InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC warns of key banking risks
On November 9, the OCC released its Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2020, which reports on key risk areas that pose a threat to the safety and soundness of national banks and federal savings associations. In particular, the OCC noted the financial impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on the federal banking industry, emphasizing that while economic activity rebounded in the third quarter, there is significant ongoing risk. The report discusses, as a special topic in emerging risks, growing trends in payment products and services. The report also highlights several key risk areas for banks: credit, strategic, operational, and compliance. Specifically, the report notes that credit risk is increasing as government assistance programs expire and the economic downturn has led to elevated unemployment levels. The report further notes that strategic risks affecting profitability is an emerging issue due to low interest rates, which historically have negatively affected profitability when low for a long period of time. Moreover, the report notes elevated operational risks due to complex operating environments with cybersecurity being a key concern. The increase in large-scale telework has created unique security and internal control challenges. Lastly, the report discusses elevated compliance risks due to the expedited implementation of a number of Covid-19-related assistance programs.
Bank gets NAL from CFPB using small-dollar template
On November 5, under the CFPB’s revised no-action letter (NAL) policy, the Bureau issued a NAL to a national bank regarding certain small-dollar credit products offered by the bank. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May, the Bureau approved a template in response to a request by a nonpartisan public policy, research and advocacy group for banks that would assist depository institutions in offering a standardized, small-dollar credit product under $2,500 with a repayment term between 45 days and one year. The bank submitted its application using this template.
Among other things, the NAL notes that the bank’s application includes (i) each of the “13 Guardrail Certifications” described in the template; (ii) a copy of the small-dollar credit product’s terms and conditions the bank intends to provide to consumers; (iii) marketing materials intended to be used to market the product; and (iv) substantially similar consumer benefits and consumer risks as described in the advocacy groups’ template application. A copy of the bank’s application is available here.
Additionally, the Bureau released a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notice, covering research efforts to “identify information that could be disclosed to consumers during the payday loan process to help them make better-informed decisions.”
CFPB charges lender with misrepresenting loan risks
On November 5, the CFPB filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against a Florida-based company and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”) alleging violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act through their offering of short-term, high-interest loans funded by deposits made by other consumers. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly misrepresented both the risks associated with the deposit product as well as the annual percentage rate (APR) for the loans offered to other consumers. The Bureau alleges that the defendants engaged in deceptive acts or practices by, among other things, (i) purportedly marketing loans, which ranged from $100 to $500 each, as having a 440 percent APR, when in reality the actual APR ranged from 975 to 978 percent; (ii) claiming that deposits received by consumers to fund its loans are guaranteed a 15 percent annual percentage yield; (iii) guaranteeing that consumers’ deposits are FDIC insured and held at “‘member financial institutions’ and ‘participating banks’”; and (iv) claiming that roughly every minute a new consumer makes a deposit. However, the Bureau contends that deposits are not held in FDIC-insured accounts, that the rate of return is not guaranteed, and that “the average rate of new customers is just a few each day.” The Bureau further alleges that because the majority of the loans violate Florida’s criminal-usury law, rendering them uncollectable, the defendants would be unable to collect delinquent loans or meet their obligations to consumers seeking to withdraw their deposited funds. Among other things, the Bureau seeks an injunction against the defendants, damages, consumer redress, disgorgement, and a civil money penalty.
CFPB settles with payment plan company over deceptive sales practices
On November 2, the CFPB announced a settlement with a Texas-based payment plan company, resolving allegations that the company’s loan payment program disclosures contained misleading statements in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. According to the Bureau, the company’s loan payment program for auto loans is marketed as an opportunity for consumers to pay off loans faster and more cheaply, where automatic partial payments are deducted bi-weekly from consumers’ bank accounts and then forwarded to consumers’ lenders or servicers. However, consumers who enrolled in the bi-weekly program end up “making 13 monthly payments or one full extra payment to [the company] each year,” the Bureau alleged, in addition to paying a bi-weekly debit fee. According to the consent order, the company, among other things, allegedly provided consumers with a customized “benefits summary” that stated a specific amount of interest savings the consumer would receive by enrolling in the program. The Bureau alleged that the benefits summary, however, failed to disclose that the fees would ordinarily exceed the interest savings. The program—which was purportedly marketed as a “financial benefit to consumers”—created the misleading impression that consumers would save money using the product even though the company allegedly knew the majority of enrolled consumers ended up paying more in total on their loans.
The consent order requires the company to pay a $1 civil money penalty and $7.5 million in consumer redress, which is suspended upon payment of $1.5 million based on the company’s demonstrated inability to pay the full judgment. The Bureau noted in its press release that harmed consumers may be eligible to receive additional relief from the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund. The company is also prohibited from making any misrepresentations about its payment program or any other payment accelerator programs.
CFPB finalizes rule on confidential information disclosures
On October 29, the CFPB issued a final rule to modify its procedures for the disclosure of records and information. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in August 2016, the Bureau issued a proposed rule seeking to, among other things, amend procedures used by persons in the public domain to obtain information from the CFPB under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Privacy Act of 1974, and legal proceedings. In September 2018, the Bureau published a final rule addressing FOIA, the Privacy Act, and certain legal proceedings (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau now issues a final rule addressing “the confidential treatment of information obtained from persons in connection with the exercise of its authorities under federal consumer financial law.” The final rule amends definitions and clarifies certain provisions of subparts A and D of section 1070 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which the Bureau states are intended to, among other things, (i) “improve transparency” about the Bureau’s confidential information procedures; (ii) increase collaborations with agency partners; and (iii) improve the Bureau’s ability to protect confidential information.
Fed lowers Main Street Lending Program minimum loan size
On October 30, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced an adjustment to the terms of the Main Street Lending Program (MSLP) in order to expand support to smaller businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, the Fed reduced the minimum loan size for the three Main Street facilities from $250,000 to $100,000 and adjusted the associated fees.
Additionally, the Fed and the U.S. Department of Treasury issued an FAQ clarifying that up to $2 million of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans may be excluded for purposes of determining the maximum loan size under the MSLP. If a borrower has applied for forgiveness, the amount that is eligible for forgiveness may be excluded from the “existing outstanding and undrawn available debt” calculation under the MSLP program. If the borrower has not yet applied for forgiveness, the amount to be excluded from the calculation is the amount that “its principal executive officer has a reasonable, good-faith basis to believe will be forgiven in accordance with applicable PPP requirements.”
Divided FCC says net neutrality reversal won't hurt public safety
On October 27, the FCC voted 3-2 to adopt an Order on Remand in response to a 2019 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (covered by InfoBytes here). The D.C. Circuit’s decision mostly ratified the Commission’s 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order that reversed the net neutrality rules barring internet service providers from slowing down or speeding up web traffic based on business relationships, however it remanded three “discrete issues” for the FCC’s further consideration, including how the reversal of the net neutrality rules could affect public safety issues. A Fact Sheet accompanying the Order on Remand stated that the FCC found “no basis to alter” its conclusions in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, noting that, among other things, “[n]either the Commission’s decision to return broadband Internet access service to its longstanding classification as an information service, nor its decision to eliminate the Internet conduct rules, is likely to adversely impact public safety.”
CFPB settles with ninth lender on misleading VA advertising
On October 26, the CFPB announced a settlement with a ninth mortgage lender for mailing consumers advertisements for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mortgages that allegedly contained misleading statements or lacked required disclosures. According to the Bureau, the lender allegedly sent false, misleading, and inaccurate direct-mail advertisements for VA guaranteed mortgage loans to servicemembers and veterans in violation of the CFPA, the Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising Rule (MAP Rule), and Regulation Z. Among other things, the Bureau alleged the advertisements (i) stated credit terms that the lender was not actually prepared to offer, such as the interest rate and annual percentage rate applicable to the advertised mortgage; (ii) made misrepresentations about “the existence, nature, or amount of cash or credit available to the consumer in connection with the mortgage”; (iii) failed to include required disclosures; (iv) gave the false impression that the mortgage products would help eliminate or reduce debt; and (v) made misleading comparisons in advertisements involving actual or hypothetical loan terms.
The settlement imposes a civil money penalty of $1.8 million and bans the lender from future advertising misrepresentations similar to those identified by the Bureau. Additionally, the settlement requires the lender to use a compliance official to review mortgage advertisements for compliance with consumer protection laws, and to comply with certain enhanced disclosure requirements.
The latest enforcement action is part of the Bureau’s “sweep of investigations” related to deceptive VA-mortgage advertisements. Previously, the Bureau issued consent orders against eight other mortgage lenders for similar violations, covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here.
DOJ reaches $25 million settlement with mortgage lender to resolve false claims allegations
On October 20, the DOJ announced a nearly $25 million settlement with a California-based mortgage lender in connection with alleged violations of the False Claims Act (FCA) related to originating and underwriting mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). According to the DOJ, the lender “knowingly approved ineligible loans that later defaulted and resulted in claims to FHA for mortgage insurance,” failed to comply with material program rules requiring lenders to maintain quality control programs to prevent underwriting deficiencies, and failed to self-report identified materially deficient loans. The mortgage lender agreed to pay the DOJ $24.9 million to resolve the FCA claims. In addition, a whistleblower will receive nearly $5 million under the settlement. The DOJ’s press release noted that the claims “are allegations only, and [that] there has been no determination of liability.”
OCC says banks affected by Hurricane Zeta may close
On October 27, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by Hurricane Zeta “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on actions they should take in response to natural disasters and other emergency conditions. According to the 2012 Bulletin, only bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions should close and institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address customers’ banking needs.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief here.