InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB officially withdraws extension of compliance date for debt collection rules
On September 1, the CFPB published a proposal in the Federal Register to withdraw its proposed rule that would have extended the effective date of its final rules amending Regulation F, which implements the FDCPA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in April, the Bureau proposed delaying the effective date by 60 days to provide affected parties additional time to comply due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. However, the Bureau determined that an extension is unnecessary and will publish a formal notice in the Federal Register, withdrawing the April notice of proposed rulemaking (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the Bureau, industry comments generally did not support an extension, and “[m]ost industry commenters stated that, despite the pandemic, they would be prepared to comply with the Debt Collection Final Rules by November 30, 2021.”
SEC seeks public information regarding online trading
On August 27, the SEC announced a request for information and public comments regarding the use of digital engagement practices by broker-dealers and investment advisers, such as behavioral prompts, differential marketing, game-like features (gamification), and other design elements or features designed to engage with retail investors on digital platforms, as well as analytical and technological tools and methods (collectively “digital engagement practices” or “DEPs”). The SEC issued the request to better understand the market practices related to firms' use of DEPs and intends “to learn what conflicts of interest may arise from optimization practices and whether those optimization practices affect the determination of whether DEPs are making a recommendation or providing investment advice.” The request is also intended to provide a forum for market participants to provide their perspectives regarding the use of DEPs, including the potential benefits that DEPs provide to retail investors, and protection concerns related to potential investors. The request will assist in the Commission's assessment of existing regulations and consideration regarding whether regulatory action may be required to continue the Commission's mission. A statement by SEC Chair Gary Gensler noted that though “new technologies can bring us greater access and product choice, they also raise questions as to whether we as investors are appropriately protected when we trade and get financial advice.” The public comment period for the request will remain open for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Agencies issue fintech guidance for community banks
On August 27, the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve Board released a guide as part of its efforts to promote and support the adoption of new technologies by financial institutions. (See also FIL-59-2021 and OCC Bulletin 2021-40.) The Conducting Due Diligence on Financial Technology Companies: A Guide for Community Banks is intended to help community banks conduct due diligence when considering relationships with prospective fintech companies. Among other things, the guide addresses six key due diligence topics for community banks to consider, including (i) business experience, strategic goals, and qualifications; (ii) financial conditions and market information; (iii) legal and regulatory compliance; (iv) risk management policies, processes, and controls; (v) information security programs; and (vi) operational resilience, such as business continuity planning, incident response, service level agreements, and reliance on subcontractors. The guide also provides practical sources of information that may be useful when evaluating fintech companies. The agencies note that use of the guide, which is consistent with the FDIC’s Guidance for Managing Third-Party Risk, is voluntary and that the guide does not anticipate all types of fintech relationships and risks. Consistent with risk-based programs, a community bank may tailor how it uses the information “based on specific circumstances, the risks posed by each third-party relationship, and the related product, service, or activity. . . offered by the fintech company.”
CFPB to issue Section 1071 NPRM by September 30
On August 23, the CFPB filed its sixth status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as required under a stipulated settlement reached in February 2020 with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition. The settlement (covered by InfoBytes here) resolved a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. The newest status report follows a July court order, which requires the Bureau to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on small business lending data by September 30 (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the Bureau notes in its status report that it expects to meet the September deadline and that it “is continuing to work on the significant legal and policy issues that must be resolved to implement the Section 1071 regulations.”
Find continuing Section 1071 coverage here.
OCC cites preemption decision in valid-when-made rule challenge
On August 24, the OCC filed a statement of recent decision in support of its motion for summary judgment in an action brought against the agency by several state attorneys general challenging the OCC’s final rule on “Permissible Interest on Loans that are Sold, Assigned, or Otherwise Transferred” (known also as the valid-when-made rule). The final rule was designed to effectively reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision and provide that “[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under [12 U.S.C. § 85 for national bank or 12 U.S.C. § 1463(g)(1) for federal thrifts] shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.” (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) The states’ challenge argued that the rule “impermissibly preempts state law,” is “contrary to the plain language” of section 85 (and section 1463(g)(1)), and “contravenes the judgment of Congress,” which declined to extend preemption to non-banks. Moreover, the states contended that the OCC “failed to give meaningful consideration” to the commentary received regarding the rule, essentially enabling “‘rent-a-bank’ schemes.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Both parties sought summary judgment, with the OCC arguing that the final rule validly interprets the National Bank Act (NBA) and that not only does the final rule reasonably interpret the “gap” in section 85, it is consistent with section 85’s “purpose of facilitating national banks’ ability to operate their nationwide lending programs.” Moreover, the OCC asserted that 12 U.S.C. § 25b’s preemption standards do not apply to the final rule, because, among other things, the OCC “has not concluded that a state consumer financial law is being preempted.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
In its August 24 filing, the OCC brought to the court’s attention a recent order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Wisconsin court reviewed claims under the FDCPA and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA) against a debt-purchasing company and a law firm hired by the company to recover outstanding debt and purported late fees on the plaintiff’s account in a separate state-court action. Among other things, the court examined whether the state law’s notice and right-to-cure provisions were federally preempted by the NBA, as the original creditor’s rights and duties were assigned to the debt-purchasing company when the account was sold. The court ultimately concluded that the WCA provisions “are inapplicable to national banks by reason of federal preemption,” and, as such, the court found “that a debt collector assigned a debt from a national bank is likewise exempt from those requirements” and was not required to send the plaintiff a right-to-cure letter “as a precondition to accelerating his debt or filing suit against him.”
Education Dept. announces new TPD discharge measures for student borrowers
On August 19, the U.S. Department of Education announced that more than 323,000 student loan borrowers who have a total and permanent disability (TPD) will receive automatic discharges totaling over $5.8 billion. Under the final regulations, applicable borrowers will be identified through an existing data match with the Social Security Administration starting with the September quarterly match to allow “the Department to provide automatic TPD discharges for borrowers who are identified through administrative data matching by removing the requirement for these borrowers to fill out an application before receiving relief.” Borrowers matched with the Department of Veterans Affairs have already been able to take advantage of the TPD discharge data match since 2019. Two additional TPD-related policy items were also announced: (i) the Department will indefinitely extend a previously announced policy to stop asking borrowers to provide earnings information beyond the end of the national emergency (“a process that results in the reinstatement of loans if and when borrowers do not respond”); and (ii) the Department will propose eliminating the currently required three-year income monitoring period during a negotiated rulemaking that will begin in October.
OCC releases new Model Risk Management booklet
On August 18, the OCC issued a new Model Risk Management booklet as part of the Comptroller’s Handbook’s safety and soundness series. The booklet is used by OCC examiners when examining and supervising national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations. Among other things, the new booklet (i) outlines model risk management concepts and general principles; (ii) “informs and educates examiners about sound model risk management practices that should be assessed during an examination”; and (iii) “provides information needed to plan and coordinate examinations on model risk management, identify deficient practices, and conduct appropriate follow-up.” The booklet aligns with principals laid out in OCC Bulletin 2011-12 “Sound Practices for Model Risk Management: Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management.”
FINRA reminds firms of third-party supervisory obligations
On August 13, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) reminded member firms of their supervisory obligations related to outsourcing to third-party vendors. Regulatory Notice 21-29 reiterates that supervisory obligations under FINRA Rule 3110 extend to member firms’ outsourcing of certain “covered activities” and reminds firms that under Regulatory Notice 05-48, “‘outsourcing an activity or function to … [a vendor] does not relieve members of their ultimate responsibility for compliance with all applicable federal securities laws and regulations and [FINRA] and MSRB rules regarding the outsourced activity or function.’” Emphasizing that “member firms have continued to expand the scope and depth of their use of technology and have increasingly leveraged [v]endors to perform risk management functions and to assist in supervising sales and trading activity and customer communications,” FINRA reminds member firms that supervisory systems and associated written supervisory procedures extend to the “outsourced activities or functions” of their vendors. The notice also cites examples of violations uncovered during previous examinations linked to third-party vendors related to data integrity, cybersecurity and technology governance, and books and records requirements. These include instances where firms’ vendors failed to implement technical controls or failed to properly manage customers’ nonpublic information. Member firms are encouraged to take a “risk-based approach” to vendor management and to assess whether their supervisory procedures for third-party vendors are “sufficient to maintain compliance with applicable rules.”
OCC updates bank accounting guidance
On August 16, the OCC released an annual update to its Bank Accounting Advisory Series (BAAS). Intended to address a variety of accounting topics and promote consistent application of accounting standards and regulatory reporting among OCC-supervised banks, the BAAS reflects updates to accounting standards issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board through March 31, 2021, related to, among other things, (i) the amortization of premiums on callable debt securities; and (ii) evaluating goodwill impairment triggering events for private companies. The 2021 edition also includes answers to frequently asked questions from industry and bank examiners. Additionally, the OCC notes that the BAAS does not represent OCC rules or regulations but rather “represents the Office of the Chief Accountant’s interpretations of generally accepted accounting principles and regulatory guidance based on the facts and circumstances presented.”
OCC updates Liquidity booklet
On August 16, the OCC issued Bulletin 2021-38 announcing the updated version of the Liquidity booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. The booklet replaces the 2012 version and provides information and examination procedures on liquidity coverage ratio and net stable funding ratio requirements. Among other things, the revised booklet: (i) discusses risks associated with liquidity; (ii) reflects changes in regulations and relevant OCC issuances since 2012; and (iii) clarifies edits on supervisory guidance, sound risk management practices, and legal language.