InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
House Financial Services Subcommittee conducts hearing on fintech opportunities and challenges
On January 30, the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing entitled “Examining Opportunities and Challenges in the Financial Technology (“Fintech”) Marketplace.” The Subcommittee issued a press release following the hearing and presented the following key takeaways:
- “Modern developments in digital technology are changing the way in which many financial services are offered and delivered”; and
- “Congress and the federal prudential regulators must continue to examine this innovative marketplace to understand the opportunities and challenges it presents, and to ensure that financial services entities are allowed to use fintech to deliver new products and services while also protecting consumers.”
Opening statements were presented by several members of the Subcommittee, including Subcommittee Vice Chair Keith Rothfus, R-PA, who noted that online lending, mobile banking, and other products could bring capital back to areas deserted by traditional banks. Subcommittee Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-MO, highlighted that loan originations passed through marketplace lenders accounted for nearly $40 billion over the past ten years, with online lenders often able to offer better lending terms. Luetkemeyer also discussed the rise of mobile banking and lending and raised the question presented by some states of whether fintech companies should be required to comply with current laws that apply to similar products. He stressed that understanding fintech’s capabilities “can better create an environment that fosters certainty and responsible innovation while maintaining consumer protections.” A broad range of topics were discussed at the hearing, including the following highlights:
- Madden v. Midland / True Lender. Companies that have chosen to partner with banks have also run into regulatory and legal roadblocks, including the recent decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, which determined that a nonbank entity taking assignment of debts originated by a national bank is not entitled to protection under the National Bank Act from state-law usury claims. (See Buckley Sandler Special Alert here.) In prepared remarks, Andrew Smith, Partner at Covington and Burling, LLP, stated that because of varying outcomes in true lender court challenges, the lack of certainty means that “market participants will no longer be willing to enter into these types of transactions, thereby depriving consumers, banks, and the economy of the many benefits of bank partnerships with fintech providers while also hampering the liquidity necessary to support a robust lending market.” Smith went on to discuss H.R. 4439, the Modernizing Credit Opportunities Act, which was introduced to “reconfirm and reinforce existing federal law with respect to a bank’s identity as the true lender of a loan with the assistance of a third-party service provider.” Smith emphasized that the legislation would “resolve any uncertainty about a bank’s ability to use third-party service providers by confirming the principle that when a bank enters into a loan agreement, it is the bank that has made the loan.”
- Marketplace Lending. During his testimony, witness Nathaniel Hoopes, Executive Director at the Marketplace Lending Association, highlighted the role marketplace lending platforms (MPPs) have had in delivering products to underserved consumers, but emphasized that a lot of work still needs to happen for more of the “broad American ‘middle class’ to fully realize and benefit from the potential of MPPs specifically and fintech more broadly.” He also expressed support for the Special Purpose National Bank charter currently under consideration by the OCC.
- Regulatory Sandboxes. Witness Brian Knight, Director of the Program on Financial Regulation and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, suggested in his prepared remarks various methods to improve the current regulatory environment, and opined that lawmakers could allow firms that participate in a regulatory sandbox program and comply with its requirements to avoid liability as long as the firm makes “customers whole if the firm causes harm owing to a violation of the law.” Knight added that states could be allowed to grant special non-depository charters similar to those offered by the OCC. And while witness Professor Adam J. Levitin of the Georgetown University Law Center agreed that sandboxes would allow companies to explore new ideas with the understanding that customers must be protected, he cautioned that the fragmentation of the regulatory system around fintech makes it hard for experimentation, and that risk would need to be regulated.
- Virtual Currencies. Knight discussed his concerns with initial coin offerings (ICOs) and commented that while ICOs “may enable firms to access capital more effectively than traditional methods, there are significant concerns that they are being used by both outright frauds and well-meaning but ignorant firms to obtain capital in contravention of existing laws governing the sales of securities, commodities futures contracts, and products and services.” However, Knight testified that despite the potential for risk, peer-to-peer payments, cryptocurrencies, and other innovations demonstrate potential, and that innovative lenders are replacing banks in communities where it is no longer profitable for those banks to serve.
- Inconsistent Regulations. During his testimony, witness Brian Peters, Executive Director at Financial Innovation Now, advocated for improved coordination among regulators and stressed that the “current structure is needlessly fragmented and inconsistent among federal regulators, and varies widely across state jurisdictions.” Peters also commented on the need to modernize the regulatory structure to keep pace with innovation and meet consumers’ needs.
House Financial Services Committee Passes Bill That Would Pre-empt State Usury Laws
On November 15, the House Financial Services Committee (Committee) announced the passage of H.R. 3299, “Protecting Consumers Access to Credit Act of 2017,” which would amend the “Revised Statues and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act” to explain that bank loans that were valid as to their maximum rate of interest in accordance with federal law at the time the loan was made shall remain valid with respect to that rate, regardless of whether the bank subsequently sells or assigns the loan to a third party. This would have the effect of preempting contrary state usury laws and effectively overturn the 2015 decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC.
The bill passed Committee 42-17.
InfoBytes previously covered the bill’s introduction and also, a similar measure introduced in the Senate.
HUD Secretary Carson Testifies at House Financial Services Committee Hearing, Discusses Use of FCA Against FHA Lenders
On October 12, Secretary of HUD, Ben Carson, testified at a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee. The hearing entitled “The Future of Housing in America: Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,” provided an update on HUD’s vision for federal housing policy and touched upon topics such as the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the agency’s role in hurricane disaster relief, and regulatory reform efforts. In his written testimony, Carson reaffirmed his personal interest, and that of the President Trump’s Administration, in working with the Committee on housing finance reform, specifically referencing the FHA mortgage insurance program and Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed security guaranty as “vital components” of the housing finance system. Towards the end of the three-hour-long hearing, Carson was asked by Representative Dave Trott (R-MI) about the federal government’s “unprecedented” use of the False Claims Act (FCA) as a means to “impose outrageous penalties against lenders for immaterial defects” in HFA loan originations, which, according to Rep. Trott, is turning lenders away from FHA lending and is resulting in increased costs to borrowers. Carson stated that his staff is already engaged in discussions with the DOJ staff and is “committed to getting that resolved, because it’s ridiculous, quite frankly.” Carson added, “I’m not exactly sure why there had been such an escalation previously, but the long-term effects of that escalation is obviously providing fewer appropriate choices for consumers, and that’s exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.”
FHFA Director Provides Update on GSE Conservatorship to House Financial Services Committee
On October 3, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Melvin L. Watt, testified at a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee. The testimony provided an update on FHFA’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) and Watt’s views on housing financing reform. In his prepared remarks, Watt informed the Committee that the GSEs’ financial performance has improved significantly over the course of the FHA’s conservatorship and that the GSEs continue to provide liquidity to the housing finance market. Nonetheless, Watt stressed that in less than three months, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s taxpayer-financed capital buffer will run out, and any loss the GSEs experience after that would require additional money from taxpayers. Watt warned that any additional draw of taxpayer support could erode investor confidence in the GSEs, which could result in reduced liquidity in the mortgage-backed securities market and increase the cost of credit for borrowers.
House Financial Services Committee Issues Second Interim Report on Bureau’s Role in Fraudulent Accounts Scandal Investigation
On September 19, the Majority Committee Staff of the House Financial Services Committee (Committee) released a second interim report and supporting documents on the investigation of the role the CFPB played in detecting and remedying a major national bank’s practice of opening unauthorized bank accounts. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the first interim report, issued June 6, accused Director Richard Cordray, among other things, of failing to cooperate with the Committee’s “comprehensive investigation.” The second interim report claims the CFPB and Director Cordray failed to comply with the Committee’s repeated requests for documents related to the investigation into the bank’s practices, never conducted its own independent investigation (but, instead, “relied primarily, if not exclusively,” on a third party report), and withheld a crucial Recommendation Memorandum from the Committee for over a year that disclosed analysis of the legal and factual components of the Bureau’s investigation, as well as an evaluation of whether to enter into a settlement. The Committee’s accusations also include claims that Director Cordray allegedly misled Congress about the agency's investigation into the bank’s illegal sales practices and may have “rushed” a settlement with the bank, which resulted in a $100 million fine when it was potentially liable for a statutory civil monetary penalty exceeding $10 billion. Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) said in a press release that “[t]he premature suspension of its investigation means that the CFPB also potentially lost the opportunity to discover recently revealed instances of further consumer harm.”
DOJ Formally Ends Operation Chokepoint; Judicial and Financial Services Committee Leaders and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Respond
On August 16, the DOJ sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) formally announcing the DOJ’s commitment to end its initiative known as Operation Chokepoint, which was designed to target fraud by investigating U.S. banks and the business they do with companies believed to be a higher risk for fraud and money laundering. Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote: “All of the [DOJ]’s bank investigations conducted as part of Operation Chokepoint are now over, the initiative is no longer in effect, and it will not be undertaken again.” Boyd further reiterated that “the [DOJ] will not discourage the provision of financial services to lawful industries, including businesses engaged in short-term lending and firearms-related activities.” However, criminal activity discovered as a result from responses to subpoenas may continue to be pursued by the DOJ. Additionally, the FDIC also rescinded a list identifying “purportedly ‘high-risk’ merchants” and the DOJ noted that it “strongly agrees with that withdrawal.”
On August 18, Rep. Goodlatte’s office, along with other judicial and financial services committee leaders, issued praise for the DOJ’s decision: “Targeted industries, such as firearms dealers, were presumed guilty by the Obama Justice Department until proven innocent, and many businesses are still facing the repercussions of this misguided program.”
Separately, on August 21, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Keith A. Noreika sent a letter to House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) repudiating Operation Chokepoint and claiming “the [OCC] rejects the targeting of any business operating within state and federal law as well as any intimidation of regulated financial institutions into banking or denying banking services to particular businesses.” Noreika further stated that the OCC “expects the banks it supervises to maintain banking relationships with any lawful businesses or customers they choose, so long as they effectively manage any risks related to the resulting transactions and comply with applicable laws and regulations.”
The DOJ’s announcement comes after years of attempts by Congressional Republicans to end the initiative as well as lawsuits filed by payday lenders over claims that regulator interpretations of “reputational risk” violated their rights to due process. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)
House Financial Services Committee Issues Report Accusing Bureau of Contempt Charges Relating to Investigation into Arbitration Rulemaking
On August 4, the Majority Committee Staff of the House Financial Services Committee (Committee) released a report accusing CFPB Director Richard Cordray of failing to comply with an April 4, 2017 Congressional subpoena concerning the Committee’s on-going investigation into the Bureau’s arbitration rulemaking, and presenting a case for instituting contempt of Congress proceedings. According to the report, the Committee first requested documents relating to the CFPB’s pre-dispute arbitration rulemaking on April 20, 2016 but asserts it received a production that was “far from complete.” Subsequent document requests and “rolling” productions were also allegedly “incomplete.” In April 2017, the Committee issued a congressional subpoena in order to compel the CFPB to produce the relevant records, but the report claims that while Cordray was legally obligated to answer, he failed to adequately respond. Consequently, the Committee accused Cordray of defaulting on the subpoena and concluded that the CFPB’s argument regarding the burdensome nature of the request does not excuse the Bureau from producing records or “searching for and identifying sources of records in an effort to quantify the putative burden.” As a result, the Majority Committee Staff believes there is ample basis to proceed against Cordray for contempt of Congress.
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Testifies Before House Financial Services Committee, Provides Overview of Tailored Regulatory Approach
On July 27, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “The Annual Testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the International Financial System.” Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx.) opened the full committee hearing asserting that “the unaccountable Washington bureaucracy must finally be held accountable, [and we] must address the regulatory cost of doing business in the U.S. under Dodd-Frank.” Rep. Hensarling commended President Trump’s Executive Order establishing the core principles for regulating the U.S. financial system and called it “vitally important to us all.”
Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin was the only witness at the June 27 hearing, offering testimony and answering questions concerning, among other things, (i) praise for the Committee’s passage of the Financial CHOICE act; (ii) tailoring capital requirements for small, mid-sized, and region banks; (iii) identifying a “single, lead regulator” to reduce regulatory overlap; (iv) remedying the Volcker Rule; (v) making the CFPB more accountable through statutory changes; (vi) reforming housing finance, noting that the current system, “in which the GSEs remain in perpetual Federal Housing Finance Agency conservatorship . . . is not sustainable and leaves taxpayers at risk”; and (vii) addressing tax reform.
Senate and House Committees File Separate Resolutions Disapproving of CFPB Arbitration Rule
On July 20, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and the House Financial Services Committee each announced Congressional Review Act Joint Resolutions of Disapproval against the CFPB’s Arbitration Agreements final rule issued July 10. In a press release issued by the Senate Committee, 24 Republican senators—including Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)—expressed concern that the anti-arbitration measure will discourage cost-effective dispute resolution and push consumers into class action lawsuits causing more harm than good. House Republicans outlined similar concerns in a press release issued the same day. H.J. Res. 111, co-sponsored by all 34 Republican members of the House Financial Services Committee, will seek to nullify the rule, which they believe “punish[es] consumers with decreased access to financial products, increased costs for such products, or both.”
The Congressional Review Act allows Congress to overturn agency rules by a simple majority if moved within 60 days from the rule’s publication.
House Committee Okays Five Additional Flood Insurance Bills
On June 21, the House Financial Services Committee (Committee) approved changes to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), passing five additional bills. As previously reported in InfoBytes, the committee passed two flood insurance measures on June 15. The approval of these latest bills completes a seven-bill package to reauthorize the NFIP.
According to the committee’s press release, the five newly passed bills include:
H.R. 2875 ,the “National Flood Insurance Program Administrative Reform Act of 2017”— introduced by Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.)— is intended to help NFIP policyholders when challenging claim denials and to also cut down on claim fraud. The bill passed in a 58-0 vote.
H.R. 1558, the “Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act” —introduced by Rep. Ed Royce (R-Cal.)—was approved by the committee in a voice vote. The bill will “ensure community accountability for areas repetitively damaged by floods” by requiring these flood-prone areas to design mitigation plans.
H.R. 1422, the “Flood Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act”— introduced by Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.)—allows homeowners to use private flood insurance to satisfy the flood insurance mandate, if the private policies are sufficiently similar to NFIP insurance policies. This bill passed by a vote of 58-0.
H.R. 2246, the “Taxpayer Exposure Mitigation Act of 2017”—introduced by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.)—eliminates the requirement that commercial properties located in flood hazard areas must maintain flood insurance coverage. Additionally, the measure will “provide for greater transfer of risk . . . to private capital and reinsurance markets,” and will allow state and local governments to develop their own flood maps. The committee approved the bill in a 36-24 vote.
H.R. 2565, also introduced by Rep. Luetkemeyer, will “require the use of replacement cost value in determining the premium rates for flood insurance coverage.” The committee approved it in a 34-25 vote.