Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC Q4 2016 Quarterly Banking Profile Reveals Community Bank Deposits, Office Count Both Up; OCC Reports Uptick in Mortgage Performance through End of 2016
Earlier this week, the FDIC released the latest issue of both its Quarterly Banking Profile and the FDIC Quarterly Report–a “comprehensive summary of the most current financial results for the banking industry” that is published quarterly by the FDIC’s Division of Insurance and Research. According to its latest Report, community banks—which represent 92 percent of insured institutions—reported net income of $5.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016, a 10.5% increase over 2015. According to the Report, “the increase was driven by higher net interest income and noninterest income, which was partly offset by higher loan-loss provisions and noninterest expense.” The Report also reveals an 8.3 percent 12-month growth rate in loan balances at community banks. The Report notes further that “community banks accounted for 43 percent of small loans to businesses.” Notably, the FDIC observed that, although deposits across the banking industry grew, the number of non-community bank offices actually shrank. By contrast, however, the number of community banks increased during 2016.
Also this week, the OCC announced the release of its “OCC Mortgage Metrics Report, Fourth Quarter 2016,” its quarterly report based on performance data from seven national bank servicers, including over a third of all outstanding U.S. residential mortgages. As explained in the OCC’s Q4 2016 Report, foreclosure activity declined and mortgage performance continued to improve through the fourth quarter of 2016, with 94.7 percent of mortgages current and performing at the end of 2016, compared with 94.1 percent a year earlier. Servicers initiated 45,495 new foreclosures in the fourth quarter, a decrease of 5.1 percent from previous quarter and a decrease of 28.2 percent year-over-year. Notably, the number of mortgage modifications—most involving a reduction in borrower monthly payments—similarly reflected a substantial 9.3 percent decrease from the previous quarter. The OCC also notes, among other things, that the percentage of seriously delinquent mortgages dropped to 2.3 percent of the portfolio, down from 2.7 percent reported in the fourth quarter a year earlier.
House Financial Services Committee Holds Hearing to Consider the “Unconstitutional Structure of the CFPB”
On March 21, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection's (CFPB's) Unconstitutional Design.” The majority staff memorandum issued prior to hearing stated that its purpose was to: (i) “examine whether the structure of the [CFPB] violates the Constitution,” and (ii) consider potential “structural changes to the Bureau to resolve any constitutional infirmities.”
Chairwoman Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) introduced the proceeding by describing the CFPB as a “an unconstitutional behemoth” with a 'Washington knows best' mindset,” that “side-steps accountability to Congress and the President.” Three of the four witnesses called to testify before the panel shared the general position that the CFPB is unconstitutional as currently structured.
- The Honorable Theodore Olson , a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and lead counsel for PHH in its suit against the CFPB, shared his personal opinion that the Bureau, “[m]ore than any other administrative agency ever created by Congress,” is “far outside of our constitutional structure, holds the potential for tyrannical governance, and obscures the lines of governmental accountability. [T]he CFPB’s structure is the product of aggregating some of the most democratically unaccountable and power-centralizing features of the federal government’s administrative state.” Particularly with respect to the President, Mr. Olson noted that “by preventing the President from removing the head of the Bureau except for very limited circumstances,” the President is effectively “stripped of the power to faithfully execute the laws in these circumstances.”
- Professor Saikrishna Prakash, a Law Professor at the University of Virginia School of Law questioned the Bureau’s constitutionality, characterizing the Director of the CFPB as “the second most powerful officer in the government for he serves under no one’s supervision, enjoys a vast budget not subject to the appropriations process, and exerts enormous influence over several prominent aspects of the economy.”
- Adam White, a Research Fellow with the Hoover Institution similarly urged Congress to reform the CFPB while also cautioning against allowing the “CFPB’s original structure to . . . become the new benchmark for the next generation of ‘independent agencies.’”
Meanwhile, offering several arguments in support of the Bureau’s current structure was Brianne Gorod – a public interest attorney who has helped prepare briefing in the PHH v CFPB matter on behalf of “current and former members of Congress, who were sponsors of Dodd-Frank” and “participated in drafting it,” and “serve or served on committees with jurisdiction over the [CFPB].” (See, e.g., Motion for Leave to Intervene in Support of the CFPB). Ms. Gorod argued, among other things, that “the President’s ability to remove the Director [of the CFPB] only for cause does not ‘impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty[,]’” but rather, to the contrary, “provides the Executive with substantial ability to ensure that the laws are ‘faithfully executed.’” For this reason and others, Ms. Gorod argued that “the CFPB’s leadership structure . . . is consistent with the text and history of the Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedent.”
FHFA Releases January 2017 “Refinance Report”
On March 16, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) published the Refinance Report for January 2017. As highlighted in the report, mortgage interest rates continued to increase in December 2016, resulting in a decrease in total refinance volume, although the agency noted that interest rates declined in January 2017. Also included is an overview of the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP)—a program established in 2009 to assist homeowners unable to refinance due to home value declines by providing opportunities to refinance through “the transfer of existing mortgage insurance to their newly refinanced loan, or by allowing those without mortgage insurance on their previous loan to refinance without obtaining new coverage.” As reported by the FHFA, “[b]orrowers completed 4,553 refinances through [HARP], bringing total refinances from the inception of the program to 3,452,224 . . ., and borrowers who refinanced through HARP had a lower delinquency rate compared to borrowers eligible for HARP who did not refinance through the program.” HARP, originally scheduled to expire on December 31, 2015, has had its expiration date extended three times and is now set to expire September 30, 2017.
Treasury Department Releases Reports on “Troubled Asset Relief” and “Making Home Affordable” Programs
On March 10, the Treasury Department (Treasury) released the February 2017 edition of its Monthly Report to Congress on the status of its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Among other things, the report provides updates on TARP programs such as the Capital Purchase Program and the Community Development Capital Initiative, as well as administration obligations and expenditures, insurance contracts, and transaction reports.
That same day, Treasury also published its fourth quarter 2016 “Making Home Affordable” Program Performance Report. According to the report, the housing market has made "significant progress" towards recovery since the beginning of the financial crisis. From 2009 through 2016, the number of homeowners who are 30-plus days delinquent on mortgage loans decreased from 6.1 million to 2.7 million, and the number of reported homeowners underwater also dropped significantly from 10.2 million to 3.2 million. A decline was also seen in the number of initiated foreclosures. To date, “approximately 10 million homeowners have received help through government programs and additional private sector efforts,” and “more than 2.8 million Homeowner Assistance Actions have taken place under Making Home Affordable programs.” Also provided in the report are fourth quarter 2016 servicer assessment results.
Trump Administration Files Brief in PHH Corp. v. CFPB
On March 17, the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed its amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit’s en banc review of the CFPB’s enforcement action against PHH Corporation for alleged violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). In October 2016, a panel of the D.C. Circuit concluded that the CFPB misinterpreted RESPA and that its single-Director structure violated the constitutional separation of powers. The DOJ brief states that, “[w]hile we do not agree with all of the reasoning in the panel’s opinion,” the DOJ agrees with the panel’s conclusion that “a removal restriction for the Director of the CFPB is an unwarranted limitation on the President’s executive power” and that “the panel correctly concluded … that the proposed remedy for the constitutional violation is to sever the provision limiting the President’s authority to remove the CFPB’s Director, not to declare the entire agency and its operations unconstitutional.”
Like the brief filed in this case by the Obama Administration DOJ before the change in administration, the current DOJ brief states that “[t]he United States takes no position on the statutory issues in this case, but in the event that the ultimate resolution of those issues results in vacatur of the CFPB’s order [against PHH], it is within this Court’s discretion to avoid ruling on the constitutional question.” However, the brief goes on to state that, because the issue is already before the en banc court and the “question is likely to recut in pending and future cases, it would be appropriate for the Court to provide needed clarity by exercising its discretion to resolve the separation-of-powers issue now.”
9th Circuit Panel Reverses and Remands Dismissal of Pro Se Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract Claim in Connection with Bank’s Trial Loan Modification Process
In an opinion filed on March 13, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a homeowner-plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against a major bank for damages allegedly suffered when she unsuccessfully attempted to modify her home loan over a two-year period. Oskoui v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., [Dkt No. 47-1] Case No. 15-55457 (9th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017) (Trott, S.). The court also remanded with instructions to permit the pro-se plaintiff to amend her complaint to allege a right to rescind in connection with her previously-dismissed TILA claim in light of the Supreme Court’s January 2015 decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. And, finally, the panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that the facts alleged demonstrated a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) because, among other reasons, the factual record supported a determination that the bank knew or should have known that the homeowner was plainly ineligible for a loan modification; yet, the bank encouraged her to apply for modifications (which she did), and collected payments pursuant to trial modification plans.
In reversing and remanding the district court’s ruling dismissing the breach of contract claim, the Ninth Circuit pointed to the styling on the first-page of the complaint—“BREACH OF CONTRACT”—along with allegations about the explicit offer language contained in the bank’s trial modification documents. The Ninth Circuit relied on the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Wigod v. Wells Fargo, which it identified as the “leading federal appellate decision on this issue of contract,” to “illuminate the viability” of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim in connection with trial plan documents. 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit remanded the claim with instructions to permit the plaintiff to amend if necessary in order to move forward with her breach of contract claim.
Two Trade Associations File Notices of Intent to Submit Amicus Briefs in PHH v. CFPB
On March 8 and 9, two separate Notices of Intention to Participate as Amicus Curiae were filed in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. The first was filed by ACA International, a trade association for the credit and collections industry. The second was filed on behalf of the following parties: American Bankers Association; American Escrow Association; American Financial Services Association; Consumer Bankers Association; Credit Union National Association; Housing Policy Council of the Financial Services Roundtable; Independent Community Bankers of America; Leading Builders of America; Mortgage Bankers Association; National Association of Federally- Insured Credit Unions; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of REALTORS; and Real Estate Services Providers Council. Nearly all of the associations listed above filed either joint or separate amici briefs at the panel stage and believe that “the en banc Court will be aided by a brief addressing how the Bureau’s Order not only contravenes RESPA’s statutory text, governing regulations, and applicable policy statements, but also how the Order’s violation of fair-notice principles disrupts the critically important home-lending market.”
Trump Administration Given March 17 Filing Date for Amicus Brief in PHH v CFPB; Requests to Intervene by Outside Organizations Denied by D.C. Circuit
On March 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the United States’ unopposed motion, filed through the Office of the Solicitor General (“SG”), which requested an extension to file its amicus brief in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. Notably, amicus briefs supporting PHH must be filed by March 10 and those supporting the CFPB must be filed by March 31. The fact that the United States’ motion requested an extension until March 17—before the deadline for briefs supporting the CFPB—signals that the SG may present arguments supporting PHH that differ both from the CFPB and from the positions previously presented by the Obama Administration in briefing submitted on behalf of the United States back in December.
As previously covered in InfoBytes, late last year the D.C. Circuit invited briefing by the SG’s office on behalf of the United States (note that the SG does not represent the CFPB; the Bureau is legally permitted to litigate on its own behalf.) The then Obama-led SG’s office took the position that the case should be reheard by the en banc court because, among other reasons, (i) the majority’s reasoning misapplied Supreme Court precedent on separation of powers issues and/or (ii) the panel majority should not have reached the constitutional issue. Now under the Trump Administration, the DOJ hinted that it may revise its positions with respect to both the constitutionality of the CFPB’s single-director-removable-only-for-cause structure, and, if it chooses, the merits of PHH’s argument that the Bureau’s RESPA interpretation was incorrect. Indeed, the short motion asserted, among other things, that “the views of the United States on matters involving the President’s removal power are not always entirely congruent with the views of independent agencies.”
Also on March 7, the D.C. Circuit issued a separate order denying three pending “motions and alternative requests” seeking to intervene, or in the alternative, hold in abeyance requests to intervene submitted by the Democratic Ranking Members of the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction over the CFPB, 16 State Attorneys General, a coalition of consumer interest groups, and two conservative advocacy groups working with State National Bank of Big Spring.
Fannie, Freddie and FHLBs Ordered to Report Results of Annual Stress Tests
On March 3, FHFA Director Melvin Watt issued orders directing FHFA regulated government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—Fannie Mae (Order No. 2017-OR-FNMA-01), Freddie Mac (Order No. 2017-OR-FHLMC-01), and the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks collectively (Order No. 2017-OR-B-01)—to report the results of their stress tests so that the financial regulators may determine whether the GSEs “have the capital necessary to absorb losses as a result of adverse economic conditions.” The orders were issued pursuant to the requirement under the Dodd-Frank Act that covered financial institutions with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion conduct an annual stress test to determine whether they have sufficient capital to support operations in adverse economic conditions. Accompanying each order was a copy of the “2017 Report Cycle Dodd-Frank Stress Tests Summary Instructions and Guidance.”
On April 14, the FHFA order was officially published in the Federal Register.
CFPB’s Monthly Complaint Report Focuses on Mortgages
On February 8, the CFPB released its monthly complaint report for December 2016. The report focused on complaints about mortgages. Along with debt collection and credit reporting, the report stated that mortgages are consistently among the three products and services generating the most complaints to the CFPB, and that since July 21, 2011, mortgages have been the second-most-complained-about product, representing 24 percent of all complaints. The most common issues raised by consumers are problems that arise when they are unable to pay their mortgage, such as issues related to loan modifications, collection, and foreclosure. Such issues were raised in 49 percent of complaints about mortgages. Other common issues raised in consumer complaints relating to mortgages include making payments (such as the misapplication of payments (33 percent)), applying for a mortgage (9 percent), signing the agreement (5 percent), and getting an offer of credit (3 percent).
The Report also noted that student loans showed the greatest increase in complaints year-over-year of any product or service—a 109 percent jump. The CFPB believes the increase may be due, at least in part, to the result of a February 2016 update to its student loan intake form allowing the submission of complaints about Federal student loan servicing. During the same period, complaints about prepaid products, payday loans, and mortgages declined by 59 percent, 23 percent, and 5 percent respectively—continuing a trend also observed in the Bureau’s last complaint report.