InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC proposal would prohibit misuse of its name or logo
On April 22, the FDIC proposed a rule implementing its authority to prohibit “making misrepresentations about deposit insurance or misusing the FDIC’s name or logo.” The proposed rule is intended to promote transparency on the FDIC’s processes for inspecting and enforcing potential breaches of prohibitions under the FDIC Act by “further clarify[ing] [] procedures for identifying, investigating, and where necessary taking formal and informal action to address potential violations of Section 18(a)(4).” Additionally, the proposed rule would establish a primary point of contact for the public to report or inquire about potential violations. The FDIC specified that the proposed rule is in response to the “increasing number of instances where financial services providers or other entities or individuals have misused the FDIC’s name or logo.”
Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
State AGs urge Congress to rescind OCC’s “true lender” rule
On April 21, a coalition of 26 state attorneys general sent a letter urging Congress to exercise its authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and rescind the OCC’s “True Lender Rule” in order to “safeguard states’ fundamental sovereign rights to protect their citizens from financial abuse.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC’s final rule amended 12 CFR Part 7 to state that a bank makes a loan when, as of the date of origination, it either (i) is named as the lender in the loan agreement or (ii) funds the loan. The final rule also clarified that if “one bank is named as the lender in the loan agreement and another bank funds the loan, the bank that is named as the lender in the loan agreement makes the loan.” In their letter, the AGs expressed concern that the final rule “establishes a simplistic standard to redefine the meaning of ‘true lender,’” enabling predatory lenders to “circumvent” state interest-rate caps through “rent-a-bank” schemes, which would in turn allow banks to act as lenders in name only while passing state law exemptions for banks to non-bank entities. The letter references a complaint filed by eight state AGs against the OCC in January challenging the final rule (covered by InfoBytes here) and argues that in finalizing the rule the OCC “acted in a manner contrary to centuries of case law [and] the OCC’s own prior interpretation of the law,” and seeks to preempt state usury law and “infringe on the States’ historical police powers and facilitate predatory lending.”
In March, both House and Senate Democrats introduced CRA resolutions (see H.J. Res. 35 and S.J. Res. 15) intended to provide for congressional disapproval and invalidation of the OCC’s final rule. The OCC responded on April 14, arguing that “disapproval of the rule would return bank lending relationships to the previous state of legal and regulatory uncertainty, which. . . adversely affects the function of secondary markets and restricts the availability of credit.” The OCC further stated that the final rule is intended to enhance the agency’s ability to supervise bank lending and “does not change bank’s authority to export interest rates” nor does it “permit national banks to charge whatever rate they like” as both federal and state-chartered banks are required to conform to applicable interest rate limits. “Disparities of interest rates from state to state result from differences in the state laws that impose these caps, not OCC rules or actions,” the OCC stressed, adding that “[s]tates retain the authority to set interest rates.” However, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors sent a letter to Congress in support of S.J. Res. 15, disagreeing with the OCC and noting that the final rule, if it stands, would “eviscerate the power of state interest rate caps and rid state regulators of the most effective tool to protect consumers from such predatory lending.”
CFPB extends QM compliance to October 2022
On April 27, the CFPB issued a final rule formally extending the mandatory compliance date of the General Qualified Mortgage (QM) final rule to October 1, 2022. As previously covered by InfoBytes, and following a two-year rulemaking, last December the Bureau issued the General QM Final Rule to amend Regulation Z and revise the definition of a “General QM” by eliminating the General QM loan definition’s 43 percent debt-to-income ratio (DTI) limit and replacing it with bright-line price-based thresholds. The General QM Final Rule also eliminated QM status resulting solely from loans qualifying for sale to Fannie or Freddie Mac (GSEs), known as the “GSE Patch.” The General QM Final Rule took effect March 1, 2021, but compliance with the new rule is not mandatory until July 1, 2021; in the intervening period, the original and revised General QM Rule are concurrently effective.
On March 3, the Bureau proposed delaying the mandatory compliance date to provide “greater creditor flexibility and expanded availability of responsible, affordable credit options for some struggling consumers” by keeping both the old and new rule until October 1, 2022. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) By extending the mandatory compliance date, lenders will now have the option of complying with either the revised General QM definition or the original DTI-based General QM definition on applications received on or after March 1, but prior to October 1, 2022. “As the mortgage market navigates an uncertain and challenging time, extending the date by which lenders must comply with the CFPB’s new General QM definition will help provide options and flexibility for both lenders and borrowers,” acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio stated in announcing the official extension.
Delaying the General QM Final Rule’s mandatory compliance date will also provide lenders additional time to use the GSE Patch, the Bureau noted. However, as previously covered by InfoBytes, on April 8 the GSEs announced that—due to preferred stock purchase agreements (PSPA) with the U.S. Department of Treasury, which require that acquired loans meet the General QM Rule’s loan definition that became effective March 1—the GSEs will no longer, in accordance with the dates below, acquire GSE Patch loans that fail to meet the requirements of the revised General QM Rule, which functionally eliminates the utility of the GSE Patch. Specifically, to be eligible for purchase, Fannie Mae (see Lender Letter LL-2021-09) requires these loans to have application dates on or before June 30, 2021, and be purchased as whole loans on or before August 31, 2021, or be in MBS pools with an issue date on or before August 1, 2021. Freddie Mac issued similar requirements (see Bulletin 2021-13) for loans with application received dates on or after July 1, 2021, and all mortgages with settlement dates after August 31, 2021. As a result, unless the GSEs negotiate an additional amendment to their respective PSPA, this extension will have limited utility to the market.
Treasury announces climate policy strategy
On April 19, the U.S. Treasury Department announced a new coordinated climate policy strategy focusing on domestic and international policymaking to “leverag[e] finance and financial risk mitigation to confront the threat of climate change.” Efforts will focus on issues related to climate transition finance, climate-related economic and tax policy, and climate-related financial risks, and will support engagement with other stakeholders, agencies, and regulators. Additionally, Treasury plans to create a new Climate Hub to coordinate existing climate-related efforts.
SEC commissioner updates cryptocurrency safe harbor proposal
On April 13, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Pierce released an updated version of her proposal for a three-year safe harbor rule applicable to companies developing digital assets and networks. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last year Pierce suggested that not only would the rule provide regulatory flexibility “that allows innovation to flourish,” but it would also protect investors by “requiring disclosures tailored to their needs” while still maintaining anti-fraud safeguards, allowing investors to participate in token networks of their choice. The three-year grace period for qualifying companies, Pierce suggested, would allow time for the development of decentralized or functional networks, adding that at the end of the three years, a successful network’s tokens would not be regulated as securities.
The updates to the proposal reflect feedback from the cryptocurrency community, securities lawyers, and the pubic, and include, among other things:
- A requirement for companies to provide semi-annual updates to the plan of development disclosure and a block explorer;
- An exit report requirement, which would include either (i) an outside counsel analysis explaining why the network is decentralized or functional; or (ii) an announcement that the company will register the tokens under the Securities Exchange Act; and
- Enhancements to the exit report requirement to address what the outside counsel’s analysis should address when explaining why a network is decentralized.
The public is encouraged to provide feedback on the updated proposal.
Fed proposes extension to TILA disclosure requirements
On April 12, the Federal Reserve Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to extend TILA recordkeeping and disclosure requirements implemented under Regulation Z. The Board proposes to revise FR Z (OMB No. 7100-0199) to: (i) include burden connected to disclosure requirements in “rules issued by the Bureau since the Board’s last Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) submission, as well as for one information collection for which the Bureau estimates burden” but the Board formerly did not; (ii) break out and clarify “burden estimates” that were formerly consolidated; and (iii) eliminate burden associated with some requirements due to the Bureau accounting for burden for the entire industry, or because the burden is now deemed a part of an institution’s usual and customary business practices. The notice also mentions that the “disclosures, records, policies and procedures required by Regulation Z are not required to be submitted to the Board.”
CFPB: Debt collectors must provide written notice for evictions
On April 19, the CFPB issued an interim final rule (IFR) to amend Regulation F, which implements the FDCPA, that will require debt collectors to provide tenants written notice alerting them of their rights under the CDC’s moratorium on evictions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Failure to provide notice will be considered a violation of the FDCPA, which may result in a private right of action as well as actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees. The Bureau noted in its press release that the IFR does not preempt more protective state laws. Additionally, debt collectors are prohibited from misrepresenting renters’ eligibility for temporary protection under the CDC’s moratorium. Sample disclosure language and a summary of the IFR have been provided by the Bureau as well.
The IFR will take effect May 3. Comments are due 15 days after publication in the Federal Register.
FHA streamlines mortgage servicing operational requirements
On April 19, FHA issued an update to Section III of the Single Family Housing Policy Handbook 4000.1, which streamlines many standard mortgage servicing operational requirements. The updates also incorporate FHA actions taken to support borrowers experiencing Covid-19-related financial hardships. The changes/updates include:
- A revised loss mitigation home retention “waterfall” to help servicers quickly review borrowers in danger of foreclosure for a permanent FHA Home Affordable Modification Program option without a lengthy forbearance. FHA noted in its announcement that this process “has been proven to be highly effective at helping borrowers avoid redefault and foreclosure.”
- Streamlined documentation requirements designed “to avoid unnecessary delays” and be more closely aligned “with standard industry servicing practices.” One example includes removing signature requirements on trial payment plans.
- A revised structure for certain allowable costs and fees corresponding with other industry participants’ fee structures.
The changes take effect August 17.
CFPB delivers 2020 fair lending report to Congress
On April 14, the CFPB issued its annual fair lending report to Congress, which outlines the Bureau’s efforts in 2020 to fulfill its fair lending mandate, while protecting consumers against the resulting economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the report, the Bureau continued to focus on promoting fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, highlighting several fair lending priorities that continued from years past such as mortgage origination, small business lending, and student loan origination. The report also discusses new policy areas and programs for fair lending examinations or investigations, including (i) the Fair Lending Help Desks; (ii) amendments concerning Regulation C, which will increase the permanent threshold for collecting, recording, and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from 100 to 200; and (iii) two HMDA data point articles. Additionally, the report discusses the Bureau’s efforts in expanding access to credit for underserved or underbanked populations, including: (i) hosting the first “Tech Sprint” (covered by InfoBytes here) to encourage regulatory innovation and stakeholder collaboration; (ii) continuing to examine and investigate institutions for compliance with HMDA and ECOA; (iii) engaging with stakeholders to discuss fair lending compliance, issues related to credit access, and policy decisions; and (iv) issuing Supervisory Recommendations relating to weak or nonexistent fair lending policies and procedures, risk assessments, and fair lending training. The report also provides information related to regulation, supervision, enforcement, and education efforts.
FTC says Holder Rule does not depend on transaction amount
On April 14, the FTC issued a note correcting prior staff guidelines on the FTC’s Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses, commonly known as the Holder Rule. The Holder Rule “protects consumers who enter into credit contracts by preserving their right to assert claims and defenses against any holder of the contract,” including those later assigned to a third party. The note corrects the statement in a 1976 pamphlet by FTC staff that the Holder Rule “did not apply to transactions larger than $25,000.” Those staff guidelines stated that “the Rule incorporates the transaction cap that was present in the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).” However, the recent note points out that the language of the Rule includes no such incorporation nor does it contain any exemption based on transaction amount. Additionally, the note clarifies that the previous “erroneous guidance contradicts a statement by the Commission that the application of the Rule does not depend on the amount of the transaction.”