InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DFPI signs MOUs with EWA companies
On January 27, California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that it entered into memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with five earned wage access (EWA) companies. According to DFPI, the MOUs represent the first agreements of their kind between fintechs and a state regulator, and are intended to “pave a path so [EWA] companies can continue operating in California, in advance of possible registration under the California Consumer Financial Protection Law [CCFPL], which took effect this year and defines the companies as newly covered financial services.” (Buckley Special Alert coverage on the CCFPL available here.) The five EWA companies represent two advance pay models: “an employer-based model which offers early access to wages in partnership with an employer as a benefit and a direct-to-consumer model which does not require employer participation.”
Under the terms of the MOUs, the companies have agreed to deliver quarterly reports providing DFPI with a better understanding of their products and services, as well as the risks and benefits to consumers in the state. Reports will include information concerning “changes to consumer contracts, fees to consumers, consumer complaints, the average number of advances per month, duration before consumer payback, and the number of consumers making no repayment, partial repayments, or requesting cancellations or deferrals, among other stipulations.” The companies have also agreed to regular periodic DFPI examinations and are required to follow industry best practices, including by, among other things, (i) not offering any financial products that are “contingent on any tips the consumer chooses to make or does not make”; (ii) complying with TILA by limiting annual percentage rates on advanced funds to 36 percent; (iii) disclosing to consumers any potential fees that may be assessed prior to advancing the funds; (iv) limiting the amount of funds advanced to a consumer to no more than 50 percent of the consumer’s next paycheck; and (v) allowing consumers to revoke EFT authorization up to three days before a scheduled repayment date.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, last November the CFPB issued an advisory opinion on EWA products, which clarified that “a Covered EWA Program does not involve the offering or extension of ‘credit’” under Regulation Z, which implements TILA. The Bureau noted that the “totality of circumstances of a Covered EWA Program supports that these programs differ in kind from products the Bureau would generally consider to be credit.”
NYDFS virtual currency techsprint set for March
On January 21, NYDFS announced the details of its first-of-its-kind techsprint focusing on virtual currency that will open on March 1 and culminate on March 12. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the techsprint is a collaboration with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Alliance for Innovative Regulation, and the objective is “to achieve creative and collaborative prototyping as a step toward smarter regulatory reporting in virtual currency.” NYDFS notes that the virtual format will allow flexibility for the techsprint to include a combination of full-day facilitated exercises and self-paced, team-managed efforts. The teams will work to address one of several problem statements, including (i) “[h]ow can DFS achieve real-time or more frequent access to company financial data from virtual currency licensees and receive early warning signs of financial risks to the companies or their customers?” (i) “[h]ow can DFS obtain real-time transaction data from its licensees and automatically analyze the data to safeguard against illicit financing risks?” and (iii) “[h]ow can DFS use tools such as natural language processing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence to identify risks by processing and analyzing supervisory reports that are submitted by licensees in a wide range of formats?”
OCC urges court to uphold valid-when-made rule
On January 14, the OCC moved for summary judgment in an action filed by the California, Illinois, and New York attorneys general (collectively, “states”) challenging the OCC’s valid-when-made rule, arguing that the challenge is without merit and that the agency “reasonably interprets the ‘gap’ in [12 U.S.C. § 85] concerning what happens when a national bank sells, assigns, or transfers a loan.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC’s final rule was designed to effectively reverse the Second Circuit’s 2015 Madden v. Midland Funding decision and provides that “[i]nterest on a loan that is permissible under [12 U.S.C. § 85 for national bank or 12 U.S.C. § 1463(g)(1) for federal thrifts] shall not be affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan.” The states challenged the rule, arguing that it is “contrary to the plain language” of section 85 (and section 1463(g)(1)) and “contravenes the judgment of Congress,” which declined to extend preemption to non-banks. Moreover, the states contend that the OCC “failed to give meaningful consideration” to the commentary received regarding the rule, essentially enabling “‘rent-a-bank’ schemes.”
In response, the OCC argued that not only does the final rule reasonably interpret the “gap” in section 85, it is consistent with section 85’s “purpose of facilitating national banks’ ability to operate their nationwide lending programs.” Moreover, the agency asserts that 12 U.S.C. § 25b’s preemption standards do not apply to the final rule, because, among other things, the OCC “has not concluded that a state consumer financial law is being preempted.” The final rule “addresses only the ‘substantive [ ] meaning’ of § 85” and Congress “expressly exempted OCC’s interpretations of § 85 from § 25b’s requirements.” Lastly, the OCC argued that it made an “informed and reasoned decision,” including addressing issues raised during the public comment period. Thus, the court should uphold the final rule and affirm summary judgment for the agency.
OCC conditionally approves conversion of digital bank
On January 13, the OCC announced it has conditionally approved a South Dakota non-depository public trust company’s application to convert to a national trust bank. The digital bank—which offers digital asset and cryptocurrency custody services in certain states—has entered into an operating agreement as an enforceable condition of approval, which specifies capital and liquidity requirements and risk management expectations. By receiving a national trust bank charter, the digital bank will be allowed to expand its digital asset custody services nationally and may perform the functions and “activities of a fiduciary, agency, or custodial nature, in the manner authorized by federal and state law” with oversight being conducted by the OCC. According to the OCC, this approval “demonstrates that the national bank charters provided under the National Bank Act are broad and flexible enough to accommodate evolving approaches to financial services in the 21st century.”
Brainard weighs benefits and risks of using AI in financial services industry
On January 12, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard spoke at the AI Academic Symposium hosted by the Fed’s Board about the increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the financial services industry. Brainard reflected that since she first shared early observations on the use of AI in 2018 (covered by InfoBytes here), the Fed has been exploring ways to better understand the use of AI, as well as how banking regulators can best manage risk through supervision while supporting the responsible use of AI and providing equitable outcomes. “Regulators must provide appropriate expectations and adjust those expectations as the use of AI in financial services and our understanding of its potential and risks evolve,” Brainard noted, adding that the Fed is currently collaborating with the other federal banking agencies on a potential request for information on the risk management of AI applications in financial services.
Emphasizing the “wide ranging” scope of AI applications, Brainard commented that financial services firms have been using AI for operational risk management, customer-facing applications, and fraud prevention and detection. Brainard also suggested that machine learning-based fraud detection tools could also have the potential to increase the detection of suspicious activity “with greater accuracy and speed,” while potentially enabling firms to respond in real time. Brainard also acknowledged the potential of AI to improve accuracy and fairness of credit decisions and improve overall credit availability.
However, Brainard also discussed AI challenges, including the “black box problem” that can arise with complex machine learning models that “operate at a level of complexity” which is difficult to fully understand. This lack of model transparency is a central challenge she noted, stressing that financial services firms must understand the basis on which a machine learning model determines creditworthiness, as well as the potential for AI models to “reflect or amplify bias.” With respect to safety and soundness, Brainard stated that “bank management needs to be able to rely on models’ predictions and classifications to manage risk. They need to have confidence that a model used for crucial tasks such as anticipating liquidity needs or trading opportunities is robust and will not suddenly become erratic.” She added that “regulators must provide appropriate expectations and adjust those expectations as the use of AI in financial services and our understanding of its potential and risks evolve.”
CFPB taskforce releases recommendations for modernizing consumer financial marketplace
On January 5, the CFPB Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law released a two volume report with approximately 100 recommendations on ways the CFPB, Congress, and state and federal regulators can improve and modernize the legal and regulatory environment for the consumer financial services market. The report is the end-product of a request for information issued by the taskforce last March (covered by InfoBytes here). The report’s first volume provides a historical and economic overview of the legal and regulatory landscape for consumer finance, and explores issues related to consumer financial protection, competition, innovation, and financial inclusion. The second volume outlines more than 100 proposed recommendations for strengthening consumer protections and maintaining competition in the financial marketplace. Among these are recommendations related to the regulation of non-banks and fintech companies, including:
- Recommending that Congress either (i) “authorize the Bureau to issue licenses to non-depository institutions that provide lending, money transmission, and payments services,” with licenses “provid[ing] that these institutions are governed by the regulations of their home states, even when providing services to consumers located in other states,” or (ii) “clarify that the OCC has the authority to issue charters to non-depositories engaged in lending, money transmissions, or payment services.” Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Brian P. Brooks released a statement the next day endorsing the need for federal charters for fintech companies, but stressed that the OCC, not the Bureau, should be responsible for granting national charters;
- Identifying and addressing competitive barriers and making appropriate recommendations to policymakers and regulators for expanding access to the payments systems by non-bank providers;
- Recommending that the Bureau weigh the costs and benefits of preempting state law where potential conflicts “can impede provision of valuable products and services, such as the regulation of [fintech] companies engaged in money transmission”; and
- Ensuring that fintech companies with multistate operations are subject to a single set of laws to promote consistency, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs, and promoting competition.
The taskforce further recommends that the Bureau establish an independent review of its regulatory cost-benefit analyses, and calls for increased regulatory coordination between the Bureau and other federal and state regulators. Other recommendations address, among other things, the use of alternative data; suggested changes to the Bureau’s internal organization; competition in the consumer financial marketplace, including with respect to the cost of credit, the effect and burden of state licensure requirements, and settlement servicing prices; consumer credit reporting, including clarifying the obligations of credit reporting agencies and furnishers with respect to dispute investigations; consumer empowerment and education; equal access to credit and financial inclusion; disclosure requirements; electronic signatures and document requirements; disparate impact; privacy; small dollar credit; and enforcement and supervision.
CSBS challenges OCC’s pending fintech charter
On December 22, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia opposing the OCC’s impending approval of a national bank charter for a financial services provider (company), arguing that the OCC is exceeding its chartering authority. According to the complaint, the company’s charter is close to being formally approved by the OCC after being “solicited, vetted and in November 2020 accepted as complete” by the agency. The complaint asserts the company will continue its lending and payment activities (which are currently state-regulated) without obtaining deposit insurance from the FDIC. The complaint alleges that the company is applying for the OCC’s nonbank charter, which was invalidated by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2019 (which concluded that the OCC’s Special Purpose National Bank Charter (SPNB) should be “set aside with respect to all fintech applicants seeking a national bank charter that do not accept deposits,” covered by InfoBytes here). CSBS argues that “by accepting and imminently approving” the company’s application, the “OCC has gone far beyond the limited chartering authority granted to it by Congress under the National Bank Act (the “NBA”) and other federal banking laws,” as the company is not engaged in the “business of banking.” CSBS seeks to, among other things, have the court declare the agency’s nonbank charter program unlawful and prohibit the approval of the company’s charter under the NBA without obtaining FDIC insurance.
OCC: Banks may use independent node verification networks and stablecoins for payment activities
On January 4, the OCC published an interpretive letter addressing the legal permissibility of certain payment-related activities involving the use of new technologies, including using independent node verification networks (INVN) and related stablecoins to conduct payment activities and other bank-permissible functions. Specifically, the letter clarifies that a national bank or federal savings association “may validate, store, and record payments transactions by serving as a node on an INVN,” and may also “use INVNs and related stablecoins to carry out other permissible payment activities” provided the bank or federal savings association complies with applicable laws and safe, sound, and fair banking practices. Due to the decentralized nature of INVNs—which not only “allows a comparatively large number of nodes to verify transactions in a trusted manner” but also “limits tampering or adding inaccurate information to the database because information is only added to the network after consensus is reached among the nodes validating the information”—the OCC believes that INVNs may enhance payment activities’ efficiency, effectiveness, and stability within the federal banking system. The letter also outlines potential risks associated with INVN-related activities, such as operational and compliance risks and fraud related to the possibility of money laundering and terrorist financing, and warns banks and federal savings associations to expand their programs to ensure compliance with Bank Secrecy Act reporting and recordkeeping requirements and to address cryptocurrency transaction risks.
FinCEN proposes new reporting requirements for certain CVC and digital asset transactions
On December 18, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would require financial institutions and money service businesses (MSBs) to maintain records and submit reports to verify customer identities for certain transactions involving convertible virtual currency (CVC) or digital assets with legal tender status (LTDA). Under the NPRM, the requirements would apply to transactions involving CVC and LTDA that are held in certain “hosted” wallets at financial institutions, as well as in “unhosted” wallets, which are not held in an exchange or bank. Banks and MSBs would be required to file transaction reports within 15 days with FinCEN verifying the identity of customers if a counterparty to the transaction is using an unhosted or otherwise covered wallet and the transaction is greater than $10,000. Banks and MSBs would also be required to maintain records of customers’ CVC or LTDA transactions and counterparties—“including verifying the identity of their customers, if a counterparty uses an unhosted or otherwise covered wallet and the transaction is greater than $3,000.” According to Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, the proposed rule “is intended to protect national security, assist law enforcement, and increase transparency while minimizing impact on responsible innovation” by “closing loopholes that malign actors may exploit.” FinCEN notes that, while the NPRM “proposes to prescribe by regulation that CVC and LTDA are ‘monetary instruments’ for purposes of the” Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), it does not “modify the regulatory definition of ‘monetary instruments’ or otherwise alter existing BSA regulatory requirements applicable to ‘monetary instruments’ in FinCEN’s regulations.” Comments on the NPRM were due January 4.
CFPB issues two new CAS approval orders
On December 30, the CFPB issued two compliance assistance sandbox (CAS) approval orders covering a dual-feature credit card and an earned wage access product. The first approval was issued to a federal savings bank regarding its proposal to develop a “dual-feature credit card,” which would be offered to consumers with limited or damaged credit history to help reestablish more favorable credit history. According to the approval order, the consumer would be required to provide a security deposit to be used with the secured credit card feature and after “at least one year” and meeting certain eligibility requirements, the consumer would be offered to “graduate” to unsecured use of the credit card. The three-year approval order, by operation of TILA section 130(f), provides the bank a safe harbor from liability under TILA and Regulation Z, to the fullest extent permitted by section 130(f), as to any act done in good faith compliance with the order.
The second approval order covers certain aspects of an earned wage access (EWA) payment program, which allows employees access to their earned but unpaid wages prior to payday. According to the CAS application, an employee of a participating employer can download the company’s app and agree to the company’s terms prior to engaging in an EWA program. Among other things, the company notes that it will not engage in any debt collection activities related to the EWA program or submit reports to a consumer reporting agency regarding the transactions. The two-year approval order, by operation of TILA section 130(f), provides the company a safe harbor from liability under TILA and Regulation Z, to the fullest extent permitted by section 130(f) as to any act done in good faith compliance with the order.