InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FSOC seeks feedback on risk framework, nonbank determinations
On April 21, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) released a proposed analytic framework for financial stability risks, “intended to provide greater transparency to the public about how [FSOC] identifies, assesses, and addresses potential risks to financial stability, regardless of whether the risk stems from activities or firms.” FSOC explained in a fact sheet that the proposed framework would not impose any obligations on any entity, but is instead designed to provide guidance on how FSOC expects to perform certain duties. This includes: (i) identifying potential risks covering a broad range of asset classes, institutions, and activities, including new and evolving financial products and practices as well as developments affecting financial resiliency such as cybersecurity and climate-related financial risks; (ii) assessing certain vulnerabilities that most commonly contribute to financial stability risk and considering how adverse effects stemming from these risks could be transmitted to financial markets/market participants, including what impact this can have on the financial system; and (iii) responding to potential risks to U.S. financial stability, which may involve interagency coordination and information sharing, recommendations to financial regulators or Congress, nonbank financial company determinations, and designations relating to financial market utility/payment, clearing, and settlement activities that are, or are likely to become, systemically important.
The same day, FSOC also released for public comment proposed interpretive guidance relating to procedures for designating systemically important nonbank financial companies for Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards. (See also FSOC fact sheet here.) The guidance would revise and update previous guidance from 2019, and “is intended to enhance [FSOC’s] ability to address risks to financial stability, provide transparency to the public, and ensure a rigorous and clear designation process.” FSOC explained that the proposed guidance would include a two-stage evaluation and analysis process for making a designation, during which time companies under review would engage in significant communication with FSOC and be provided an opportunity to request a hearing, among other things. Designated companies will be subject to annual reevaluations and may have their designations rescinded should FSOC determine that the company no longer meets the statutory standards for designation.
Comments on both proposals are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Both CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and OCC acting Comptroller Michael J. Hsu issued statements supporting the issuance of the proposed interpretive guidance. Chopra commented that, if finalized, the proposed guidance “will create a clear path for the FSOC to identify and designate systemically important nonbank financial institutions” and “will accelerate efforts to identify potential shadow banks to be candidates for designation.” Hsu also noted that sharing additional details to improve the balance and transparency of FSOC’s work “would both make it easier for [FSOC] to explain its analysis of potential risks and create an opportunity for richer public input on the analysis.”
FHFA seeks to codify fair lending oversight
On April 19, FHFA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to codify several existing practices and programs relating to the agency’s fair lending oversight requirements for the Federal Home Loan Banks and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs). Intended to provide increased public transparency and greater oversight and accountability to the regulated entities’ fair housing and fair lending compliance, the NPRM seeks to also formalize requirements for the GSEs to maintain Equitable Housing Finance Plans, which are designed to address racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership and wealth and foster housing finance markets that provide equitable access to affordable and sustainable housing (covered by InfoBytes here). The NPRM will also codify requirements for the GSEs to collect and report homeownership education, housing counseling, and language preference information from the Supplemental Consumer Information Form (SCIF). Lenders are required to use the SCIF as part of the application process for loans with application dates on or after March 1, that will be sold to the GSEs (covered by InfoBytes here). Comments on the NPRM are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
SEC opens comment period on defining “exchange”
On April 14, the SEC reopened the comment period on proposed amendments to the statutory definition of “exchange” under Exchange Act rule 3b-16, which now includes systems that facilitate the trading of crypto asset securities. (See also SEC fact sheet here.) The comment period was reopened in response to feedback requesting information about how existing rules and the proposed amendments would apply to systems that trade crypto asset securities and meet the proposed definition of an exchange, or to trading systems that use distributed ledger or blockchain technology, including such systems characterized as decentralized finance (DeFi). The SEC also provided supplement information and economic analysis for systems that would now fall under the new, proposed definition of exchange. The reopened comment period allows an opportunity for interested persons to analyze and comment on the proposed amendments in light of the supplemental information. Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
“[G]iven how crypto trading platforms operate, many of them currently are exchanges, regardless of the reopening release we’re considering today,” SEC Chair Gary Gensler said. “These platforms match orders of multiple buyers and sellers of crypto securities using established, non-discretionary methods. That’s the definition of an exchange—and today, most crypto trading platforms meet it. That’s the case regardless of whether they call themselves centralized or decentralized.” He added that crypto-market investors must receive the same protections that the securities laws afford to all other markets. Commissioners Mark T. Uyeda and Hester M. Peirce voted against reopening the comment period. Uyeda cautioned against expanding the definition of an “exchange” in an “ambiguous manner,” saying it could “suppress further beneficial innovation.” Peirce also dissented, arguing that the proposal stretches the statutory definition of an “exchange” beyond a reasonable reading in an attempt to “reach a poorly defined set of activities with no evidence that investors will benefit.”
DFPI proposes new CCFPL modifications on complaints and inquiries
On April 14, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a third round of modifications to proposed regulations for implementing and interpreting certain sections of the California Consumer Financial Protection Law (CCFPL) related to consumer complaints and inquiries. DFPI modified the proposed text in December and March (covered by InfoBytes here and here) in response to comments received on the initially proposed text issued last year to implement Section 90008 subdivisions (a) (b), and (d)(2)(D) of the CCFPL (covered by InfoBytes here). Subdivisions (a) and (b) authorize the DFPI to promulgate rules establishing reasonable procedures for covered persons to provide timely responses to consumers and the DFPI concerning consumer complaints and inquiries, whereas subdivision (d)(2)(D) permits covered persons to withhold certain non-public or confidential information when responding to consumer inquiries.
DFPI considered comments on the most recent proposed modifications and is now proposing further additional changes:
- Amended definitions. The proposed modifications change “officer” to “complaint officer” and expand the definition to mean “an individual designated by the covered person with primary authority and responsibility for the effective operation and governance of the complaint process, including the authority and responsibility to monitor the complaint process and resolve complaints.” References to “officer” have been changed to “complaint officer” throughout.
- Complaint processes and procedures. The proposed modifications make clarifying edits to the requirements for annual notices issued to consumers (disclosures must be provided “in a clear and conspicuous manner”), and specify that complaints pertaining solely to entities not involved in the offering or providing of the financial product or service being reported on should not be included in the number of complaints received.
- Inquiry processes and procedures. The proposed modifications clarify that should an inquirer indicate any dissatisfaction “regarding a specific issue or problem” concerning a financial product or service or allege wrongdoing by the covered person or third party, the inquiry should be handled as a complaint.
Comments are due April 29.
FHFA rule targets GSE eligibility in colonias
On April 12, FHFA published a final rule amending its Enterprise Duty to Serve Underserved Markets regulation. The final rule, which was adopted without change from the proposed rule issued last year (covered by InfoBytes here), allows Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSE) activities in all colonia census tracts to be eligible for Duty to Serve credit. Specifically, the amendment adds a “colonia census tract” definition to serve as a census tract-based proxy for a “colonia” (as generally applied to “unincorporated communities along the U.S.-Mexico border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas that are characterized by high poverty rates and substandard living conditions”). The final rule also amends the “high-needs rural region” definition by substituting “colonia census tract” for “colonia,” and revises the definition of “rural area” to include all colonia census tracts regardless of their location, in order to make GSE activities in all colonia census tracts eligible for duty to serve credit. The final rule takes effect July 1.
SBA creates new SBLC category and ends moratorium
On April 12, the SBA published a final rule in the Federal Register lifting the moratorium on licensing new nondepository small business lending companies (SBLCs) and adding a new type of entity called a “Community Advantage SBLC.” The moratorium was imposed in 1982, after the agency determined it lacked adequate resources to effectively service and supervise additional SBLCs participating in SBA’s 7(a) loan program beyond the 14 it was authorized to approve. According to SBA, while the majority of 7(a) lenders are federally-regulated depository institutions, “SBLCs are regulated, supervised, and examined solely by SBA” and “are subject to specific regulations regarding formation, capitalization, and enforcement actions.” SBA explained that there are capital market gaps in certain markets that “continue to struggle to obtain financing on non-predatory terms.” The final rule lifts the licensing moratorium and eliminates the cap on the number of nondepository institutions in the program. The final rule also creates the Community Advantage SBLC to help bridge the financing gap that small businesses face in the private market. Community Advantage SBLCs are nonprofit organizations that will be licensed to make 7(a) loans to small businesses and will help SBA meet the needs of underserved communities. SBA also revised its regulations to remove the requirement for a separate loan authorization document to “eliminate the duplication of effort and opportunity for a mismatch of information between multiple sources of the loan terms and conditions.” The final rule is effective May 12.
CFPB reports on Section 1033 rulemaking
The CFPB recently released a final report issued by the Small Business Review Panel (Panel), which examines the impact of the Bureau’s proposals to address consumers’ personal financial data rights. Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank generally provides that covered entities, such as banks, must make available to consumers, upon request, transaction data and other information concerning consumer financial products or services that the consumer obtains from the covered entity. Over the past several years, the Bureau has engaged in a series of rulemaking steps to prescribe standards for this requirement, including the release of a 71-page outline of proposals and alternatives in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The outline presents items under consideration that “would specify rules requiring certain covered persons that are data providers to make consumer financial information available to a consumer directly and to those third parties the consumer authorizes to access such information on the consumer’s behalf, such as a data aggregator or data recipient (authorized third parties).” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
While the Panel’s final report reflects its review of the Bureau’s proposals and the feedback received from small entity representatives that likely would be subject to the rule, it may not reflect updated findings uncovered during the process of producing a notice of proposed rulemaking because the report is drafted at the preliminary stage of the Bureau’s required rulemaking process.
The report includes an overview of proposals and alternatives under consideration for the use of two existing definitions to establish data provider coverage: “financial institution” as defined by Regulation E (i.e. “depository and nondepository financial institutions that provide consumer funds-holding accounts or that otherwise meet the Regulation E definition of financial institution”), and “card issuer” as defined by Regulation Z (i.e. “depository and nondepository institutions that provide credit cards or otherwise meet the Regulation Z definition of card issuer”). Entities that meet the definition of a “card issuer” would include both the person that issues a credit card and the person’s agents with respect to the card.
The report analyzes numerous topics, including proposals covering asset accounts and credit card accounts, potential exemptions for certain covered data providers, the process for making information available to consumers and to third parties (including third-party commitments to data security, data accuracy and limitations, and disclosure compliance), record retention obligations, and the potential impact on small entities. The report includes a thorough breakdown of panel findings and recommendations.
Treasury recommends stronger DeFi supervision
On April 6, the U.S. Treasury Department published a report on illicit finance risks in the decentralized finance (DeFi) sector, building upon Treasury’s other risk assessments, and continuing the work outlined in Executive Order 14067, Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets (covered by InfoBytes here).
Written by Treasury’s Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, in consultation with numerous federal agencies, the Illicit Finance Risk Assessment of Decentralized Finance is the first report of its kind in the world. The report explained that, while there is no generally accepted definition of DeFi, the term has broadly referred to virtual asset protocols and services that allow for automated peer-to-peer transactions through the use of blockchain technology. Used by a host of illicit actors to transfer and launder funds, the report found that “the most significant current illicit finance risk in this domain is from DeFi services that are not compliant with existing AML/CFT [anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism] obligations.” These obligations include establishing effective AML programs, assessing illicit finance risks, and reporting suspicious activity, the report said.
The report made several recommendations for strengthening AML/CFT supervision and regulation of DeFi services, such as “closing any identified gaps in the [Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)] to the extent that they allow certain DeFi services to fall outside the scope of the BSA’s definition of financial institutions.” The report also recommended, “when relevant,” the “enforcement of virtual asset activities, including DeFi services, to increase compliance by virtual asset firms with BSA obligations,” and suggested continued research and engagement with the private sector on this subject.
In addition, the report pointed to a lack of implementation of international AML/CFT standards by foreign countries, “which enables illicit actors to use DeFi services with impunity in jurisdictions that lack AML/CFT requirements,” and commented that “poor cybersecurity practices by DeFi services, which enable theft and fraud of consumer assets, also present risks for national security, consumers, and the virtual asset industry.” To address these concerns, the report recommended “stepping up engagements with foreign partners to push for stronger implementation of international AML/CFT standards and advocating for improved cybersecurity practices by virtual asset firms to mitigate these vulnerabilities.” The report seeks input from the public sector to inform next steps.
FHFA updates GSE equitable housing finance plans
On April 5, FHFA announced updates to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s (GSEs) equitable housing finance plans for 2023. (See plans here and here.) The updates include adjustments to plans first announced last year (covered by InfoBytes here), which faced pushback from several Republican senators who argued that the plans raised “significant legal concerns” and that “no law authorizes FHFA to use a GSE’s assets to pursue affirmative action in housing.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The senators also argued that the Biden administration was “conscripting the GSEs as instrumentalities of its progressive racial equity agenda to achieve outcomes it cannot achieve legislatively or even legally.”
According to FHA’s announcement, the updated plans provide the GSEs with a three-year roadmap to address barriers to sustainable housing opportunities. Updates include (i) taking actions to remove barriers faced by Latino renters and homeowners in Fannie Mae’s plan; (ii) an improved focus on ensuring existing borrowers are able to receive fair loss mitigation support and outcomes through monitoring and developing strategies to close gaps; (iii) providing financial capabilities coaching to build credit and savings; (iv) supporting locally-owned modular construction facilities in communities of color; and (v) increasing the reach of GSE special purpose credit programs to support homeownership attainment and housing sustainability in underserved communities.
FHA proposes earlier HECM claim submissions
On April 4, FHA issued FHA Info 2023-25, announcing proposed changes to the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) program and documentation requirements for certain submission criteria. FHA explained that the documentation changes would apply to HECM Assignment Claim Type 22, which “is an option that allows a HECM servicer to assign a mortgage that is in good standing to FHA in exchange for payment of the loan balance, up to the maximum claim amount.” Specifically, the proposal would allow servicers to start submitting claim documentation for preliminary FHA review when a mortgage reaches 97 percent of the maximum claim amount (MCA), versus the 97.5 percent currently allowed. The change is intended “to expedite the payment of claim funds when the mortgage reaches 98 percent of the MCA, to mortgage servicers in light of current market liquidity considerations.” The proposal would also establish that the deadline for mortgagees to deliver original notes and mortgages to FHA is 90 days after the assignment claim payment date, and would align the deadline for delivering recorded assignments of mortgage for all HECMS by increasing the timeline to 12 months for HECMs with FHA case numbers assigned before September 19, 2017. Comments on the proposal are due April 11.