InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB, FRB, and DOJ Webinar on Fair Lending in Indirect Auto Finance
On August 6, 2013, the Federal Reserve sponsored a webinar entitled “Indirect Auto Lending – Fair Lending Considerations,” in which presentations were given by Patrice Ficklin, Fair Lending Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Maureen Yap, Special Counsel/Manager, Fair Lending Enforcement, Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and Coty Montag, Deputy Chief, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). During the webinar, each of the speakers provided a perspective on the examination and enforcement activities of their respective organization, followed by a Question and Answer session.
Ms. Ficklin began by providing a summary of the CFPB’s supervisory and enforcement authority, followed by a discussion of CFPB Bulletin 2013-02. In discussing the bulletin, Ms. Ficklin addressed the specific guidance provided in that Bulletin, with a particular emphasis on how the “standard practices” of indirect auto financial institutions “likely constitute participation in a credit decision” resulting in their being deemed “creditors” under the ECOA. That was followed by a discussion of the way in which the existence of dealer discretion and markup presents fair lending risk and ways in which financial institutions may comply with fair lending requirement. Ms. Yap then presented the FRB’s authority for and purpose in examining for fair lending risk in indirect auto finance, making particular note of the FRB’s referral of the Nara Bank case to the DOJ. Ms. Yap emphasized that FRB personnel rely on the 2009 Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures in determining the scope of an examination, including indirect auto financing practices, including as it relates to pricing which presents the “area of highest risk”. After discussing some of the FRB’s key risk factors, Ms. Yap then discussed methods used by the FRB to code loans and test for disparities. Ms. Yap also provided additional resources that may be of value to indirect auto financial institutions, including the FRB’s “Step-by-Step Guide to Coding for Gender and Ethnicity,” “Example: Hypothetical Loan Data with Lookups and Formulas,” and “Female and Hispanic Names List (U.S. Census).” The last two items may be found here. Ms. Yap concluded her remarks by discussing what to expect if the FRB finds evidence of pricing disparities, and ways that market participants may mitigate their fair lending risk.
Ms. Montag opened her remarks with a review of ECOA’s framework and the DOJ’s recent enforcement activities in indirect auto finance, with particular attention given to both the 2009 partial Consent Decree and the recent “Agreed Order” with Union Auto and the default judgment against the final defendant. The Pacifico Ford, Inc. and Springfield Ford, Inc. cases were also discussed at some length, emphasizing the consent orders that limited the amount of dealer reserve in each matter and the circumstances under which the amount of such reserve may be modified. Finally, Ms. Montag provided an overview of ongoing enforcement efforts in the indirect auto market, with particular focus on (i) potential race-based targeting by “buy here, pay here” dealers; and (ii) discretionary dealer markups and fees, including “several” ongoing joint investigations with the CFPB.
The presentations were followed by a Question & Answer session in which the panelists addressed particular requests submitted by attendees. Of particular interest were the following:
- To the extent exceptions are made to match competitive offers or otherwise, Ms. Yap suggested that all such instances should be “well documented” and include specific information that is maintained by the institution to help explain potential disparities as the need arises;
- Ms. Ficklin stated that in general, when determining fair lending violations, the CFPB relies on statistical evidence at “the 95th per cent confidence level, or greater,” though she noted that the CFPB may look at data of a lower confidence level when providing supervisory guidance regarding potential fair lending risk or when acting in its supervisory capacity;
- In discussing whether a dealer agreement should address the obligation of the dealer to ensure the accuracy of data submitted in an auto finance transaction, Ms. Yap opined that it is important to address this issue and any other fair lending risks within such an agreement. Ms. Yap suggested that dealer agreements should be explicit about fair lending expectations and learning about and resolving complaints to help mitigate fair lending risk;
- In discussing controlling for variables in analyzing whether disparities may be explained through permissible criteria, Ms. Yap acknowledged the FRB wants to look at “the variables that the bank actually uses”; but they nonetheless want to make clear distinctions between the “buy price” and any markup. The “buy price” would take into consideration characteristics related to a borrower’s credit, such as credit score or income; but since markup is not usually based on such characteristics, they might take into consideration factors such as new car financing offers, or the month in which a purchase is made (based on any sensitivities related to purchases made in certain seasons); and
- In response to whether the CFPB’s approach to indirect auto exams is the same as that of the FRB, Ms. Ficklin stated that the evaluation of whether an indirect auto lender is in compliance with the ECOA requires “multiple steps.” She advised that a typical CFPB examination would include: a review of credit denials, interest rates quoted by the lender to the dealer (“buy rates”), and any discretionary markup of the buy rate by the dealer. Ms. Ficklin further stated that determining whether discrimination has occurred is both case-specific and fact-intensive and like the FRB, the CFPB’s analysis “considers appropriate analytical controls” in reviewing data to determine if a specific policy results in unlawful differences, on a prohibited basis. Ms. Ficklin then added that “consistent with the approaches of other federal regulators” including the FRB, the Bureau has previously indicated that it uses surnames, and geographic location data “to estimate protected characteristics” where direct evidence of protected characteristics is unavailable. She explained that the CFPB conducts its proxy analysis by using publicly available data from the Social Security Administration, and the Census Bureau, and that the CFPB is aware that some lenders are currently using various forms of proxy analysis for their own internal fair lending analyses. Finally, she noted that Bulletin 2013-02 encourages lenders who are not doing such analysis to select “a reasonable proxy method that is suitable for their nature, size and complexity” and to monitor their data for “fair lending risk.”
Though the webinar may not have covered a significant amount of new ground, it nonetheless provides some additional clarity around the expectations of the CFPB, FRB and DOJ when looking into fair lending matters in the indirect auto finance market as it relates to pricing and some useful resources from the FRB. As such, institutions participating in the indirect auto finance market may be well served to listen to the archived copy of this presentation.
RMBS Task Force Announces New Suits Over Sale of Jumbo Prime RMBS
On August 6, the DOJ and the SEC announced parallel civil fraud actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The DOJ alleged that a national bank and related entities misled investors about the residential jumbo prime mortgage loans backing an $850 million RMBS the bank offered for sale, made false statements after failing to perform proper due diligence, and filled the securitization with a disproportionate amount of risky mortgages originated through third party mortgage brokers. The DOJ action represents the enforcement agency’s latest effort to employ the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) to seek civil penalties. The SEC is seeking an order requiring disgorgement and civil penalties under the Securities Act. The complaints were announced as part of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force’s RMBS Working Group, and Task Force participants Attorney General Eric Holder, Associate Attorney General Tony West, and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman all promised additional investigations and actions, using every tool and resource available to the group.
New York Seeks to Halt Online Payday Loans, Collections; Federal Agencies Issue Subpoenas
On August 6, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) sent letters to 35 online lenders, including lenders affiliated with Native American Tribes, demanding that they cease and desist offering allegedly illegal payday loans to New York borrowers. The letters demand that within 14 days the companies confirm that they are no longer soliciting or making payday loans in excess of the state usury caps. Under New York law, it is civil usury for a company to make a loan or forbearance under $250,000 with an interest rate exceeding 16% per year, and a criminal violation to make a loan with an interest rate exceeding 25% per year. The letters also remind recipients that it is illegal to collect on loans that exceed the usury cap; a separate letter to third-party debt collectors included the same notice. The DFS previously warned third-party debt collectors about collecting on illegal payday loans in March. In addition, the Department of Financial Services sent letters to 117 banks and NACHA requesting that they work with the DFS to create a set of model safeguard procedures to deny ACH access to the targeted lenders and provide the DFS with information about steps the institutions are taking to halt the allegedly illegal activity.
The role of banks in processing payday loan payments was identified as an enforcement priority earlier this year by the DOJ’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The DOJ, the CFPB, and other federal agencies reportedly have issued subpoenas to banks and other entities as part of a broad investigation of online payday lending.
FFETF Director Departs; Senate Confirms DOJ Civil Division Assistant Attorney General
On July 31, the DOJ announced the departure of Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) Executive Director Michael Bresnick, effective August 1, 2013. The DOJ describes the FFETF, which was created in 2009, as the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat financial fraud. Mr. Bresnick has led the FFETF since October 2011, and departed to join a private law practice. On the same day, the Senate voted to confirm Stuart Delery as Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Civil Division. Mr. Delery had been filling that position on an acting basis, prior to which time he held several other positions within the department. He joined the DOJ in January 2009 as Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General and later served as Associate Deputy Attorney General and Senior Counselor to the Attorney General.
CFPB Publishes Update on Student Loan Complaints
This afternoon, the CFPB published a “mid-year snapshot” of private student loan (PSL) complaints it received from October 2012 through March 2013. The report updates the Bureau’s initial student loan complaint report published in October 2012.
This latest report characterizes the volume of student loan complaints as “relatively steady” over the reporting period, with complaints about loan repayment issues, including an inability to modify loans, outpacing all others. In addition to repayment-related complaints, the CFPB highlights a number of other PSL servicing complaints, including those related to (i) payment processing, (ii) conflicting information provided by lender or servicer, (iii) lack of written notices from lender or servicer, and (iv) co-signer issues.
For example, with regard to payment processing, the CFPB states that many complaints relate to the situation in which the consumer sends one payment to cover several loans handled by the same servicer. The CFPB has found that servicers generally apply those funds to satisfy outstanding fees, interest and principal, and then allocate any remaining overpayment to the outstanding principal across all loans on a pro rata basis. In some cases, depending on the size of overpayment, the servicer may also advance the due date for future payments. The CFPB believes these practices, and the way servicers have communicated them, have caused “significant borrower confusion” while limiting consumers’ ability to control the application of their overpayments. The report notes that certain online servicing platforms do not provide a simple way for consumers to allocate excess payments.
Finally, the CFPB states, in both the report and a related blog post, that, despite improvements by PSL servicers, some servicemembers continue to have difficulties obtaining rate relief under the SCRA and that the Bureau will continue to work with the DOJ on potential SCRA violations.
Importantly, the report is a “snapshot,” and the CFPB cautions in its introduction that the report is not intended to communicate the frequency to which certain practices exist in the market and that readers should recognize that there are inherent limitations with the underlying data. This is perhaps most evident in the CFPB’s listing of complaints by company, without providing any context as to each company’s market share, and without connecting the types of resolution – which themselves have limited utility – with the various companies named.
Senate Confirms Anthony West as Associate Attorney General
On July 25, the U.S. Senate confirmed Anthony West to serve as the DOJ’s Associate Attorney General, a position he has held in an “acting” capacity since March 2012. In that role Mr. West advises and assists the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General in formulating and implementing departmental policies and programs related to a broad range of issues, including civil litigation, federal and local law enforcement, and public safety. Prior to March 2012, Mr. West served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division – the largest litigating division at the DOJ – where he emphasized the Civil Division's authority to bring civil and criminal actions to enforce the nation's consumer protection laws, and served in various positions on the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. In addition, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division's home page indicates that Jocelyn Samuels is serving as Acting Assistant Attorney for the Civil Rights Division. Ms. Samuels previously served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for that division and as Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. She replaces Thomas Perez who recently was confirmed to serve as Secretary of Labor.
DOJ Announces Five Indictments in Largest Known Data Breach Case
On July 25, the DOJ announced the indictment of five individuals accused of conspiring in a worldwide hacking and data breach scheme that targeted major corporate networks, stole more than 160 million credit card numbers and resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. The DOJ believes the defendants and others conspired to use a “SQL injection attack” to penetrate the computer networks of several of the largest payment processing companies, retailers and financial institutions in the world. Once started, the attacks could last months while the defendants worked to steal user names and passwords, means of identification, credit and debit card numbers and other corresponding personal identification information of cardholders, and subsequently sell the data to end-users who used the data to make fraudulent ATM withdrawals or credit card purchases. The DOJ’s action was based on the findings of an extensive Secret Service investigation.
California Federal District Court Allows Government's FIRREA-Based RMBS Suit to Proceed
On July 16, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a major credit rating agency’s motion to dismiss a DOJ complaint alleging that the firm defrauded investors in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) by issuing inflated ratings that misrepresented the securities’ true credit risks, and by falsely representing that its ratings were uninfluenced by its relationships with investment banks. U.S. v. McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., No. 13-779, slip. op (C.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2013). The court held that the government met its initial pleading burden, in part, because it sufficiently had alleged that the rating agency “engaged in a ‘scheme to defraud investors in RMBS and CDOs tranches’ and ‘to obtain money from these investors by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and the concealment of material facts’ with ‘intent to defraud.’” In doing so, the court allowed the government to pursue its $5 billion claims grounded in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). The court did not, however, consider the weight of the government’s evidence, specifically whether the rating agency’s alleged statements and conduct were part of an actual “scheme to defraud,” a key element to any FIRREA claim.
CFPB, Federal Reserve Board, DOJ Plan Indirect Auto Fair Lending Compliance Event
On July 15, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it will co-host an upcoming consumer compliance webinar with the CFPB and the DOJ entitled “Indirect Auto Lending – Fair Lending Considerations.” The event, which will be held August 6, 2013, 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (ET), will feature Maureen Yap, special counsel and manager of the Federal Reserve’s Fair Lending Enforcement Section; Coty Montag, deputy chief of the DOJ’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Civil Rights Division; and Patrice Ficklin, assistant director of the CFPB’s Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity. The panelists plan to discuss (i) the CFPB’s indirect auto lending bulletin and compliance with ECOA; (ii) supervisory guidance; (iii) examination procedures; (iv) public settlements; and (v) “emerging issues.” Following their presentations, the panelists will take audience questions, which may be submitted in advance.
New York Federal Court Holds Courts Possess Power to Accept or Reject DPA
On July 1, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that it has the power to accept or reject a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), and to retain supervisory power over the implementation of a DPA. U.S. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 12-00763, 2013 WL 3306161 (E.D.N.Y. Jul, 1, 2013). In 2012, a major international bank holding company announced agreements with U.S. law enforcement authorities and federal bank regulators to end investigations into alleged inadequate compliance with anti-money laundering and sanctions laws by the holding company and its U.S. subsidiaries. As part of the resolution, the companies entered into a DPA, which the parties filed with the court and asked the court hold the case in abeyance to exclude part of the DPA from the federal Speedy Trial Act. In reviewing the request for abeyance, the court held that it has broader supervisory power to approve or reject the agreement in its entirety and that such power extends to implementation of the agreement. The court approved the DPA, but retained authority to monitor its execution and implementation. The court explained that “by placing a criminal matter on the docket of a federal court, the parties have subjected their DPA to the legitimate exercise of that court's authority.” Under its supervisory powers holding, which the court characterized as “novel,” the court could later move to modify the agreement. More broadly, the court’s assessment of its supervisory power potentially calls into question the certainty and finality of DPAs, which could impact the use of that prosecutorial tool.