InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FinCEN extends FBAR filing deadline for certain individuals
On December 9, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued Notice 2021-1 to further extend the time for certain Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) filings in light of the agency’s March 2016 notice of proposed rulemaking, which proposed to revise the Bank Secrecy Act’s implementing regulations regarding FBARs. (See previous InfoBytes coverage on the 2016 NPR here.) Specifically, one of the proposed amendments seeks to “expand and clarify the exemptions for certain U.S. persons with signature or other authority over foreign financial accounts,” but with no financial interest, as outlined in FinCEN Notice 2020-1 issued December 9, 2020. FinCEN noted that because the proposal has not been finalized, it is extending the filing due date to April 15, 2023, for individuals who previously qualified for a filing due date extension under Notice 2020-1. All other individuals must submit FBAR filings by April 15, 2022.
FTC settles with debt collectors
On December 13, the FTC announced a settlement with several South Carolina-based debt collection companies and an individual (collectively, "defendants") for allegedly engaging in fraudulent debt collection practices. The FTC filed a complaint against the defendants alleging that they violated the FTC Act and the FDCPA by, among other things: (i) using robocalls to leave deceptive messages; (ii) falsely representing that an individual is an attorney or is in communication with an attorney; (iii) “falsely claiming or implying that nonpayment of a debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of a person”; (iv) threatening to take unlawful legal action; and (v) making false representations or using deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. The action was taken as part of the FTC’s “Operation Corrupt Collector”—a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort established by the FTC, CFPB, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to target illegal debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here). The effort previously resulted in settlements with two other debt collectors, which included permanent bars from the industry.
Under the terms of the settlement, in addition to being permanently banned from participating in debt collection and debt brokering activities, the defendants will also be prohibited from making misrepresentations to consumers, including (i) whether consumers are legally obligated to pay defendants; (ii) whether defendants are attorneys or affiliated with a law firm; (iii) the terms of any refund policy; and (iv) any material facts concerning products or services. The order also requires the defendants to surrender the contents of numerous bank and investment accounts, including property and the value of certain assets. An approximately $12 million monetary judgment will be partially suspended upon completion of asset transfers from all financial institutions holding accounts in the defendants’ names.
OCC launches DC REACh
On December 13, the OCC announced the launch of DC REACh , which expands the OCC’s Project REACh (Roundtable for Economic Access and Change) efforts to Washington, D.C. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2020, the OCC launched this initiative to promote greater financial inclusion of underserved populations. According to the OCC, Project REACh brings together leaders from the banking industry, national civil rights organizations, and various businesses and technology organizations who will identify and reduce barriers to accessing capital and credit. The OCC further noted that DC REACh “will organize and initiate formal efforts to promote greater access to affordable homeownership, enhance small business financing, and expand access to credit for economically disadvantaged and underserved communities in Washington, D.C.” According to remarks by acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu at the launch of DC REACh, the OCC “will be working with local community leaders and financial institutions to build paths towards entrepreneurship and affordable homeownership for District residents.”
CFPB releases EFTA FAQs
On December 13, the CFPB released updated Electronic Fund Transfers FAQs, which pertain to compliance with the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and Subpart A to Regulation E. The updated topics include transaction coverage, financial institution coverage, error resolution, and unauthorized EFT error resolution. Highlights from the updated FAQs include:
- Person-to-person (P2P) payments can be unauthorized electronic transfers under Regulation E.
- “[A] ‘pass-through’ payment transfers funds from the consumer’s account held by an external financial institution to another person’s account held by an external financial institution,” which is “initiated through a financial institution that does not hold a consumer’s account, for example, a non-bank P2P provider.”
- “Regulation E section 1005.2(i) defines financial institution under EFTA and Regulation E to include banks, savings associations, credit unions, and: any other person that directly or indirectly holds an account belonging to a consumer, or any other person that issues an access device and agrees with a consumer to provide electronic fund transfer (EFT) services.”
- “Any P2P payment provider that meets the definition of a financial institution, as discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Coverage: Financial Institutions Question 1, is a financial institution under Regulation E.” Therefore, “if a P2P payment provider directly or indirectly holds an account belonging to a consumer, they are considered a financial institution under Regulation E.”
- The transfer is considered to be an unauthorized EFT under Regulation E if a consumer’s account is obtained from a third party through fraudulent means (hacking), and a hacker utilizes that information to make an unauthorized electronic transfer from the consumer’s account.
- “Although private network rules and other commercial agreements may provide for interbank finality and irrevocability, they do not reduce consumer protections against liability for unauthorized EFTs afforded by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act…. Accordingly, any financial institution in this transaction must comply with the error resolution requirements discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution Question 2, as well as the liability protections for unauthorized transfers.”
Fed reiterates supervisory guidance on risk management
On December 10, the Federal Reserve Board announced SR Letter 21-19, which reiterates the Fed’s supervisory expectations for large banks’ risk management practices related to investment funds. The letter applies to institutions supervised by the Fed that have large derivatives portfolios and relationships with investment funds, and follows a review by the Fed of the high-profile default and failure of one investment firm, which resulted in losses of more than $10 billion for several large banks. Among other things, the Fed warned firms that poor communication frameworks and inadequate risk management functions hinder their potential to identify and address risk, and that “[r]isk management and control functions should have the experience and stature to effectively control risks associated with investment funds.”
The Fed also reminded firms that, consistent with the guidance in Interagency Supervisory Guidance on Counterparty Credit Risk Management, they should: (i) “[r]eceive adequate information with appropriate frequency to understand the risks of the investment fund, including position and counterparty concentrations, and either reconsider the relationship or set sufficiently conservative terms for the relationship if the client does not meet appropriate levels of transparency; (ii) “[e]nsure the risk-management and governance approach applied to the investment fund is capable of identifying the fund's risk initially and monitoring it throughout the relationship, and ensure applicable areas of the firm – including the business line and the oversight function – are aware of the risk their investment fund clients pose to the firm and have tools to manage that risk”; and (iii) “[e]nsure that margin practices remain appropriate to the fund's risk profile as it evolves, avoiding inflexible and risk-insensitive margin terms or extended close-out periods with their investment fund clients.”
OCC reports on mortgage performance
On December 10, the OCC reported that 95.6 percent of first-lien mortgages were current and performing at the end of the third quarter of 2021—an increase from 92.5 percent at the end of the third quarter of 2020. According to the report, seriously delinquent mortgages declined from 3.8 percent in the prior quarter (5.8 percent a year ago) to 3.1 percent. In the third quarter of 2021, servicers initiated 925 new foreclosures, which is a 56.3 percent increase from the previous quarter and an increase of 150.7 percent compared to a year ago. The OCC noted that events related to the pandemic, such as foreclosure moratoriums, “significantly affected these metrics.” Additionally, mortgage modifications decreased 14.8 percent from the prior quarter. Of the reported 33,721 mortgage modifications, 59.6 percent reduced borrowers’ pre-modification monthly payments, while 98.3 percent were “combination modifications” that “included multiple actions affecting affordability and sustainability of the loan, such as an interest rate reduction and a term extension.”
FDIC refutes CFPB’s bank merger policy announcement
On December 9, the FDIC issued a statement refuting a request for review of bank merger policies announced in a CFPB blog post. According to a joint statement issued by FDIC Board member Martin J. Gruenberg and Rohit Chopra (who has an automatic board seat as Director of the CFPB), the FDIC Board of Directors voted to launch a public comment period on updating the FDIC’s regulatory implementation of the Bank Merger Act. Gruenberg and Chopra indicated that the Board members taking part in this action have approved a Request for Information and Comment on Rules, Regulations, Guidance, and Statements of Policy Regarding Bank Merger Transactions, which would seek public input on the FDIC’s approach to considering prudential factors in acting on a bank merger application, specifically related to “whether bright line minimum standards for prudential factors should be established, and if so, what minimum standards for which prudential factors.” In his blog post, Chopra noted that the Bureau is particularly interested in how the assessment of a bank merger’s impact on families and businesses in local communities would work in practice, and how should regulators ensure a merger does not increase the risk of bank failure or otherwise disrupt the economy should the bank face financial distress. According to the Gruenberg and Chopra joint statement, the Board’s action authorizes the FDIC’s executive secretary to publish the RFI in the Federal Register, upon which a 60-day window for comments will commence.
Shortly following the release of the joint statement, the FDIC released a statement disputing that any action had been approved, stressing that it “has longstanding internal policies and procedures for circulating and conducting votes of its Board of Directors, and for issuing documents for publication in the Federal Register.” Adding that “[i]n this case, there was no valid vote by the Board, and no such request for information and comment has been approved by the agency for publication in the Federal Register,” the FDIC commented that “[n]otwithstanding the actions taken today, the FDIC expects this time-honored tradition of collegiality and comity to continue.”
Hsu discusses bank overdraft reform
On December 8, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu spoke before the Consumer Federation of America’s 34th Annual Financial Services Conference. His remarks centered on reforming bank overdraft programs to “empower and promote financial health” of consumers. Quoting a recent Brookings Institution publication, Hsu noted, “The existing system is regressive (reverse Robin Hood), creating structural barriers and elevating costs to those on the lower end of the income spectrum, while simultaneously showering benefits to those on the upper end.” To eliminate this “regressive system,” Hsu noted that banking deposit account services need to be structured “so that they improve customers’ financial capabilities and are priced to be low to no cost.” According to Hsu, Bank On’s approach, which sets a “baseline standard for safe, affordable, and appropriate accounts that meet the needs of low-income consumers, particularly those outside of the financial mainstream,” appears to be a natural solution for decreasing the population of unbanked individuals and eliminating overdraft fees. However, Hsu also acknowledged that “limiting overdrafts may limit the financial capacity for those who need it most.”
Hsu identified several product features “that could be modified or recalibrated to support financial health” and laid out specific recommendations on the heels of the OCC’s staff review of bank overdraft programs, which he noted already align with the overdraft efforts by many banks, including (i) requiring consumers to opt in to overdrafts; (ii) providing an overdraft “grace period” prior to assessing a fee; (iii) allowing negative balances without triggering an overdraft fee; (iv) offering access to real-time account balance information and alerts; and (v) linking checking accounts to another account for overdraft protection, among others.
CFPB supervisory highlights cover wide range of violations
On December 8, the CFPB released its fall 2021 Supervisory Highlights, which details its supervisory and enforcement actions in the areas of credit card account management, debt collection, deposits, fair lending, mortgage servicing, payday lending, prepaid accounts, and remittance transfers. The report’s findings cover examinations that were completed between January and June of 2021 in addition to prior supervisory findings that led to public enforcement actions in the first half of 2021. Highlights of the examination findings include:
- Credit Card Account Management. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation Z related to billing error resolution, including instances where creditors failed to (i) resolve disputes within two complete billing cycles after receiving a billing error notice; (ii) reimburse late fees after determining a missed payment was not credited to a consumer’s account; and (iii) conduct reasonable investigations into billing error notices concerning missed payments and unauthorized transactions. Examiners also identified deceptive acts or practices related to credit card issuers’ advertising practices.
- Debt Collection. The Bureau found instances of FDCPA violations where debt collectors represented to consumers that their creditworthiness would improve upon final payment under a repayment plan and the deletion of the tradeline. Because credit worthiness is impacted by numerous factors, examiners found “that such representations could lead the least sophisticated consumer to conclude that deleting derogatory information would result in improved creditworthiness, thereby creating the risk of a false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of Section 807(10).”
- Deposits. The Bureau discussed violations related to Regulation E, including error resolution violations related to misdirected payment transfers and failure to investigate error notices where consumers alleged funds were sent via a person-to-person payment network but the intended recipient did not receive the funds.
- Fair Lending. The report noted instances where examiners cited violations of ECOA and Regulation B by lenders "discriminating against African American and female borrowers in the granting of pricing exceptions based upon competitive offers from other institutions,” which led to observed pricing disparities, specifically as compared to similarly situated non-Hispanic white and male borrowers. Among other things, examiners also observed that lenders’ policies and procedures contributed to pricing discrimination, and that lenders improperly inquired about small business applicants’ religion and considered religion in the credit decision process.
- Mortgage Servicing. The Bureau noted that it is prioritizing mortgage servicing supervision attributed to the increase in borrowers needing loss mitigation assistance due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Examiners found violations of Regulations Z and X, as well as unfair and deceptive acts and practices. Unfair acts or practices included those related to (i) charging delinquency-related fees to borrowers in CARES Act forbearances; (ii) failing to terminate preauthorized EFTs; and (iii) assessing fees for services exceeding the actual cost of the performed services. Deceptive acts or practices found by examiners related to mortgage servicers included incorrectly disclosed transaction and payment information in a borrower’s online mortgage loan account. Mortgage servicers also allegedly failed to evaluate complete loss mitigation applications within 30 days, incorrectly handled partial payments, and failed to automatically terminate PMI in a timely manner. The Bureau noted in its press release that it is “actively working to support an inclusive and equitable economic recovery, which means ensuring all mortgage servicers meet their homeowner protection obligations under applicable consumer protection laws,” and will continue to work with the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and state financial regulators to address any compliance failures (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Payday Lending. The report identified unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to payday lenders erroneously debiting consumers’ loan balances after a consumer applied and received confirmation for a loan extension, misrepresenting that consumers would only pay extension fees on the original due dates of their loans, and failing to honor loan extensions. Examiners also found instances where lenders debited or attempted one or more duplicate unauthorized debits from a consumer’s bank account. Lenders also violated Regulation E by failing “to retain, for a period of not less than two years, evidence of compliance with the requirements imposed by EFTA.”
- Prepaid Accounts. Bureau examiners found violations of Regulation E and EFTA related to stop-payment waivers at financial institutions, which, among other things, failed to honor stop-payment requests received at least three business days before the scheduled date of the transfer. Examiners also observed instances where service providers improperly required consumers to contact the merchant before processing a stop-payment request or failed to process stop-payment requests due to system limitations even if a consumer had contacted the merchant. The report cited additional findings where financial institutions failed to properly conduct error investigations.
- Remittance Transfers. Bureau examiners identified violations of Regulation E related to the Remittance Rule, in which providers “received notices of errors alleging that remitted funds had not been made available to the designated recipient by the disclosed date of availability” and then failed to “investigate whether a deduction imposed by a foreign recipient bank constituted a fee that the institutions were required to refund to the sender, and subsequently did not refund that fee to the sender.”
The report also highlights recent supervisory program developments and enforcement actions.
Chopra concerned about PE investment in nursing homes
On December 7, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra spoke before the Elder Justice Coordinating Council Meeting and raised concerns regarding worsening fraud, neglect, and financial exploitation in nursing homes and other for-profit facilities. Chopra discussed that financial straits due to the pandemic would continue leading to increased nursing home closures or takeovers of nursing homes by private equity investors. He noted that typically, private equity investors purchase assets, often using significant amounts of debt financing, to increase profits prior to selling the asset in a short amount of time, and warned that, due to the short investment and need to escalate profitability, “this investment approach invites aggressive strategies that warrant regulatory scrutiny.”
Citing to a recent NYU study that found private equity investments in U.S. healthcare to be on the rise, Chopra inquired whether for-profit incentives are misaligned with serving seniors well. He specifically warned that for-profit nursing homes “disproportionately lag behind their nonprofit counterparts across a broad array of measures for quality” and that “private equity owners may also have the incentive to drain financial assets from residents or increase risks of other financial exploitation.”
In conclusion, Chopra noted that he had asked the Bureau’s Office of Financial Protection for Older Americans to “identify cross-cutting consumer protection issues, including when it comes to housing, as many older Americans with substantial financial assets are a target for bad actors,” and will be working “to find systemic fixes to emerging risks, such as the encroachment of private equity into facilities serving and housing America’s older adults.”