InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SBA offers additional deferment for Covid-19 EIDL loans
On March 15, SBA extended the deferment period for the Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, to provide a total of 30 months deferment from inception on all approved Covid EIDL loans. The extended deferment of principal and interest payments on existing EIDL loans approved in calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022 is intended to provide additional flexibility for small business owners affected by Covid-19. While borrowers are not required to make payments during the deferment period, interest will continue to accrue on the loans during the deferment. SBA warned that deferments may result in balloon payments and will not stop any established preauthorized debit or recurring payments on a loan. Borrowers will need to contact their SBA servicing center to pause recurring payments during the extended deferment period. Once the deferment period ends, borrowers will be required to make regular principal and interest payments beginning 30 months from the date of the note.
FDIC rescinds Covid-19 filing extension for Part 363 annual reports
On March 15, the FDIC rescinded its Statement on Part 363 Annual Reports in Response to the Coronavirus, which had provided certain insured depository institutions (IDIs) with total assets of $500 million or more an additional 45 days to file their Part 363 Annual Reports and Other Reports and Notices. FIL-10-2022 rescinds FIL-30-2020 and is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 31, 2021. Going forward, the deadline for IDIs to file their annual reports “reverts to either 90 or 120 days after the end of the IDI’s fiscal year, depending on the IDI’s status as a public filer.” The FDIC reminded IDIs that if they are unable to meet their filing deadline, they “must submit a written Notice of Late Filing to the FDIC, the appropriate federal banking agency, and any appropriate state bank supervisor by the 90- or 120-day report filing deadline.”
FTC settles with online stock trading site
On March 8, the FTC announced a proposed settlement with an online stock trading site and its operators (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using earnings claims to mislead consumers into signing up for services, which led them into long-term subscription plans. The FTC filed a complaint in 2020 as part of an initiative called “Operation Income Illusion,” which encompasses more than 50 enforcement actions against alleged scams targeting consumers with false promises of income and financial independence (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly violated the FTC Act, among other laws, by falsely marketing investment-related services by claiming that “consumers who purchase [the defendants'] services will earn or are likely to earn substantial income.” Additionally, according to the press release, the defendants featured testimonials from purported customers claiming they made “[$]6500.00 in 20 minutes” and “$500 in 15 min[utes],” and allegedly attempted to profit off the Covid-19 pandemic, with a “guru” claiming that he could “rack up nearly $500K in profits by trading stocks related to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Under the terms of the stipulated final order, the defendants, among other requirements: (i) must pay a fine of over $2.4 million to the FTC: (ii) are prohibited from making claims regarding potential earnings without having written evidence that those claims are typical for consumers; and (iii) are prohibited from making claims misrepresenting that purchasers can be successful in trading regardless of their experience, the amount of capital they have to invest, or the amount of time they spend trading.
U.S.-EU release statement on Joint Financial Regulatory Forum
On March 1 and 2, EU and U.S. participants, including officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, FDIC, SEC, and OCC, participated in the U.S. – EU Joint Financial Regulatory Forum to continue their ongoing financial regulatory dialogue. Matters discussed focused on six themes: “(1) market developments and current assessment of financial stability risks, (2) operational resilience and digital finance, (3) sustainable finance and climate-related financial risks, (4) regulatory and supervisory cooperation in capital markets, (5) multilateral and bilateral engagement in banking and insurance, and (6) anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).”
While acknowledging that both the U.S. and EU are “experiencing robust economic recoveries,” participants warned that significant uncertainty and risks are created by the current geopolitical situation, as well as challenges stemming from the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, high energy prices, and supply-chain bottlenecks. “[C]ooperative international engagement to mitigate financial stability risks remains essential,” participants stressed. During the meeting, participants also discussed recent developments related to crypto-assets, digital finance, and so-called stablecoins, as well as the potential for a central bank digital currency, and “acknowledged the importance of ongoing international work on digital finance and recognized the benefits of greater international supervisory cooperation with a view to promote responsible innovation globally.”
In addition, participants discussed various topics, including those related to third-party providers; climate-related financial risks and challenges, including sustainability reporting standards; the transition from LIBOR; and progress made in strengthening their respective AML/CFT frameworks.
Agencies crack down on deceptive Covid-19 treatment claims
On March 3, the FTC, along with the DOJ and FDA, filed a lawsuit against a New York-based marketer of herbal tea for allegedly claiming its tea was clinically proven to treat, cure, and prevent Covid-19. The announcement reiterated the agencies’ commitment to cracking down on companies that unlawfully market unproven Covid-19 treatments. According to the joint agency complaint, the defendants’ deceptive marketing claims that their herbal tea product is capable of preventing or treating Covid-19 (and is more effective than Covid-19 vaccines) are not supported by competent or reliable scientific evidence and pose “a significant risk to public health and safety.” Moreover, the defendants have allegedly repeatedly ignored FTC and FDA warnings that their deceptive advertising and misrepresentations violate the FTC Act, the Covid-19 Consumer Protection Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The complaint seeks permanent injunctive relief, civil penalties, and other remedies to prevent the harms caused by the defendants’ deceptive misrepresentations.
VA updates loan repayment relief for Covid-19 borrowers
On February 28, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued changes updating Circular 26-21-07 to address loan repayment relief for borrowers affected by Covid-19. The circular is “Change 2” of the original circular issued in June 2021, which, among other things, provided servicers with information regarding home retention options and foreclosure alternatives for impacted borrowers. The guidance stems from the extended duration of the pandemic and developments in the VA’s program. (Covered by InfoBytes here). The circular is now effective until July 2023.
CFPB looks at removing medical debt from credit reports
On March 1, the CFPB announced plans to review whether data on unpaid medical bills should be included in consumer credit reports. The Bureau stated in its report, Medical Debt Burden in the United States, that research found $88 billion in medical debt on consumer credit reports, accounting for 58 percent of all uncollected debt tradelines reported to credit reporting agencies (CRAs). “Our credit reporting system is too often used as a tool to coerce and extort patients into paying medical bills they may not even owe,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement.
The Bureau noted that medical debt is often less transparent than other types of debt, due to opaque pricing, complicated insurance, charity care coverage, and pricing rules, reporting that in many instances, consumers may not even sign a billing agreement until after receiving treatment. Medical debts often end up in collections, the Bureau added, which can cause far-ranging repercussions even if the bill itself is inaccurate or erroneous. The report noted additional challenges for uninsured consumers, as well as for Black and Latino families, consumers with low incomes, veterans, older adults, and young adults of all races and ethnicities. The report further stated that the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the situation, with costs and medical debt expected to increase post-pandemic, and found that medical debt weakens underwriting accuracy, as it is less predictive of future repayment than reporting on traditional credit obligations. The Bureau pointed out that it has seen dramatic effects when newer credit scoring models weigh medical collections tradelines less heavily, but noted that there has been very little adoption of this approach so far.
The Bureau stated it intends to examine CRAs to ensure they are collecting accurate information from medical debt collectors and expects CRAs to take action against furnishers who routinely report inaccurate information, including cutting off their access to the system. The Bureau also plans to work with the Department of Health and Human Services to make sure consumers are not forced to pay more than the amount due for medical debt. A January compliance bulletin reminded debt collectors and CRAs of their legal obligations under the FDCPA and the FCRA when collecting, furnishing information about, and reporting medical debts covered by the No Surprises Act. The Bureau also recently supported changes by the Department of Veterans Affairs to amend its regulations related to the conditions by which VA benefit debts or medical debts are reported to CRAs. (Covered by InfoBytes here and here.)
FHFA re-proposes GSE seller/servicer eligibility requirements
On February 24, FHFA re-proposed updated eligibility standards that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, GSEs) mortgage sellers and servicers would have to meet. The updated proposed requirements are designed to provide transparency and consistency of capital and liquidity requirements for sellers and servicers with different business models, and would differentiate between the servicing of Ginnie Mae mortgages and GSE mortgages. FHFA noted that the updated proposed requirements, which reflect coordination with other federal agencies, also incorporate feedback from a January 2020 proposal (covered by InfoBytes here), as well as lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Under the updated proposed requirements, all GSE sellers and servicers (both depositories and non-depositories) would be required to maintain a tangible net worth requirement of $2.5 million, plus 35 basis points of the unpaid principal balance for Ginnie Mae servicing and 25 basis points of the unpaid principal balance for all other 1-to-4 unit residential loans serviced, including GSE loans. Current GSE sellers and servicers, as well as new applicants, will be required to comply with the updated proposed requirements by December 31, 2022, minus the exception that Capital and Liquidity Plan requirements must be submitted to the GSEs by December 31, 2023, and are due annually by the end of each year thereafter. Comments on the proposed changes are due in 60 days. FHFA stated it anticipates finalizing the updated proposed requirements in the second quarter of 2022, with most requirements taking effect six months after finalization.
Financial Stability Board informs G20 of 2022 priorities
On February 14, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) sent a letter to the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors outlining several priorities for 2022 and setting the groundwork for promoting global financial resilience during the upcoming year. The FSB stated that the “transition path to a post-pandemic economy remains highly uncertain,” and warned that Covid-19 continues to weigh on the global economy with “[n]ew waves of infections … contribut[ing] to an uneven recovery across regions, higher inflation, and record-high debt levels globally.” The FSB also observed that, while banks and financial market infrastructures were able to absorb the macroeconomic shock of the pandemic, the nonbank financial intermediation sector (NBFI), which currently represents nearly half of global financial assets, experienced acute stress and needs to be strengthened. A resilient NBFI sector would reduce the need for extraordinary central bank intervention, the FSB stated. The FSB’s plans include prioritizing its work in this space in coordination with other standard-setting bodies to address any shortcomings and develop a systemic approach to the NBFI sector. Another priority is addressing potential financial stability risks associated with rapidly developing crypto-assets and digital innovation. The FSB observed that “[c]rypto-asset markets are fast-evolving and could reach a point where they represent a threat to global financial stability due to their scale, structural vulnerabilities and increasing interconnectedness with the traditional financial system.” Financial risks resulting from climate change are another critical area of concern for the FSB. The FSB’s work this year will include ensuring these risks are properly reflected in all financial decisions related to disclosures, data, vulnerabilities analysis, and regulatory and supervisory approaches.
DOJ announces $31,000 FCA settlement for duplicative PPP loans
On February 11, the DOJ announced a $31,000 settlement with an IT services company to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by obtaining more than one Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan in 2020. According to the settlement agreement, in April 2020 the company received two SBA-guaranteed PPP loans through two different banks. The company agreed to repay the duplicative PPP loan in full to its lender, relieving the SBA of liability. The settlement press release also noted that the settlement with the company resolved a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provision of the FCA, which permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the U.S. for false claims and share in a portion of the government’s recovery.