assessment of significant actions taken by state attorneys general and state regulators related to federal consumer financial law; (ii) initiated 21 fair lending supervisory activities to determine compliance with federal laws, including ECOA, HMDA, and UDAAP prohibitions, and engaged in interagency fair lending coordination with other federal agencies and states; (iii) “encouraged lenders to enhance oversight and identification of fair lending risk and to implement policies, procedures, and controls designed to effectively manage HMDA activities, including regarding integrity of data collection”; and (iv) launched a new Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Strategic Plan to increase workforce and contracting diversity.
In regard to supervision and enforcement, the report highlighted the Bureau’s public supervisory and enforcement actions and other significant initiatives during the reporting period. Additionally, the report noted rule-related work, including advisory opinions, advance notice of proposed rulemakings, requests for information, and proposed and final rules. These include rules and orders related to the LIBOR transition, fair credit reporting, Covid-19 mortgage and debt collection protections for consumers, small business lending data collection, and automated valuation model rulemaking.
OCC senior deputy comptroller discusses fair lending
On November 14, Senior Deputy Comptroller for Bank Supervision Policy Grovetta Gardineer delivered remarks on behalf of acting Comptroller Michael J. Hsu before the CRA & Fair Lending Colloquium to discuss the agency’s ongoing efforts to ensure its regulated institutions provide fair and equitable credit services. Among other topics, Gardineer mentioned the agency’s initiatives to identify and address discriminatory lending practices, including addressing fair lending in advanced analytics and reducing barriers to financial inclusion. Noting that the banking industry has evolved “rapidly,” Gardineer stated that the OCC has “remained focused on the solid foundation of our mission,” and identified “three strategic goals: (1) agility and learning; (2) credibility and trust; and (3) leadership in supervision.”
She also said that the OCC is enhancing its risk-based supervisory approach by, among other things, “[r]ecognizing our strategic goal for ‘agility and learning,’” and by “conducting fair lending risk assessments during every supervisory cycle for each bank that engages in retail lending.” Regarding the agency’s efforts to reduce inequality in banking, Gardineer stated that the OCC has taken an active role on the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity, or PAVE, which is an initiative to evaluate the causes, extent, and consequences of appraisal bias. As previously covered by InfoBytes in March, the thirteen member agencies and offices of the PAVE Task Force came together in an extraordinary interagency effort to issue the Action Plan to Advance Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity, which represents “the most wide-ranging set of reforms ever put forward to advance equity in the home appraisal process.”
Gardineer also disclosed that the OCC is developing other internal measures to enhance credibility and trust, including measures to “improv[e] supervisory methods for identifying potential discrimination in property valuations.” In regard to addressing fair lending in advanced analytics, Gardineer warned that “the growing use of advanced analytics such as artificial intelligence or machine learning offers both the opportunity to help reduce inequality and to address safety, soundness, and fairness risks,” and emphasized that the agency “supports fair, ethical, responsible, and transparent adoption of advanced analytics, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, in the financial sector.”
In terms of the future, she highlighted that “the OCC is focused on strengthening our supervision processes and resources devoted to compliance with fair lending laws, while enhancing our ability to remain agile and successfully execute our mission to ensure that national banks and federal savings associations operate in a safe and sound manner, provide fair access to financial services, treat customers fairly, and comply with applicable laws and regulations..”
NYDFS revises state CRA regulations
On October 26, NYDFS released revisions to its proposed state Community Reinvestment Act regulation, which would allow the Department to obtain the necessary data to evaluate the extent to which New York-regulated banking institutions are serving minority- and women-owned businesses in their communities. The revised proposed regulation addresses comments received during a prior 60-day comment period that began last November (covered by InfoBytes here), and is intended to minimize compliance burdens by making sure the regulation’s proposed language complements requirements in the CFPB’s proposed rulemaking for collecting data on credit access for small and minority- and women-owned businesses. Among other things, the revised proposed regulation would require regulated entities to inquire as to whether a business applying for a loan or credit is minority- or women-owned or both, and submit a report to the Department providing application details, such as the date, type of credit applied for and the amount, whether the application was approved or denied, and the size and location of the business. Additionally, the revised proposed regulation (i) establishes processes for regulated entities when soliciting, collecting, storing, and reporting information related to their provision of credit to minority- and women-owned businesses, including when requests for information should be made, and notifications informing applicants of their right to refuse to offer information in response to a request and that the provided information may not be used for any discriminatory purpose; (ii) provides that, to the extent feasible, underwriters should not be able to access information provided by an applicant; (iii) stipulates how long a regulated entity is required to preserve gathered information; and (iv) provides a sample data collection form that regulated entities may choose to use. According to NYDFS, the revisions are designed to make sure regulated entities abide by fair lending laws when collecting and submitting the necessary data. Comments will be accepted for 45 days following publication in the State Register.
NYDFS announces fair lending settlement with indirect auto lender
On October 6, NYDFS announced a settlement with a New York State-licensed bank to resolve allegations that the bank violated New York Executive Law § 296-a while engaged in indirect automobile lending. NYDFS alleged that the bank’s practices resulted in minority borrowers paying higher interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers regardless of their creditworthiness. According to the announcement, the bank allegedly “failed to effectively monitor automobile dealers from which [the bank] agreed to purchase loans, thereby allowing the dealers to charge members of protected classes more in discretionary dealer markups than borrowers identified as non-Hispanic White.” Under the terms of the consent order, the bank agreed to pay a $950,000 civil money penalty to the state, as well as restitution to eligible borrowers impacted during the period of January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2022. The bank also agreed to undertake fair lending compliance remediation efforts to increase its monitoring of dealers participating in its indirect auto lending program to precent discriminatory markups in the future.
OCC releases bank supervision operating plan for FY 2023
On October 6, the OCC’s Committee on Bank Supervision released its bank supervision operating plan for fiscal year 2023. The plan outlines the agency’s supervision priorities and highlights several supervisory focus areas including: (i) strategic and operational planning; (ii) operational resiliency; (iii) third-party oversight and risk management; (iv) credit risk management with a focus on new products, areas of highest growth, and portfolios representing concentrations; (v) allowances for credit losses (ACL), including instances where ACL processes use third-party modeling techniques; (vi) interest rate risk; (vii) liquidity risk management; (viii) consumer compliance management systems with a focus on how programs are disclosed in relation to UDAP and UDAAP statutes; (ix) Bank Secrecy Act/AML compliance; (x) fair lending risks; (xi) Community Reinvestment Act strategies and the potential for modernization rulemaking; (xii) new products and services in areas such as payments, fintech, and digital assets; and (xiii) climate-change risk management. The plan will be used by OCC staff to guide the development of supervisory strategies for individual national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, and certain identified third-party service providers subject to OCC examination.
The OCC will provide updates about these priorities in its Semiannual Risk Perspective, as InfoBytes has previously covered here.
DOJ announces redlining settlement with New Jersey bank
On September 28, the DOJ announced a settlement with a New Jersey bank to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of lending discrimination by engaging in “redlining” in the Newark metropolitan area in violation of the Fair Housing Act and ECOA. The DOJ’s complaint alleges that from at least 2015 to 2021, the bank failed to provide mortgage lending services to Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in the Newark metropolitan area. The DOJ also alleges that all of the bank’s branches were located outside of majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods and that these neighborhoods were also largely excluded from the bank’s marketing and outreach efforts.
Under the proposed consent order, the bank will, among other things, (i) invest a minimum of $12 million in a loan subsidy fund for majority-Black and Hispanic census tracts in the Newark metropolitan area, of which at least $150,000 per year will go towards advertising, outreach, consumer education, and credit counseling, and $400,000 will be spent on services to increase access to residential mortgage credit; (ii) establish new branches in neighborhoods of color, including at least one in the city of Newark, that will provide a full range of mortgage products; (iii) assign at least four mortgage loan officers dedicated to serving all neighborhoods in and around Newark; (iv) employ a full-time community development officer to oversee the continued development of lending in neighborhoods of color in the Newark area; and (iii) provide ECOA and fair lending training to employees and officials. The announcement cited the bank’s cooperation with the DOJ to remedy the identified redlining concerns. According to the announcement, this settlement represents the third-largest redlining settlement in DOJ’s history.
District Court criticizes CFPB’s cost-benefit analysis in HMDA change
On September 23, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted partial summary judgment to a group of consumer fair housing associations (collectively, “plaintiffs”) that challenged changes made in 2020 that permanently raised coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under HMDA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 2020 Rule, which amended Regulation C, permanently increased the reporting threshold from the origination of at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years to 100, and permanently increased the threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from the origination of 100 lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years to 200. The plaintiffs sued the CFPB in 2020, arguing, among other things, that the final rule “exempts about 40 percent of depository institutions that were previously required to report” and undermines HMDA’s purpose by allowing potential violations of fair lending laws to go undetected. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The plaintiffs also claimed that the agency’s cost-benefit analysis underlying the 2020 Rule was “flawed because the Bureau exaggerated the ‘benefits’ of increasing the loan-volume reporting thresholds by failing to adequately account for comments suggesting that the savings would be much smaller than estimated, and by relying on overinflated estimates of cost savings to newly-exempted lending institutions with smaller loan volumes.” The plaintiffs asked that the 2020 Rule be vacated and set aside on the grounds that the Bureau acted outside of its statutory authority in issuing the 2020 Rule and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Bureau countered that issuing the 2020 Rule was within its scope of authority because HMDA’s text “does not unambiguously foreclose” the agency’s interpretation of the statute.
The court first determined that promulgation of the 2020 Rule did not exceed the Bureau’s statutory authority because “HMDA grants broad discretion ‘in the judgment of the’ agency to create ‘exceptions’ to the statutory reporting requirements…” “[E]ven a regulation relieving roughly forty percent of institutions from data collection and reporting requirements is an exception to the ‘rule’ of disclosure, which continues to apply to the majority of institutions,” the court wrote, adding that the 2020 Rule preserves the reporting requirements, “as compared to the 2015 Rule, for most institutions, the vast majority of loans, and the vast majority of communities.”
However, the court agreed with the plaintiffs that the cost-benefit analysis for the 2020 Rule’s increased reporting threshold for closed-end mortgage loans was arbitrary and capricious. The court expressed criticism of the cost-benefit analysis used by the Bureau to justify setting the minimum number of closed-end loans in each of the two preceding calendar years at 100, and found that the Bureau failed to adequately explain or support its rationales for revising and adopting the closed-end reporting thresholds under the 2020 Rule. The Bureau “conceded the new rule would cause identifiable harms to the public, but effectively threw up its proverbial hands, citing an inability to incorporate these harms into its analysis as quantifiable ‘costs,’ and moved on to the next topic of discussion,” the court said.
The Bureau “exaggerated the savings to ‘covered persons’ under the new rule, and did not engage appropriately with the nonquantifiable ‘harms’ of the 2020 Rule, and the disparate impact of those harms on the traditionally underserved populations HMDA is intended to protect, even as it conceded the revised threshold would certainly result in some harm to consumers,” the court said, questioning the Bureau’s analysis of disparate impacts on rural and low-to-moderate-income communities. The court determined that the plaintiffs identified several flaws in the Bureau’s cost-benefit analysis supporting the increased closed-end mortgage loan threshold, thus rendering this aspect of the 2020 Rule “arbitrary, capricious and requiring vacatur.” The court asked the Bureau for a “more reasoned explanation as to whether and how the cost-benefit analysis accounted for the ongoing need to collect data on home mortgages pursuant to other statutory requirements and underwriting purposes, and why, when a lender must collect and report multiple data points for each mortgage and loan application, the marginal cost of collecting the additional, HMDA-specific data points is so significant that the increased reporting threshold of the 2020 Rule renders unique cost savings.”
Real estate brokerages settle NY’s claims of discriminatory practices
On August 30, the New York attorney general and governor announced a joint action taken against three Long Island real estate brokerage firms for allegedly engaging in illegal and discriminatory housing practices. According to the announcement, the Office of the Attorney General and New York Department of State commenced parallel investigations into the brokerage firms, in which they discovered that agents were allegedly violating the Fair Housing Act and New York state law when they allegedly “steered prospective homebuyers of color away from white neighborhoods and subjected them to different requirements than white homebuyers, and otherwise engaged in biased behavior.” In certain instances, agents were allegedly shown to have given preferential treatment to white homebuyers, disparaged neighborhoods of color, and directed prospective homebuyers of color to homes in neighborhoods predominantly resided by communities of color.
Under the terms of the assurance of discontinuance, the brokerage firms agreed to stop the alleged conduct and will offer comprehensive fair housing training to all agents. Agents will also be required to enroll and take state-approved Fair Housing Act compliance courses. Two of the brokerage firms are also required to provide $25,000 to Suffolk County to promote enforcement and compliance with fair housing laws, while the third brokerage firm will pay $30,000 in penalties and costs to the Office of the Attorney General and $35,000 to Nassau County for fair housing testing.
FHFA to establish advisory committee on affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing
On August 23, FHFA announced plans to establish a federal advisory committee on affordable, equitable and sustainable housing. The committee’s activities will focus on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks and “their respective roles in providing a reliable source of liquidity and funding to support housing finance in the single-family and multifamily housing markets.” The committee will provide advice and input regarding affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing needs, including barriers to accessing such housing and long-term sustainability, and will advise on any regulatory or policy changes necessary to address these matters. FHFA will solicit applications and nominations for memberships in an upcoming Federal Register notice and is seeking individuals engaged in the financing, development and/or administration of affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing and housing policy who have experience in areas such as fair housing, fair lending, civil rights, and single-family/multifamily lending and servicing.
District Court grants summary judgment concerning TILA, ECOA, FHA claims
On August 12, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and granting defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment in an action concerning alleged violations of TILA, ECOA, and FHA disparate impact claims. According to the court’s determination, the defendant corporate entity was not a “creditor” during the leasing portion of the underlying rent-to-buy (RTB) agreements, and the plaintiffs lacked standing on certain claims because the wrong parties were targeted.
The defendant realty group purchases, sells, and manages real estate. The plaintiffs all entered into RTB agreements with the realty group that allowed the renter to make 24 payments and then execute a sales contract for the property. The agreements carried interest rate terms between 9.87 and 18 percent. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants, among other things, did not provide TILA-required disclosures for high-cost mortgages, did not require written certifications that tenants had obtained counseling prior to entering into the transaction, and did not provide property appraisals to tenants.
The plaintiffs sued alleging several claims under TILA for failure to provide required information. However, the court concluded that during the 24-month rental period, the realty group was not a “creditor” but was instead a “landlord.” Moreover, the court determined that “the only entities that could arguably be considered creditors are the Individual Land Trusts as the sellers and parties to the Conditional Sales Contract.” These trusts were not named as defendants, the court observed, adding that the plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of showing that the land trusts were sufficiently related to the named defendants to allow the court to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold the named defendants liable for actions conducted by the non-party individual land trusts.
With respect to the plaintiffs’ ECOA claims, which claimed that the realty group’s policies and practices were intentionally discriminatory and had a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin, the court applied the same rationale as it did to the TILA claims and again ruled that the realty group was not a “creditor.” In terms of plaintiffs’ FHA claims, the court said that “the racial disparity must have been created by the defendant.” In this action, the court determined that the realty group did not create the condition, reasoning that “the fact that lower-priced homes are more likely to exist in minority neighborhoods is not of Defendants’ making and existed before, and without, the RTB Program.”
However, the court’s order does allow certain individual and class claims related to disparate treatment under the FHA to proceed, as well as certain claims regarding Indiana law related to standard contract terms and the condition of homes in the RTB program.