InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB proposal would apply ATR requirements to PACE financing
On May 1, the CFPB announced a proposed rule which would prescribe ability-to-repay (ATR) rules to residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing and apply TILA’s civil liability provisions for violations. The proposal, required by Section 307 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, would amend Regulation Z to address how TILA applies to PACE transactions to account for the unique nature of PACE loans. PACE loans are designed to finance clean energy improvements on a borrower’s home and are secured by that residence. The Bureau explained that the loans are repaid through a borrower’s property tax payments, which increase over time and which remain with the property even if the borrower sells the property.
If finalized, the proposed rule would require lenders to assess a borrower’s ability to repay a PACE loan and would (i) clarify an existing exclusion to Regulation Z’s definition of credit relating to tax liens and tax assessments to provide that this specific exclusion “applies only to involuntary tax liens and involuntary tax assessments”; (ii) make several adjustments to PACE financing loan estimate and closing disclosure requirements, including providing new model forms specifically designed for PACE transactions, and exempting PACE transactions from the requirement to establish escrow accounts for certain higher-priced mortgage loans and from the requirement to provide periodic statements; (iii) prescribe ATR requirements for residential PACE financing that account for the unique nature of these transactions; (iv) provide that a PACE transaction is not a qualified mortgage; (v) extend TILA Section 130’s ATR requirements and liability provisions to any “PACE company” with substantial involvement in making credit decisions for a PACE transaction; and (vi) clarify how PACE and non-PACE mortgage creditors should consider pre-existing PACE transactions when originating new mortgage loans.
The proposed effective date is at least one year after the final rule is published in the Federal Register (“but no earlier than the October 1 which follows by at least six months Federal Register publication”), with the possibility of a further extension to ensure compliance with a TILA timing requirement. Comments on the proposed rule are due July 26 or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, whichever is later.
To accompany the proposed rule, the Bureau released several fast facts breaking down and clarifying proposed coverage and the suggested changes. The Bureau also released a data point report documenting research findings on PACE financing in California and Florida from July 2014 through June 2020. Among other things, the report found that PACE loans create an increase in negative credit outcomes for borrowers, particularly with respect to mortgage delinquency. Additionally, PACE borrowers were more likely to have higher interest rates and increased credit card balances and were more likely to live in census tracts with higher percentages of Black and Hispanic residents relative to the average for their states. The report noted that “PACE outcomes improved significantly in California after that State began requiring PACE companies to consider ability to pay before making a loan.”
Agencies release statement on LIBOR sunset; CFPB amends Reg Z to reflect transition
On April 26, the CFPB joined the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC in issuing a joint statement on the completion of the LIBOR transition. (See also FDIC FIL-20-2023 and OCC Bulletin 2023-13.) According to the statement, the use of USD LIBOR panels will end on June 30. The agencies reiterated their expectations that financial institutions with USD LIBOR exposure must “complete their transition of remaining LIBOR contracts as soon as practicable.” Failure to adequately prepare for LIBOR’s discontinuance may undermine financial stability and institutions’ safety and soundness and could create litigation, operational, and consumer protection risks, the agencies stressed, emphasizing that institutions are expected to take all necessary steps to ensure an orderly transition. Examiners will monitor banks’ efforts throughout 2023 to ensure contracts have been transitioned away from LIBOR in a manner that complies with applicable legal requirements. The agencies also reminded institutions that safe-and-sound practices include conducting appropriate due diligence to ensure that replacement alternative rate selections are appropriate for an institution’s products, risk profile, risk management capabilities, customer and funding needs, and operational capabilities. Institutions should also “understand how their chosen reference rate is constructed and be aware of any fragilities associated with that rate and the markets that underlie it,” the agencies advised. Both banks and nonbanks should continue efforts to adequately prepare for LIBOR’s sunset, the Bureau said in its announcement, noting that the agency will continue to help institutions transition affected consumers in an orderly manner.
The Bureau also issued an interim final rule on April 28 amending Regulation Z, which implements TILA, to update various provisions related to the LIBOR transition. The interim final rule updates the Bureau’s 2021 LIBOR Transition Rule (covered by InfoBytes here) to reflect the enactment of the Adjustable Interest Rate Act of 2021 and its implementing regulation promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the interim final rule further addresses LIBOR’s sunset on June 30, by incorporating references to the SOFR-based replacement—the Fed-selected benchmark replacement for the 12-month LIBOR index—into Regulation Z. The interim final rule also (i) makes conforming changes to terminology used to identify LIBOR replacement indices; and (ii) provides an example of a 12-month LIBOR tenor replacement index that meets certain standards within Regulation Z. The Bureau also released a Fast Facts summary of the interim final rule and updated the LIBOR Transition FAQs.
The interim final rule is effective May 15. Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
3rd Circuit: Card renewal notices not subject to TILA itemization requirements
On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the dismissal of a putative class action suit claiming a national bank’s failure to itemize fees in its credit card renewal notices violated TILA and Regulation Z. Plaintiff alleged that his 2019 card renewal notice listed the annual membership fee as $525, but did not separate the fee into itemized amounts: $450 for the primary cardholder and $75 for an additional authorized user. Stating that the annual membership fee later appeared in his 2020 renewal notice as two separate fees, he claimed that he would have only paid the $450 fee for his own card if he had known it was an option in 2019. Plaintiff sued claiming the 2019 renewal notice violated TILA and Regulation Z, which require creditors to make disclosures before and during a creditor-borrower relationship, including the existence of any annual and periodic fees. The district court rejected the bank’s argument that the plaintiff lacked standing after finding that he suffered an economic injury by paying the full $525. However, the court granted the bank’s motion to dismiss after determining that the plaintiff failed to allege a TILA violation because neither the statute nor its implementing regulation expressly require banks to itemize fees in a renewal notice.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit issued a precedential opinion finding that while the plaintiff had standing, he failed to plead an actual TILA violation. “While there is an itemization requirement in the statutes and regulations governing periodic disclosures,” the court clarified that “the same requirement is not included in the statutes and regulations applicable to renewal notices.” The 3rd Circuit stated that “[r]enewal notices are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as solicitations and applications, which are provided to consumers before the parties have any relationship,” explaining that because “the creditor does not yet know whether the consumer will add an authorized user to the account” during the solicitation or application period, it “must disclose ‘optional’ additional card fees.” However, during the account renewal stage, TILA and Regulation Z only require creditors to “disclose terms ‘that would apply if the account were renewed.’”
CFPB seeks feedback on LO comp
On March 10, the CFPB issued a Request for Comment (RFC) seeking feedback on the Regulation Z Mortgage Loan Originator Rules, including the provisions often referred to as the Loan Originator Compensation or “LO Comp” Rule. (See also blog post here.) The Bureau states that a significant focus of the RFC is to assist in determining whether the Rule should be amended or rescinded to minimize the Rule’s economic impact upon small entities.
The Mortgage Loan Originator Rules, among other things, prohibit compensation to loan originators that is based on the terms of a mortgage transaction (or proxies for terms), prohibit a loan originator from receiving compensation from both the creditor and consumer on the same transaction, prohibit steering a consumer to a particular loan because it will result in more compensation for the loan originator unless the loan is in the consumer’s interest, require certain records related to compensation be kept, and implement licensing and qualification requirements for loan originators.
The RFC is open-ended insofar as it requests public comment on any topic related to the impact of the Mortgage Loan Originator Rules pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Section 610). Section 610 mandates a review of all agency rules which have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within ten years of its effective date. In conducting a Section 610 review, the agency must consider (i) the continued need for the rule; (ii) the nature of complaints or comments received concerning the rule from the public; (iii) the complexity of the rule; (iv) the extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and (v) the length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule.
Notably, the RFC references feedback it has previously received from stakeholders related to the Mortgage Loan Originator Rules, specifically referring to recommendations it has received related to (i) whether to permit different loan originator compensation for originating State housing finance authority loans as compared to other loans (i.e., on bond loans); (ii) whether to permit creditors to decrease a loan originator’s compensation due to the loan originator’s error or to match competition; and (iii) how the Rule provisions apply to loans originated by mortgage brokers and retail loan originators differently. Each of these topics has been a source of significant industry input, including in response to the CFPB’s 2018 Request for Information Regarding the Bureau's Adopted Regulations.
The Bureau is most likely simply following standard procedure to comply with Section 610, which mandates the CFPB conduct a review within ten years for all rules that significantly impact small entities. But it is possible that the Bureau may be open to making certain adjustments to the Rule that industry has been clamoring for since the Rule was implemented, particularly as the Bureau chose to specifically reference three such recommendations.
House Republicans question CFPB’s card late-fee proposal
On March 1, several Republican House Financial Services Committee members sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressing concerns over the Bureau’s credit card late fee proposal. Among other things, the lawmakers claimed that last year the Bureau broke precedent by failing to address, for the first time, credit card late fees when the agency issued the annual fee adjustments as required under Regulation Z, which implements TILA (covered by InfoBytes here). “In prior years when the CFPB did not make inflation adjustments, because inflation was low, it explained the statistical basis for not indexing the fee,” the letter said. “However, the CFPB has yet to explain or justify why there was not an increase in the most recent annual adjustment announcement—a striking lack of transparency and accountability, and especially so in an era of outsized inflation.” The lawmakers also addressed the Bureau’s February notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Regulation Z and its commentary. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau said the NPRM would lower the safe harbor dollar amount for first-time and subsequent-violation credit card late fees to $8, eliminate the automatic annual inflation adjustment, and cap late fees at 25 percent of the consumer’s required minimum payment. According to the lawmakers, the changes would disincentivize consumers to make timely payments and impact consumer behavior by shifting “delinquent payment costs to other, innocent, consumers who absorb the associated costs through higher rates or inability to further access unsecured credit that they may need to smooth their consumption.”
The lawmakers posed several questions to the Bureau, including asking why the agency failed to convene a panel as mandated by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 to advise on the rulemaking “[g]iven the broad applicability of this rule making to small institutions.” The Bureau was also asked to provide the data used to determine the dollar limits, as well as any communications the agency had with the Biden administration in the development of the NPRM.
CFPB shutters mortgage lender, alleging deceptive advertising
On February 27, the CFPB entered a consent order against a California-based mortgage lender (respondent) for alleged repeat violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, TILA (Regulation Z), and the Mortgage Acts and Practices Advertising Rule (Regulation N), in relation to a 2015 consent order. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2015, the Bureau claimed the respondent (which is licensed in at least 30 states and Puerto Rico and originates consumer mortgages guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and mortgages insured by the FHA) allegedly led consumers to believe it was affiliated with the U.S. government. Specifically, respondent allegedly used the names and logos of the VA and FHA in its advertisements, described loan products as part of a “distinctive program offered by the U.S. government,” and instructed consumers to call the “VA Interest Rate Reduction Department” at a phone number belonging to the mortgage lender, thus implying that the mailings were sent by government agencies. The 2015 consent order required the respondent to abide by several prohibitions and imposed a $250,000 civil money penalty.
The Bureau contends, however, that after the 2015 consent order went into effect, the respondent continued to send millions of mortgage advertisements that allegedly made deceptive representations or contained inadequate or impermissible disclosures, including that the respondent was affiliated with the VA or the FHA. Additionally, the Bureau alleges that the respondent misrepresented interest rates, key terms, and the amount of monthly payments, and falsely represented that benefits available to qualifying borrowers were time limited. Many of these alleged misrepresentations, the Bureau claims, were expressly prohibited by the 2015 consent order.
The 2023 consent order permanently bans the respondent from engaging in any mortgage lending activities, or from “otherwise participating in or receiving remuneration from mortgage lending, or assisting others in doing so.” The respondent, which neither admits nor denies the allegations, is also required pay a $1 million civil money penalty.
CFPB proposal targets late fees on cards
On February 1, the CFPB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Regulation Z, which implements TILA, and its commentary to better ensure that late fees charged on credit card accounts are “reasonable and proportional” to the late payment as required under the statute, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act). The NPRM would (i) adjust the safe harbor dollar amount for late fees to $8 for any missed payment—issuers are currently able to charge late fees of up to $41—and eliminate a higher safe harbor dollar amount for late fees for subsequent violations of the same type (a company would be able to charge above the immunity provision provided it could prove the higher fee is necessary to cover the incurred collection costs); (ii) eliminate the automatic annual inflation adjustment for the immunity provision amount (the Bureau would instead monitor market conditions and make adjustments as necessary); and (iii) cap late fees at 25 percent of the consumer’s required minimum payment (issuers are currently able to potentially charge a late fee that is 100 percent of the cardholder’s minimum payment owed).
The NPRM also seeks feedback on other possible changes to the CARD Act regulations, including “whether the proposed changes should apply to all credit card penalty fees, whether the immunity provision should be eliminated altogether, whether consumers should be granted a 15-day courtesy period, after the due date, before late fees can be assessed, and whether issuers should be required to offer autopay in order to make use of the immunity provision.” Comments on the NPRM are due by April 3, or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, whichever is later.
According to the CFPB, the Federal Reserve Board “created the immunity provisions to allow credit card companies to avoid scrutiny of whether their late fees met the reasonable and proportional standard.” As a result, the CFPB stated that immunity provisions have risen (due to inflation) to $30 for an initial late payment and $41 for subsequent late payments, resulting in consumers being charged approximately $12 billion in late fees in 2020. Based on CFPB estimates, the NPRM could reduce late fees by as much as $9 billion per year. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra issued a statement commenting that the current immunity provisions are not what Congress intended when it passed the CARD Act.
The Bureau also released an unofficial, informal redline of the NPRM to help stakeholders review the proposed changes, as well as a report titled Credit Card Late Fees: Revenue and Collection Costs at Large Bank Holding Companies, which documents findings on the relationship between late fee revenue and pre-charge-off collection costs for certain large credit card issuers. According to the report, “revenue from late fees has consistently far exceeded pre-charge-off collection costs over the last several years.”
The NPRM follows several actions initiated by the Bureau last year, including a request for comments on junk fees, a research report analyzing credit card late fees, and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that solicited information from credit card issuers, consumer groups, and the public regarding credit card late fees and late payments, and card issuers’ revenue and expenses (previously covered by InfoBytes here and here).
California: TILA does not preempt state laws on commercial financial disclosure
On January 20, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent a comment letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra in response to a preliminary determination issued by the Bureau in December, which concluded that commercial financial disclosure laws in four states (New York, California, Utah, and Virginia) are not preempted by TILA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued a Notice of Intent to Make Preemption Determination under the Truth in Lending Act seeking comments pursuant to Appendix A of Regulation Z on whether it should finalize its preliminary determination. The Bureau noted that a number of states have recently enacted laws requiring improved disclosures of information contained in commercial financing transactions, including loans to small businesses, to mitigate predatory small business lending and improve transparency. In making its preliminary determination, the Bureau concluded that the state and federal laws do not appear “contradictory” for preemption purposes, explaining, among other things, that the statutes govern different transactions (commercial finance rather than consumer credit).
Under the California Commercial Financing Disclosures Law (CFDL), companies are required to disclose various financing terms, including the “total dollar cost of the financing” and the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate.” Bonta explained that the CFDL only applies to commercial financing arrangements (and not to consumer credit transactions) and “was enacted in 2018 to help small businesses navigate a complicated commercial financing market by mandating uniform disclosures of certain credit terms in a manner similar to TILA’s requirements, but for commercial transactions that are unregulated by TILA.” He pointed out that disclosures required under the CFDL do not conflict with those required by TILA, and emphasized that there is no material difference between the disclosures required by the two statutes, even if TILA were to apply to commercial financing. According to Bonta, should TILA preempt the CFDL’s disclosure requirements, there would be no required disclosures at all for commercial credit in the state, which would make it challenging for small businesses to make informed choices about commercial financing arrangements.
While Bonta agreed with the Bureau’s determination that TILA does not preempt the CFDL, he urged the Bureau to “articulate a narrower standard that emphasizes that preemption should be limited to situations where it is impossible to comply with both TILA and the state law or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the full purposes [of] TILA, which is to provide consumers with full and meaningful disclosure of credit terms in consumer credit transactions.” He added that the Bureau “should also reemphasize certain principles from prior [Federal Reserve Board] decisions, including that state laws are preempted only to the extent of actual conflict and that state laws requiring additional disclosures—or disclosures in transactions not addressed by TILA—are not preempted.”
CFPB releases 2023 rural or underserved counties list
Recently, the CFPB released its annual lists of rural counties and rural or underserved counties for lenders to use when determining qualified exemptions to certain TILA regulatory requirements. In connection with these releases, the Bureau also directed lenders to use its web-based Rural or Underserved Areas Tool to assess whether a rural or underserved area qualifies for a safe harbor under Regulation Z.
CFPB adjusts annual dollar amount thresholds under TILA, HMDA regulations
On December 21, the CFPB released a final rule revising the dollar amounts for provisions implementing TILA and its amendments that impact loans under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) and qualified mortgages (QM). The Bureau is required to make annual adjustments to dollar amounts in certain provisions in Regulation Z, and has based the adjustments on the annual percentage change reflected in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) in effect on June 1, 2022. The following thresholds are effective January 1, 2023:
- For open-end consumer credit plans under TILA, the threshold for disclosing an interest charge will remain unchanged at $1.00;
- For HOEPA loans, the adjusted total loan amount threshold for high-cost mortgages will be $24,866, and the adjusted points-and-fees dollar trigger for high-cost mortgages will be $1,243;
- For qualified mortgages under the General QM loan definition, the thresholds for the spread between the annual percentage rate and the average prime offer rate will be: “2.25 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $124,331; 3.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $74,599 but less than $124,331; 6.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction with a loan amount less than $74,599; 6.5 or more percentage points for a first-lien covered transaction secured by a manufactured home with a loan amount less than $124,331; 3.5 or more percentage points for a subordinate-lien covered transaction with a loan amount greater than or equal to $74,599; or 6.5 or more percentage points for a subordinate-lien covered transaction with a loan amount less than $74,599”; and
- For all QM categories, the adjusted thresholds for total points and fees will be “3 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $124,331; $3,730 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $74,599 but less than $124,331; 5 percent of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $24,866 but less than $74,599; $1,243 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $15,541 but less than $24,866; and 8 percent of the total loan amount for a loan amount less than $15,541.”
With respect to credit card annual adjustments, the Bureau noted that its 2023 annual adjustment analysis on the CPI-W in effect on June 1, did not result in an increase to the current minimum interest charge threshold (which requires “creditors to disclose any minimum interest charge exceeding $1.00 that could be imposed during a billing cycle”).
The Bureau also issued a final rule adjusting the asset-size threshold under HMDA (Regulation C). Under HMDA, institutions with assets below certain dollar thresholds are exempt from collection and reporting requirements. The final rule increases the asset-size exemption threshold for banks, savings associations, and credit unions from $50 million to $54 million, thereby exempting institutions with assets of $54 million or less as of December 31, 2022, from collecting HMDA data in 2023.