InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Conference of State Bank Supervisors Announce Initiatives to Obviate Need for Fintech Charter, New York Joins Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System for Fintechs
On May 10, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced a “series of initiatives to modernize state regulation of non-banks, including financial technology [fintech] firms.” The draft of initiatives, branded “Vision 2020,” appear to be generally geared towards streamlining the state regulatory system so that it is capable of supporting business innovation, while still protecting the rights of consumers. As explained by CSBS Chairman and Texas Commissioner of Banking Charles G. Cooper, the CSBS is “committed to a multi-state experience that is as seamless as possible,” and, to this end, “state regulators will transform the licensing process, harmonize supervision [and] engage fintech companies.”
The initial set of actions that CSBS and state regulators are taking includes the following:
- Redesign the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS). CSBS plans to redesign the NMLS, which is a web-based system that allows non-depository companies, branches, and individuals in the mortgage, consumer lending, money services businesses, and debt collection industries to apply for, amend, update, or renew a license online. In particular, the CSBS’s redesign will “provide a more automated licensing process for new applicants, streamline multi-state regulation, and shift state resources to higher-risk cases.”
- Harmonize multi-state supervision. CSBS has created “working groups to establish model approaches to key aspects of non-bank supervision,” to “enhance uniformity in examinations, facilitate best practices,” and “capture and report non-bank violations at the national level.” CSBS also intends to “create a common technology platform for state examinations.”
- Form an industry advisory panel. CSBS will “establish a fintech industry advisory panel to identify points of friction in licensing and multi-state regulation, and provide feedback to state efforts to modernize regulatory regimes.”
- Assist state banking departments. CSBS intends to start “education programs” that “will make state departments more effective in supervising banks and non-banks.”
- Make it easier for banks to provide services to non-banks. CSBS is also “stepping up efforts to address de-risking—where banks are cautious about doing business with non-banks, due to regulatory uncertainty – by increasing industry awareness that strong regulatory regimes exist for compliance with laws for money laundering, the Bank Secrecy Act, and cybersecurity.”
- Make supervision more efficient for third parties. CSBS also intends to “support[] federal legislation that would allow state and federal regulators to better coordinate supervision of bank third-party service providers.”
By harmonizing the supervision and licensing system and working more closely together, state regulators appear to want to eliminate a key reason to seek the OCC charter, namely the ability to deal with one federal agency and follow a single set of rules. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the CSBS and a number of individual stakeholders have fiercely opposed the OCC’s other main fintech initiative—the development of a special purpose national bank charter for payments processors, online lenders and other new entrants in the financial industry. CSBS sued the OCC last month, arguing it lacked the legal power to move forward. The overall initiative appears to be a response to the OCC’s own “responsible innovation” efforts, which—as previously covered in InfoBytes—culminated in the creation of a new office last year to correspond with fintechs and the banks interested in partnering with them.
Concurrent with CSBS’s Vision 2020 initiatives, on May 11, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced that beginning July 1, 2017, it will transition to the NMLS to manage the license application and ongoing regulation of all nondepository financial institutions conducting business in the state, commencing with money transmitters. Specifically, on July 1, 2017, financial services companies holding New York money transmitter licenses will have the opportunity to transition those licenses to NMLS, and companies applying for new licenses will be able to apply through NMLS. As previously covered in InfoBytes, NMLS—a secure, web-based licensing system—will allow for easier on-line licensing renewal and enable NYDFS to “provide better supervision of the money transmitter industry by linking with other states to protect consumers.” Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo stressed that “[b]y working with the CSBS, which is leading the modernization of state regulation through Vision 2020, DFS is supporting the strong nationwide regulatory framework created by states to provide improved licensing and supervision by State regulators.”
Additional information about NMLS can be accessed through the NMLS Resource Center.
CFPB Issues Request for Information on Small Business Lending; Prepares to Implement Section 1071 of Dodd Frank Act
On May 10, the CFPB announced the issuance of a Request for Information on various aspects of the market for small business loans as the Bureau prepares to implement Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to require financial institutions to compile, maintain, and report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Request includes questions grouped in five categories: (i) defining what constitutes a small business; (ii) data points the Bureau will require to be submitted and collected; (iii) types of lenders involved in small business lending and the appropriate institutional coverage for the data collection requirements; (iv) types of financial products offered to small businesses generally, and those owned by women and minorities in particular; and (v) privacy concerns related to the data collection.
The CFPB also released Director Cordray’s prepared remarks in advance of a field hearing on small business lending where he introduced the Request for Information and issued a related press release. Comments are due 60 days after the Request for Information is published in the Federal Register. The Bureau also released a report, entitled “Key Dimensions of the Small Business Lending Landscape,” which presents the CFPB's perspective on the market for lending to small, minority-owned and woman-owned firms and gaps in its understanding.
A couple of industry groups have already weighed in regarding expected difficulties with the application of Section 1071. In a letter sent Tuesday in advance of the field hearing, the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU) urged the CFPB to exempt its members from any rulemaking that compels disclosure of business loan information. NAFCU Regulatory Affairs Counsel Andrew Morris cites the unique characteristics of credit unions, and that such data collection “may yield confusing information about credit unions and further restrict lending activity as a result of increased compliance costs.” The letter notes that “[c]redit unions serve distinct fields of membership, and as a result, institution-level data related to women-owned, minority-owned and small business lending substantially differs in relation to other lenders.”
And, in a white paper provided to the Treasury Department, the American Bankers Association criticizes what amounts to Section 1071’s conflation of consumer and commercial lending, “recommend[ing] the elimination of any vestige of Bureau regulatory, supervisory, or enforcement authority over commercial credit or other commercial account and financial services.”
D.C. Circuit Holds CID Unenforceable Due to “Perfunctory” Notification of Purpose
On April 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that a civil investigative demand (“CID”) did not advise a non-profit organization that accredits for-profit colleges of “’the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation which is under investigation and the provision of law applicable to such violation.’ 12 U.S.C. § 5562(c)(2).” See CFPB v. Accrediting Council for Indep. Colls.& Schs., [Order] No. 16-5174 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 21, 2017). The CID described “the nature of the conduct” as simply “unlawful acts and practices in connection with accrediting for-profit colleges.” Because this “broad and non-specific” language did not describe the purpose of the CFPB’s investigation, the Court determined that it could not ascertain whether the information sought was reasonably relevant or “the link between the relevant conduct and the alleged violation.” The Court also found that the description of the laws applicable to the violation was inadequate. The CID identified 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531 and 5536 and “any other Federal consumer financial protection law,” but the Court concluded that the citations “tell … nothing about the statutory basis for the Bureau’s investigation” considering the CFPB’s failure to identify “the specific conduct under investigation.” Notably the Court explicitly limited its ruling to the particular CID at issue and declined to address the broader question of whether the CFPB may investigate accreditation of for-profit schools.
American Bankers Association White Paper Addresses Concerns Over HMDA Expansion
On May 2, the American Bankers Association (ABA) issued a white paper to the Treasury Department on the implementation of the 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule as part of its continuing response to President Trump’s executive order outlining “core principles” for financial regulation (see previously issued Special Alert here). The white paper, HMDA – More Really is Less: The Data Fog Frustrates HMDA, presents several views held by the ABA including that the CFPB should (i) rescind requirements to collect any data fields not expressly required by HMDA; (ii) suspend the effective date of the 2015 HMDA rule until privacy and security concerns are addressed (see previously issued Special Alert here); (iii) exclude commercial loans from HMDA coverage; and (iv) revoke the new HMDA data elements added by the Dodd-Frank Act. The ABA noted that the Dodd-Frank Act added more than 13 new categories to the statutory HMDA data fields lenders are required to collect, and in the implementing regulation, Regulation C, the CFPB added 25 new data fields to the existing 23 fields. The ABA noted that the CFPB estimates that, in addition to existing costs of HMDA compliance, the additional annual costs of operations will be approximately $120.6 million conservatively (more if reporting quarterly) and lenders will incur a one-time additional cost of between $177 million and $326.6 million. Furthermore, the ABA states there still remains a need to address the “significant” privacy issues presented by the “vast trove of data points added by Dodd-Frank,” and that “the collection and transfer and warehousing of greatly increased and more sensitive data will necessitate even more robust and costlier private sector and government systems.” However, the ABA noted the Bureau has not initiated rulemaking to address the privacy issues presented.
Notably, last month, the CFPB issued a proposal in the Federal Register to amend the 2015 HMDA rule (see previously issued Special Alert here). The changes are primarily for the purpose of clarifying data collection and reporting requirements, and most of the clarifications and revisions would take effect in January 2018. The deadline to submit comments on the CFPB’s proposal is May 25, 2017.
CFPB Seeks Public Comment on its Plans for Assessing RESPA Mortgage Servicing Rule
On May 4, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plans for assessing the 2013 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) servicing rule’s effectiveness in meeting the purposes and objectives outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the CFPB to assess each significant rule or order it adopts under Federal consumer financial laws. According to the request for comment and a May 4 blog post on the CFPB’s website, the self-assessment will focus on objectives to ensure that: (i) “[c]onsumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions”; (ii) “[c]onsumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination”; (iii) “[o]utdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens”; (iv) “[f]ederal consumer financial law is enforced consistently”; and (v) “[m]arkets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.”
In 2013, the Bureau adopted the 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule and further amended the rule several times to address questions raised by the industry, consumer advocacy groups, and other stakeholders. The CFPB deemed the 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule, effective January 10, 2014, a “significant rule” for purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act. Importantly, however, in Footnote 10 of its most-recent request for comment, the Bureau clarifies that it “is not seeking comment on the amendments to the mortgage servicing rules that became or will become effective after the January 10, 2014 effective date.” (emphasis added) Accordingly, it appears that the Bureau is not presently seeking comments on the Amendments to Regulation X and Regulation Z that the CFPB published as a Final Rule (12 CFR Parts 1024 and 1026) in the October 19, 2016 edition of the Federal Register – see earlier InfoBytes coverage here – and which are slated to take effect in part on October 19, 2017 and in full on April 19, 2018.
Nevada AG Issues Advisory Opinion Finding Assignment of a Retail Installment Sales Contract Does Not Subject Assignee to Licensure or Regulation Under Ch. 675 of the NV Code
Last month, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Nevada (OAG) issued an Advisory Opinion[1] finding that a retail seller financing its own sales pursuant to the retail installment sales contract (RISC) provisions found in Chapter 97 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), but which is otherwise not engaging in lending activity, is not required to secure a lender’s license under Chapter 675 of the NRS. In reaching this conclusion, the OAG references another opinion[2]it had issued earlier this year concerning retail installment lending, and noted that “[w]hen a retail seller finances its own sales pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 97, but otherwise engages in no lending activity, the retailer's business activity is governed exclusively by the provisions of Chapter 97” (emphasis added). In light of this earlier holding, the OAG reasoned as follows:
[W]hen a person purchases or takes an assignment of a RISC pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 97 of the NRS, the person’s acceptance of the assignment does not subject the person to regulation or licensure under NRS Chapter 675. Assuming that the person is not independently engaged in lending activity subject to licensure and regulation under NRS Chapter 675, the person’s financing activity is governed exclusively by the provisions of NRS Chapter 97. To the extent that a vehicle dealer adopts the contractual terms of the form RISC as prescribed by the Commissioner in accordance with Chapter 97, the vehicle dealer is permitted to assign the RISC to a financial institution. Although it applies in general terms to certain types of lending activity, NRS Chapter 675 does not specifically abrogate the exclusive provisions of Chapter 97 that govern the parties to a RISC made and assigned pursuant to Chapter 97.
Notably, the Opinion was issued in response to a request from the Commissioner of the Financial Institutions Division of the Nevada Department of Business and Industry (NDBI), seeking a “formal opinion” regarding certain indirect vehicle financing transactions that use the form retail installment contract prescribed for use in the sale of vehicles pursuant to NRS 97.299. Specifically, the Commissioner sought an opinion addressing “[w]hether a financial institution that purchases Retail Installment Sales Contracts ("RISC[ s ]") from motor vehicle dealers in the State of Nevada (i.e. engages in indirect financing) is required to be licensed pursuant to Chapter 675 of the NRS[.]” The Commissioner also requested clarification addressing “[w]hether NRS Chapter 675 requires such a financial institution to have an in-state physical presence[.]”
Gov. Cuomo Announces New Title Insurance Regulations Target Business Gifts, Ancillary Fees and Transactions with Affiliates
On May 1, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced two new proposed regulations to “crack down on unscrupulous practices in the title insurance industry.” According to the Governor, the proposed measures were drafted in response to an investigation by the state Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), which found that “meals, entertainment, gifts” and other “inducements” provided in exchange for referring business to a title insurance company or agents, were charged to customers under the guise of “marketing expenses.” The first proposed regulation would, among other things, clarify the rules about “meals and entertainment” expenses, and other ancillary fees that title agents or title insurers may charge a customer. The second proposed regulation would require title insurance companies or agents that generate a portion of their business from affiliates to function separately and independently from any affiliate and obtain business from other sources. Importantly, a press release issued by NYDFS explains that “emergency” versions of both of these regulations have already been adopted by NYDFS (in response to the aforementioned investigation). As explained by NYDFS, the emergency rules, which are currently in effect, will remain in effect until final regulations are adopted.
OCC Names New Senior Leadership in Midsize and Community Bank Supervision
On May 2, the OCC announced the promotion of two long-time OCC employees to leadership roles within its Community Bank Supervision unit. Starting this May, Scott Schainost will serve as one of two deputies responsible for overseeing the supervision of midsize national banks and federal savings associations where he will oversee a portfolio of companies with assets generally ranging from $5 billion to $60 billion, as well as a number of nationally chartered institutions. This is a new position created to enhance the supervision of midsize banks. Schainost – who has held a variety of positions at the OCC during his 33 years at the agency – started his career as an Assistant Bank Examiner in Kansas City, before moving on to supervise banks of all sizes.
Beginning this June, Troy Thornton will serve as the head of one of the OCC’s four districts that make up community bank supervision, where he will oversee the supervision of more than 390 national banks, federal savings associations, and trust companies, while also overseeing 28 technology service providers spread over nine states from Texas to Florida. His responsibilities will include managing staff in 21 field and satellite offices throughout the district. Thornton began his career at the OCC 31 years ago as a Field Examiner in Texas. He is filling a vacancy left by Gilbert Barker’s retirement in November 2016.
CFPB Releases “Core Outcomes” for Financial Empowerment Programs
On April 27, the CFPB announced in a blog post its release of a core set of financial outcomes designed to help human services organizations integrate financial empowerment and capability initiatives into their programs. Strategies include implementing financial education tools and financial counseling or coaching. In its April report, Tracking Success in Financial Capability and Empowerment Programs, the Bureau identified the following five core outcomes to help consumers improve their financial capabilities: (i) planning and goals; (ii) savings; (iii) bill payment; (iv) credit profile; and (v) financial well-being. According to the report, which assists the financial empowerment field in encouraging commonality in outcomes, core outcomes are designed to:
- “help inform and guide service delivery organizations and those who design, fund, or evaluate service programs as they assess or document the value of integrating financial capability and empowerment strategies into the delivery of human services programs”;
- “provide a suggested core set of common outcomes to measure for the financial empowerment field”;
- “augment, not displace, current programmatic outcomes and accommodate a broad range of different program types”; and
- “help provide consistency across programs by creating a common framework and language for demonstrating success for the provision of financial empowerment services as an element of other human services programs.”
According to the Bureau’s Office of Financial Empowerment, it began identifying common core outcomes with input from multiple financial empowerment practitioners and researchers to “improve the financial well-being of “lower-income and economically vulnerable consumers.”
Treasury Announces FSOC Executive Session on May 8
Earlier this week, the Treasury Department announced that on Monday, May 8, Secretary Mnuchin will preside over an executive session of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). According to a Treasury Department press release, the preliminary agenda includes:
- a discussion of the April 21 Presidential Memorandum on Council designations;
- an update on the annual reevaluation of the designation of a nonbank financial company;
- a discussion of interagency regulatory collaboration and the Feb. 3 Executive Order on core principles for financial regulation;
- a discussion of the FSOC’s 2017 Annual Report; and
- an update on bank holding companies’ living wills and resolution planning.
Consistent with FSOC’s transparency policy, the meeting may be made available via live webcast and/or can be viewed after it occurs. Meeting minutes for the most recent Council meeting are generally approved at the next Council meeting and posted online soon afterwards.
Meeting minutes for past Council meetings are available here.
Readouts for past Council meetings are available here.