Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On January 25, the FDIC announced a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in December. The 15 orders include “two Section 19 orders; one civil money penalty; three removal and prohibition orders; four consent orders; one prompt corrective order; three terminations of consent orders; and one notice.” The FDIC assessed a civil money penalty against an Illinois-based bank for alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) and the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) including failing to (i) obtain flood insurance coverage on loans at origination; (ii) maintain flood insurance; and (iii) “properly force place flood insurance.”
A second civil money penalty was assessed against a Wisconsin-based bank for allegedly engaging in a pattern of violating the FDPA and the NFIA, including failing to (i) follow force placed flood insurance procedures, including notifying a borrower of a lapse in flood insurance coverage and force placing the necessary insurance in a timely fashion; (ii) obtain adequate flood insurance coverage on a loan at origination; and (iii) provide notice to a borrower concerning whether flood insurance under the NFIA was available for the collateral securing a loan.
There are no administrative hearings scheduled for February 2019. The FDIC database containing all 15 enforcement decisions and orders may be accessed here.
Waters announces subcommittee chairs, including newly formed Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion
On January 24, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters, announced that Joyce Beatty (D-OH) will serve as the first Chair of the newly formed Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion. According to Waters’ policy speech on January 17, the new Subcommittee will be “dedicated to looking at diversity and inclusion issues under the Committee’s jurisdiction.” Specifically, Waters cited to low representation of minorities and women in the financial services industry, particularly at the management level, as a reason for the creation of the subcommittee. Using the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion of the federal financial services regulators as an example, Waters suggested that the subcommittee be responsible for overseeing diversity in management, employment, and business activities in the financial industry. In addition to diversity and inclusion, Waters noted that, among other things, fair housing, including conducting “robust oversight” of HUD, and fintech would be top priorities for the subcommittee.
On January 25, top Democratic Congressional leaders, Maxine Waters and Sherrod Brown, wrote to acting Director of the FHFA, Joseph Otting, requesting that he clarify and expand on his reported remarks concerning the administration’s plan to move Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, “GSEs”) out of conservatorship. Specifically, Otting reportedly told FHFA employees that he would soon announce a plan to move the GSEs out from under government control and that he was given a “clear mission” outlined by Treasury and the White House of “what they want to accomplish” with the agency. Waters and Brown expressed concern about Otting’s ability to lead the agency independently based on these comments, as well as a recent filing of the agency with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit stating that the agency would no longer defend the constitutionality of the FHFA’s structure. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Waters and Brown also requested that Otting submit by February 1 a copy of the “mission that Treasury and the White House have outlined.” In response, Otting stated that he appreciated the Democratic leaders’ interest in housing finance, outlined the statutory duties of the FHFA, and welcomed input as they “begin the journey of evaluating the Enterprises and developing a framework for ending conservatorship.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in June 2018, the White House announced a government reorganization plan titled, “Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations.” The plan covers a wide-range of government reorganization proposals, including a proposal to end the conservatorship of the GSEs and fully privatize the companies.
Final rule subject to approval will require federally regulated lending institutions to accept private flood insurance
Recently, the FDIC and OCC approved a joint final rule governing the acceptance of private flood insurance policies. (The final rule must also be approved by—and is still under review with—the other agencies jointly issuing the rule: the Federal Reserve Board, Farm Credit Administration, and National Credit Union Association.) The final rule amends regulations governing loans secured by properties in special flood hazard areas to implement the provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert Waters) concerning private flood insurance (see previous InfoBytes coverage of the proposed rule here). The National Flood Insurance Act and the Flood Disaster Protection Act require flood insurance on improved property that secures a loan made, increased, extended, or renewed by a federally regulated lending institution (lending institution) if the property is in a special flood hazard area for which flood insurance is available under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Biggert Waters required the Agencies to adopt regulations directing lending institutions to accept insurance that meets the definition of “private flood insurance” in lieu of NFIP flood insurance.
The final rule, once approved by all five regulators, will institute the following provisions to take effect July 1:
- Lending institutions must accept private flood insurance policies meeting the definition of “private flood insurance.”
- Lending institutions may rely on a “streamlined compliance aid provision” to determine, without further review, that a policy meet the definition of “private flood insurance” if the policy (or an endorsement to the policy) contains the following language: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”
- Lending institutions may choose to accept private policies that do not meet the statutory criteria for “private flood insurance” as long as the policies meet certain criteria and the lending institutions document that the policies offer “sufficient protection for a designated loan, consistent with general safety and soundness principles.”
- Lending institutions may exercise discretion when accepting non-traditional flood coverage issued by “mutual aid societies,” subject to certain conditions including that the lending institutions’ primary federal supervisory agency has determined that the plans qualify as flood insurance. However, the final rule does not require lending institutions to accept coverage issued by mutual aid societies.
On January 18, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. The new enforcement actions include civil money penalties, a formal agreement, and removal/prohibition orders.
Formal Agreement. On December 31, the OCC entered into an agreement with a San Francisco bank to address alleged unsafe or unsound practices related to the bank’s enterprise governance, concentrations of credit, and credit risk management. Among other conditions, the agreement requires the bank to (i) establish a three-year strategic plan outlining goals and objectives related to the bank’s risk profile and liability structure, among other concerns; (ii) receive a “written determination of no supervisory objection” prior to increasing concentrations in unguaranteed portions of Small Business Administration (SBA) loans, and establish a concentration risk management program; (iii) engage an independent consultant to conduct quarterly asset quality reviews of the bank’s loan portfolio to, among other things, identify and stratify risk; (iv) establish and maintain a credit risk rating system; (v) revise its loan policies and procedures, including changes to its SBA lending program; (vi) submit revised policies and procedures concerning the maintenance and documentation of appropriate allowances for loan and lease losses; and (vii) prepare an employee compensation plan, which establishes criteria used when determining compensation levels, including those involving the bank’s SBA managers, business development officers, underwriters, and loan officers.
On January 22, a coalition of 14 state Attorneys General submitted a comment letter responding to the FDIC’s Request for Information (RFI) on small-dollar lending. (See previous InfoBytes coverage on the RFI here.) According to the letter, while the coalition welcomes the FDIC’s interest in encouraging FDIC-supervised financial institutions to offer responsibly underwritten and prudently structured small-dollar credit products that are economically viable and address consumer credit needs, the coalition simultaneously raises several legal risks affecting state-chartered banks seeking to enter this space.
- Banks face challenges when entering into relationships with “fringe lenders,” specifically with respect to the potential evasion of state restrictions related to state usury laws, “rent-a-bank” lending, and tribal sovereign immunity. The coalition recommends that the FDIC discourage banks from entering into such relationships.
- State-chartered banks are still subject to state unfair or deceptive acts or practices laws and state-law unconscionability claims. The coalition recommends that the FDIC encourage banks to evaluate consumers’ ability to repay, factoring in conditions such as consumers’ monthly expenses, their ability to repay a loan’s entire balance without re-borrowing, and their “capacity to absorb an unanticipated financial event. . .and, nonetheless, still be able to meet the payments as they become due.” The coalition recommends that the FDIC include the factors banks should consider before extending small-dollar loans to consumers in any guidance that it issues.
On January 23, the CFPB announced a settlement with an online loan broker resolving allegations that the broker violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by operating a website that connected veterans with companies offering high-interest loans in exchange for the assignment of some or all of their military pension payments. Specifically, the CFPB alleges the broker (i) misrepresented the contracts he facilitated as valid, when, in fact, under federal law veterans’ pension payments are unassignable; (ii) misrepresented to consumers that the offer was a “sale” of a product not a high-interest credit offer; (iii) misrepresented to consumers when they would receive their loan funds; and (v) failed to disclose the applicable interest rate on the loans. Under the program, veterans were also required to obtain life insurance policies in order to ensure the outstanding amount would be repaid even if the veteran died. Under the terms of the consent order, the broker is prohibited from engaging in the specified conduct in the future and is required to assist the Bureau in identifying and locating the veterans who were harmed. The Bureau required the broker to pay $1 in civil money penalties, based on his financial statements.
On January 24, the CFPB’s Office of Servicemember Affairs (OSA) released an annual report, which highlights issues facing military consumers based on complaints submitted by servicemembers, veterans, and their families (collectively “servicemembers”). The OSA report covers the period between April 1, 2017 and August 31, 2018, during which the Bureau received approximately 48,800 military complaints. Some key takeaways from the OSA report are as follows:
- The largest category of servicemember complaints focused on credit reporting, with 37 percent of total servicemember complaints in this area. The report notes that the Department of Defense’s new security clearance process increases the likelihood that a servicemember’s poor credit score could result in losing a security clearance, and by extension being separated from the military.
- After credit reporting, debt collection was the next most complained about issue. Most servicemembers’ debt collection complaints alleged that the servicemember did not owe the debt or that the debt collector failed to respond to written requests for information. In particular, the report states that some debt collectors have inappropriately contacted servicemembers’ chains of command in an attempt to obtain payment.
- For mortgage debt, the largest category of complaints arose from challenges in the payment process—in particular issues related to loan modifications, collections, communicating with the servicemember’s “single point of contact,” escrow, and servicing transfers. These process-focused complaints were closely followed by overall difficulties in being able to afford mortgage payments.
- For credit cards, the greatest concentration of complaints were around problems with purchases on statements (i.e. fraudulent/unauthorized charges, billing frustrations, and difficulties in challenging charges directly with the credit card issuer). Notably, while the report acknowledges the October 2017 Military Lending Act compliance date for credit card issuers, it does not specifically break out MLA-related complaints; rather, the report notes that the Bureau has received “some complaints from servicemembers demonstrating confusion with respect to how and when creditors are applying the MLA’s protections to credit card accounts.”
- For auto lending, the leading category of complaints arose from managing the loan or lease, including application of payments and late fees. Unique to servicemembers, the report highlights that products like GAP can become void if a servicemember takes a car overseas (for example, to use while on deployment).
- For student lending, two-thirds of complaints arose from challenges in making payments and enrolling in payment plans, in particular issues with enrolling and recertifying eligibility for income-driven repayment.
- Finally, in the payday loan space, since 2016 servicemember complaints have decreased drastically and are now equal with non-servicemember complaints (as a percentage of total complaint volume); previously, servicemembers were almost twice as likely to complain about payday loan products.
On January 16, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, in consultation with the FHFA, issued additional temporary guidance on selling policies that may be impacted during the government shutdown.
Freddie Mac Bulletin 2019-3 provides revisions to temporary guidance previously announced in Bulletin 2019-1 (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), and notifies sellers of temporary changes to certain Guide requirements to further assist impacted borrowers. Due to the length of the shutdown, Freddie Mac has added a minimum reserves requirement in order to offset the risk associated with a borrower’s interruption of income. Sellers must document the greater of two months reserves or the minimum reserves as required by the Loan Product Advisory and the Guide, for impacted mortgages with application received dates of January 16, 2019 or after. In addition, Freddie Mac will allow flexibility in circumstances where a seller is unable to meet the 10-day pre-closing verification of income and employment requirements for impacted mortgages regardless of the application received date. Freddie Mac also directs sellers of government funded, guaranteed, or insured mortgages sold to Freddie Mac to review government agency requirements.
Fannie Mae Lender Letter LL-2019-2 also provides additional temporary guidance on selling policies that may be impacted during the continued shutdown, and builds upon guidance issued last December. (See LL-2018-06 covered by InfoBytes here.) The additional guidance imposes a minimum liquid financial reserves requirement to offset risk and is applicable to loans with application dates on or after January 16, 2019. The new reserves requirement does not apply to high LTV refinances. Finally, Fannie Mae will provide additional flexibility with regard to verbal verification of employment and paystub age requirements.
On January 17, the CFPB issued a statement from Bureau Director Kathy Kraninger announcing she has asked Congress to grant the Bureau “clear authority to supervise for compliance with the Military Lending Act (MLA).” The statement expresses Kraninger’s interest in protecting servicemembers and their families and notes the requested authority would complement the Bureau’s MLA enforcement work. The announcement acknowledges the recently introduced House legislation, H.R. 442, which would directly grant the Bureau supervisory authority over the MLA, and also includes suggested draft legislation the Bureau sent to both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate (here and here). The draft legislation would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act to include a section providing the Bureau “nonexclusive authority to require reports and conduct examinations on a periodic basis” for the purposes of (i) assessing compliance with the MLA; (ii) obtaining information about the compliance systems or procedures associated with the law; and (iii) detecting and assessing associated risks to consumers and to markets.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in August 2018, then acting Director Mick Mulvaney internally announced the Bureau would cease supervisory examinations of the MLA, contending the law did not explicitly grant the Bureau the authority to examine financial institutions for compliance. A bipartisan coalition of 33 state Attorneys General wrote to Mulvaney expressing concern over the decision and after her confirmation, a group of 23 House Democrats urged Kraninger to resume the examinations. (Covered by InfoBytes here and here.)
The Bureau’s request that Congress grant it authority to examine for compliance with the MLA suggests that it does not intend to do so unless Congress acts.
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Dynamic customer due diligence and beneficial ownership from KYC to ongoing CDD and the new rule implementation" at the Puerto Rican Symposium of Anti-Money Laundering
- Michelle L. Rogers to discuss "Preparing for servicing exams in the current regulatory environment" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Jon David D. Langlois to discuss "Regulatory risks of convenience fees" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- APPROVED Webcast: NMLS Annual Conference & Ombudsman Meeting: Review and recap
- Brandy A. Hood to discuss "Keeping your head above water in flood insurance compliance" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Melissa Klimkiewicz to discuss "Servicing super session" at the Mortgage Bankers Association National Mortgage Servicing Conference & Expo
- Jessica L. Pollet to discuss "Law & compliance speedsmarts" at the American Financial Services Association Law & Compliance Symposium
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Lessons learned from recent high profile enforcement actions" at the Florida International Bankers Association AML Compliance Conference
- Moorari K. Shah to provide "Regulatory update – California and beyond" at the National Equipment Finance Association Summit
- Sasha Leonhardt and John B. Williams to discuss "Privacy" at the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions Spring Regulatory Compliance School
- Aaron C. Mahler to discuss "Regulation B/fair lending" at the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions Spring Regulatory Compliance School
- Heidi M. Bauer to discuss "'So you want to form a joint venture' — Licensing strategies for successful JVs" at RESPRO26
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "Small business & regulation: How fair lending has evolved & where are we heading?" at CBA Live
- Jonice Gray Tucker to to discuss "DC policy: Everything but the kitchen sink" at CBA Live
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Lessons learned from ABLV and other major cases involving inadequate compliance oversight" at the ACAMS International AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "A year in the life of the CDD final rule: A first anniversary assessment" at the ACAMS International AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Moorari K. Shah to discuss "State regulatory and disclosures" at the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association Legal Forum
- Hank Asbill to discuss "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: Addressing prosecutions driven by hidden actors" at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers West Coast White Collar Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Keep off the grass: Mitigating the risks of banking marijuana-related businesses" at the ACAMS AML Risk Management Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Mid-year policy update" at the ACAMS AML Risk Management Conference
- Benjamin W. Hutten to discuss "Requirements for banking inherently high-risk relationships" at the Georgia Bankers Association BSA Experience Program