InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Congress, CFPB Trade Letters on Fair Auto Lending Guidance
On June 20, 35 Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to CFPB Assistant Director of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, Patrice Ficklin, questioning the manner in which recent CFPB guidance regarding lending practices in the auto lending industry was rendered and requesting details concerning the process of analyzing potential fair lending violations. The letter comes on the heels of a similar inquiry made by 13 Democratic Members of the House Financial Services Committee to CFPB Director Richard Cordray on May 28, 2013. The CFPB guidance at issue, contained within CFPB Bulletin 2013-02, advised bank and nonbank indirect auto financial institutions about compliance with federal fair lending requirements in connection with the practice by which auto dealers “mark up” the financial institution’s risk-based buy rate and receive compensation based on the increased interest revenues.
The Republican letter takes issue with the CFPB “initiating [a] process without a public hearing, without public comment, and without releasing the data, methodology, or analysis it relied upon to support such an important change in policy.” The letter notes that “allegations of disparate impact do not involve intentional conduct, but instead consist solely of statistical analysis of past transactions” and that any model assessing such impact must be reliable and accurate. Because the guidance fails to disclose the model for assessing fair lending violations, Congress requested the CFPB provide all pertinent details regarding its methodology to evaluate whether the statistical model supports its supervision and examination of financial institutions.
In addition to taking issue with the CFPB’s statistical analysis, the Republican letter also characterized the ECOA compliance controls suggested in the CFPB bulletin as “onerous and unrealistic,” noting that “restricting consumer choice is highly problematic.” To support the controls prescribed by the guidance, the Republican letter requested that the CFPB provide “all studies, analysis, and information it relied upon in developing its guidance document.” Specifically, the two congressional letters requested the analysis conducted by the CFPB on the impact of these prescribed controls on the auto lending industry and any coordination activities undertaken with other agencies in developing the guidance. The House members, like many in the auto industry, are concerned the guidance will have an adverse impact on competition, result in increased overall costs for consumers, and potentially exclude lower-income customers from the credit market entirely.
Amid these growing concerns regarding the CFPB’s guidance and inquiry into auto finance practices, on June 20, Director Cordray provided a response to the May 28 Democrat letter. Mr. Cordray’s response essentially reiterates both the CFPB’s authority to supervise and investigate financial institutions engaged in auto finance and the CFPB’s concerns that pricing discretion may create a significant risk of discrimination. In responding to the issues of the Democrat letter, Director Cordray indicated that the CFPB uses a proxy methodology to analyze disparate impact in the auto lending industry, though it is short on the specifics behind the methodology used. The CFPB response acknowledged that ECOA fair lending analysis is more complex than mortgage lending analysis given the absence of data similar to that collected in the mortgage context under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Director Cordray also posited that the use of proxies for unavailable data is a widely accepted mathematical and systematic approach in various arenas, including for marketing in the auto industry itself. According to Director Cordray, the CFPB uses both surnames and geographic location as proxies for unavailable characteristics. The proxy analysis is then conducted through publicly available data from the Social Security Administration and Census Bureau.
Notwithstanding the information provided regarding the CFPB’s methodology for analyzing potential discrimination within the auto finance industry, it appears that both Members of Congress and industry participants remain skeptical of the accuracy of such an approach and continue to call for increased transparency from the CFPB regarding its due diligence in creating this proxy methodology and disclosure of the methodology itself. Opponents also question the manner in which the guidance was released and absence of public hearings or public comment periods. The most recent Republican letter raised these precise issues and requested a response from the CFPB within 30 days.
House Passes Reverse Mortgage Legislation
On June 12, the U.S. House passed H.R. 2167, the Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act, which would authorize the HUD Secretary to establish, by notice or mortgagee letter, any additional or alternative requirements determined necessary to improve the fiscal safety and soundness of the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program. During recent hearings in both the House and Senate, the FHA has sought more flexibility to pursue program changes outside of the formal rulemaking process. A Senate bill, S. 469 is similar to the House version, but in addition would require that HECM mortgages contain terms and provisions for establishing escrow accounts, performing financial assessments, or limiting the amount of any payment made available under the mortgage.
House Democrats Raise Concerns about CFPB Auto Lending Enforcement
On May 28, a group of 13 Democratic Members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to CFPB Director Richard Cordray seeking “any and all background information about . . . [the CFPB’s] investigation into alleged practices within the auto lending industry.” As has been reported, earlier this year the CFPB issued guidance to bank and nonbank indirect auto lenders about compliance with federal fair lending requirements, and the CFPB has spent the past several months implementing that guidance through supervision and examination of lenders. In particular, the CFPB is focused on the practice by which auto dealers “mark up” the indirect lender’s risk-based buy rate and receive compensation based on the increased interest revenues. In their letter to Director Cordray, the Members of Congress remind the Director that vehicle ownership can be critical to a consumer’s ability to obtain and maintain employment and find affordable housing, and raise concerns about the impact of the CFPB’s auto lending enforcement activity on consumers’ access to affordable credit for vehicle purchase. The Members ask the Director to provide specific information about allegations stemming from investigations of auto lenders and the methodology the CFPB is employing to determine whether fair lending violations exists. They also seek additional information about the CFPB’s compliance expectations for indirect auto lenders with regard to dealer compensation policies. The letter asks the CFPB to respond by June 7, 2013.
House Committee Refuses to Allow CFPB Director to Appear
On April 22, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) sent letters to CFPB Director Richard Cordray and CFPB General Counsel Meredith Fuchs stating that the House Financial Services Committee cannot allow Director Cordray to testify on the CFPB’s semiannual report, as the Committee has in the past, because no nominee for CFPB Director has been confirmed. Citing the D.C. Circuit’s January 2013 decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, which invalidated three presidential appointments to the NLRB, Mr. Hensarling asserted that “[a]bsent contrary guidance form the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Cordray does not meet the statutory requirements of a validly-serving Director” and the committee cannot legally accept testimony from him. Mr. Hensarling further indicated that the committee is not relinquishing its oversight role and expects the CFPB to make other employees and information available upon request. Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) sent a letter one day later to the Chairman, stating that she will use the rules of the committee to allow Director Cordray to testify if the Chairman does not reverse his position.
State Banking Regulators Support Federal Online Payday Lending Bill
On April 10, the CSBS sent a letter to Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) – the chief sponsors in their respective chambers of Congress of legislation related to online payday lending – to express support for the bills. The letter focuses on the provisions of the SAFE Lending Act, S. 172 and H.R. 990, that seek to (i) ensure consistent application of state usury laws and (ii) enhance state authority over online lenders. Noting that state regulators have found “countless instances of unlicensed and unregulated online payday lending” in violation of state law, the CSBS contends that the bills should be considered a “framework for the proper state-federal regulatory balance” with respect to online, short-term, small-dollar loans.
House Democrats Urge Banks to Limit Online Payday Lender Access to Accounts
On April 2, Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD) sent letters to the CEOs of five large retail banks urging those institutions to voluntarily adopt certain consumer protections related to online payday lending. Those members and several others recently introduced the SAFE Lending Act, which the letter states would (i) allow consumers to prevent lenders form making automatic withdrawals and debits from their accounts, (ii) require all lenders to abide by state small-dollar lending rules, (iii) ban lead generators and anonymous payday lending, and (iv) increase enforcement authority to address offshore small-dollar lenders. Pending congressional action, the legislators asked the banks to “take every available step to prevent online payday lenders from accessing funds from consumer accounts when they are clearly operating in violation of state law.”
House, Senate Committees Hold Separate Hearings on Housing Finance Reform
On March 19, the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee each held a hearing to review issues related to housing finance post-federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The House committee heard from Acting FHFA Director Edward DeMarco, while the Senate committee heard from non-governmental groups with reform proposals. The hearings mark the beginning of a process expected to play out over the course of the coming months to develop consensus on legislation to reform the housing finance sector. Each of the hearings covered numerous topics, but in each the central issue for debate was the appropriate level of government involvement in the mortgage market. On that primary issue, there was broad consensus that the current conservatorship role of the government should end. However, some stakeholders argued the government should play no role in the reformed market, while others believe a limited, protected government backstop would be necessary to support an affordable, stable housing market. Mr. DeMarco did not take positions on the broad policy issues, but repeated his commitment to implementing the FHFA’s Strategic Plan while positioning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to meet whatever requirements policymakers choose to impose.
House Members Reiterate Small Bank Concerns over Basel III
On February 19, House Financial Services Committee members Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) sent a letter to the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC regarding the lawmakers’ concerns about the implementation of Basel III. Citing potential compliance costs and the potential derivative impact on consumers, Representatives Capito and Maloney ask that the agencies carefully tailor the Basel III capital requirements to ensure they are appropriate for community banks. The House and Senate have in recent months placed significant focus on the Basel III rulemakings, with both houses recently holding hearings on the issue and lawmakers previously sending letters to the regulators.
House Financial Services Ranking Member Seeks Additional Information Regarding Foreclosure Review Settlements
On February 15, House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) sent an amended set of requests to the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC regarding the recent agreements in principle to end the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) established by consent orders issued in April 2011. Ms. Waters asks that, in advance of finalizing the terms of the agreements, the agencies produce by March 1, 2013: (i) policies and procedures about how loan files were to be reviewed by the IFR independent consultants, and any checklists used; (ii) calls or reports from the consultants to the agencies regarding error rates of reviewed files, or errors by analysts conducting the reviews; (iii) guidelines issued by the agencies to any consultant related to interpretation of the remediation framework; (iv) correspondence between the agencies and any consultant with regard to the servicing platform identified as “Loss Mitigation Notes,” and inconsistencies between the reported availability of borrower records provided by such a program and records entered into any other part of the servicing platform; and (v) any proposed plan for future reform or modification of servicing platforms or procedures generated or submitted by any consultant to the agencies. This request follows related requests made by Ms. Waters and other Democratic lawmakers seeking details pertaining to the settlement.
House Democrats Urge President Obama to Nominate FHFA Director
On February 7, 45 Democratic Members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to President Obama requesting he nominate a permanent director for the FHFA to replace Acting Director Edward DeMarco. The Members object to the FHFA’s decision not to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer principal reduction assistance to troubled borrowers. The FHFA and Mr. DeMarco believe that principal forgiveness does not improve foreclosure avoidance while reducing costs to taxpayers relative to existing policies. In their letter, the Members argue that the FHFA’s decision under Mr. DeMarco is contrary to the intent of the federal law that created the FHFA as conservator. Further, the Members charge that Mr. DeMarco’s stated reasoning has been contradicted by the FHFA’s own data, which indicates that principal reduction loan modifications could save U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars compared to both allowing underwater homes to go into foreclosure, and the FHFA’s preferred alternative of principal forbearance. In support of their position that a new director is needed to properly implement congressional directives meant to support the housing market, the Members also cite (i) the FHFA’s decision not to allow the implementation of a principle forgiveness pilot program, and (ii) recently proposed increased state-level guarantee fees charged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in certain states.