InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC sanctions Russian military technology procurement network
On October 19, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 14024 against a Russian military technology procurement network for allegedly procuring military and sensitive dual-use technologies from U.S. manufacturers and supplying them to Russian end-users. The individual and his two companies are designated as part of a joint action with the DOJ and FBI and highlights the U.S. government’s on-going “efforts to hinder Russia’s ability to wage its war of aggression in Ukraine, including by holding accountable those who support Russia’s military by disrupting its illicit defense and technology procurement networks around the world.” The action builds upon an October 14 alert issued by OFAC and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security and the Department of State, which details the impact of international sanctions and export controls (covered by InfoBytes here). The alert followed the convergence of top officials representing ministries of finance and other government agencies from 33 countries who met to discuss the effects of international sanctions and export controls on Russia’s military-industrial complex and critical defense supply chains.
As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Further, “any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more in the aggregate by one or more of such persons are also blocked.” U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any dealings involving the property or interests in property of blocked or designated persons, unless exempt or authorized by a general or specific OFAC license.
The same day, the DOJ (with the support of the Department’s Task Force KleptoCapture) unsealed indictments against nearly a dozen individuals and several entities, including the sanctioned Russian national and his two companies, accused of scheming to export military technologies to Russia.
FDIC proposes amendments to its guide on supervisory appeals process
On October 18, the FDIC Board of Directors announced it is soliciting further public comments on proposed amendments to its Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations. The notice follows an action taken by the Board earlier in May, which restored the Supervision Appeals Review Committee (SARC) as the final level of review in the agency’s supervisory appeals process (covered by InfoBytes here). While the revised guidelines took effect immediately, the FDIC solicited comments on the changes. In response to comments received, the proposed amendments would add the agency’s ombudsman to the SARC as a non-voting member, and the ombudsman would be responsible for monitoring the supervision process after a financial institution submits an appeal. The proposed amendments would also require that materials considered by the SARC be shared with both parties to the appeal (subject to applicable legal limitations on disclosure), and allow financial institutions to request a stay of material supervisory determination while an appeal is pending. Additionally, the division director would be given the discretion to grant a stay or grant a stay subject to certain conditions. Comments on the proposed amendments are due within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.
FDIC raises deposit insurance assessment rates
On October 18, the FDIC Board of Directors approved the adoption of a final rule to increase the initial base deposit insurance assessment rate schedules uniformly by two basis points beginning with the first quarterly assessment period of 2023. (See also FDIC fact sheet here.) The FDIC said that after considering comments and updated analysis and projections, the increase in assessment rates was adopted without change from when it was proposed in June (covered by InfoBytes here). The FDIC emphasized that the increased assessment revenue is intended to increase the likelihood that the reserve ratio of the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) reaches the statutory minimum of 1.35 percent by the mandated deadline of September 30, 2028, while also reducing the likelihood that the FDIC would need to consider a potentially pro-cyclical assessment rate increase where it raises assessments when banking and economic conditions may be less favorable. This increase “is projected to have an insignificant effect on institutions’ capital levels, is estimated to reduce income slightly by annual average of 1.2 percent, and should not impact lending or credit availability in any meaningful way,” the FDIC said. Concurrently, the FDIC maintained the Designated Reserve Ratio for the DIF at two percent for 2023.
Acting Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg stressed that it “is better to take prudent but modest action earlier in the statutory 8-year period to reach the minimum reserve ratio, than to delay and potentially have to consider a pro-cyclical assessment increase.” CFPB Director and FDIC Board Member Rohit Chopra also chimed in, saying that while he voted in favor of finalizing the deposit insurance rate increase, there are a number of changes that must be made over the long term to deposit insurance assessment policies. These include (i) finding ways for banks that pose the most risk to the DIF “to pay more, relative to smaller institutions where the likelihood of large losses to the Fund are tiny”; (ii) building a framework to ensure assessment rate changes are countercyclical where premiums are adjusted “upward and downward based on economic conditions, recent industry profits, and other appropriate indicators”; and (iii) developing “a framework that relies less on ad-hoc adjustments and more on a systematized formula” based on specific quantitative factors.
FDIC issues final rule on troubled debt restructuring accounting standards
On October 18, the FDIC published a final rule in the Federal Register to incorporate updated accounting standards in the risk-based deposit insurance assessment system applicable to all large and highly complex insured depository institutions. According to the FDIC, the final rule adds a new term, “modifications to borrowers experiencing financial difficulty,” to two financial measures—the underperforming assets ratio and the higher-risk assets ratio—that are used to determine deposit insurance assessments for large and highly complex insured depository institutions.
FTC takes action against auto dealer over deceptive advertising and pricing practices
On October 18, the FTC announced an action against an auto dealer group and two of its officers (the owner/president and the vice president) for engaging in deceptive advertising and pricing practices and discriminatory and unfair financing. According to the complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceptively advertising cars as “certified,” “inspected,” or “reconditioned” at specific prices, but then charged customers fees above the advertised price for costs related to “inspection,” “reconditioning,” or “certification.” The FTC also alleged that the defendants “unlawfully discriminate[d] on the basis of race, color, and national origin by imposing higher borrowing costs on Black and Latino consumers than non-Latino White consumers,” in violation of ECOA. Specifically, the FTC claimed that the defendants charged a higher markup to the interest rate for Black and Latino consumers than to non-Latino White consumers. Black and Latino consumers paid on average about $291 and $235, respectively, more in interest than non-Latino White consumers did. The FTC also alleged that Black and Latino consumers paid on average at least one extra fee 24 percent and 42 percent more often, respectively, than non-Latino White consumers. In addition to alleging that this conduct violated ECOA, the FTC also alleged that this discriminatory practice was an unfair act or practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. According to the order, the defendants are required to establish a fair lending program to ensure they do not discriminate in the future, including a provision that will require each associated dealership to either charge no financing markup or charge the same markup rate to all consumers, and must pay the FTC $3.38 million to refund harmed consumers. Among other things, the defendants are also prohibited from misrepresenting the cost or terms to buy, lease, or finance a car, or whether a fee or charge is optional. Two of the commissioners issued dissenting statements (see here and here), challenging the fair lending claims being brought under Section 5 of the FTC Act and the imposition of liability against the individual officers.
CFPB sues payment processor over junk fees and dark patterns
On October 18, the CFPB filed a complaint against a Texas-based payment processing service platform (primarily related to collecting and processing event fees) for allegedly violating the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) and the EFTA by engaging in deceptive and abusive acts and practices. The Bureau alleged that the defendant enrolled consumers in, and charged them, for discount club memberships without their consent that were largely unrelated to the event the consumers were signing up for. The complaint noted that although the defendant’s memberships had a 30-day free “negative option trial membership,” the memberships automatically begin charging the membership fees at the end of the trial period. The Bureau also alleged that the defendant deployed dark patterns, which “are hidden tricks or trapdoors that companies build into their websites to get consumers to inadvertently click links, sign up for subscriptions, or purchase products or services.” The Bureau further alleged that the defendant violated the EFTA and Regulation E by increasing consumers’ membership fees without sending the consumer written notice of the new amount and the date of the new payment at least 10 days before initiating the new payment, which also constitute violations of the CFPA. The Bureau is seeking permanent injunctive relief, damages, restitution, disgorgement, civil money penalties, and other relief.
According to a statement by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, the Bureau is “closely watching whether financial services firms are deploying digital dark patterns,” and is “looking at a range of ways to reduce unwanted junk fees.” He also added that the Bureau is “working to ensure our payments system is working safely and fairly” and that it “will continue to look at how payment platforms extract data and fees from their users.”
FTC reports on actions to protect seniors
On October 18, the FTC issued a report titled Protecting Older Consumers, 2021-2022, A Report of the Federal Trade Commission on measures taken to protect older adults from scams. Using data from the FTC’s Consumer Sentinel Network, which is a secure online database that provides law enforcement agencies with access to reports from consumers about fraud and other consumer problems, the report generally found that older adults reported significantly higher losses to investment, business impersonation, and government impersonation scams in 2021 as compared to 2020. Among other things, the report noted that: (i) the FTC sent thirty-one cease and desist demand letters regarding potentially false or deceptive advertising or marketing actions related to the Covid-19 pandemic; (ii) FTC enforcement actions have resulted in relief of more than $462 million to consumers of all ages in the last fiscal year; and (iii) scams where older adults were contacted on social media are increasing. In addition to describing three rulemakings that focused on key actions that the FTC has taken to protect older consumers, the report mentioned enforcement actions impacting older consumers. The report also provided details about the FTC’s outreach and education efforts through such programs as the Pass it On campaign, which focuses on providing fraud prevention resources to older adults so they can help protect their communities by sharing information and materials with family and friends.
Fed governor “highly skeptical” of U.S. CBDC
On October 14, Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller spoke during the “Digital Currencies and National Security Tradeoffs” symposium presented by the Harvard National Security Journal regarding the U.S. dollar and central bank digital currencies (CBDC). Waller said that he is “highly skeptical of whether there is a compelling need for the Fed to create a digital currency.” Regarding foreign CBDCs, Waller first considered the emergence of foreign CBDCs in a world without the U.S. CBDC. He noted that “advocates for a CBDC tend to promote the potential for a CBDC to reduce payment frictions by lowering transaction costs, enabling faster settlement speeds, and providing a better user experience.” Because of “the well-known network effects in payments,” Waller pointed out that “the more users the foreign CBDC acquires, the greater will be the pressure on the non-U.S. company to also use the foreign CBDC.”
However, Waller considered that the broader factors underpinning the dollar’s international role would not change. Waller further noted the possibility that a foreign-issued CBDC could have the opposite of its intended effect and make companies even less willing to use that country’s currency. Waller further noted that creating a U.S. CBDC “would come with a number of costs and risks, including cyber risk and the threat of disintermediating commercial banks, both of which could harm, rather than help, the U.S. dollar's standing internationally.” He said he believes that a U.S. CBDC would raise many issues, including money laundering and international financial stability. Waller also considered a scenario in which a privately issued stablecoin pegged to a sovereign currency is available for international payments. He stated that they may be more attractive than existing options due to their ability to provide real-time payments at a lower cost and their ability to provide a safe store of value for individuals residing in or transacting with countries with weak economic fundamentals. He further warned that stablecoins “must be risk-managed and subject to a robust supervisory and regulatory framework.” Waller reiterated that "no decisions have been made" at the Fed on CBDCs and noted that his remarks are intended to provide a free and open dialogue on their utility. He also noted that he is “happy to engage in vigorous debate regarding my view,” and “remain[s] open to the arguments advanced by others in this space.”
Freddie to consider bank account data in automated underwriting
On October 17, Freddie Mac announced that beginning November 6, borrowers’ bank account data will be included as part of its loan purchase eligibility assessments. This “industry-first capability” will be made available to lenders and brokers through Freddie’s automated Loan Product Advisor (LPA) underwriting system. “With the addition of positive monthly cash flow data, our underwriting system can help with more accurately predicting a borrower’s ability to pay their mortgage because it uses a comprehensive view of how personal finances are managed over time,” Freddie said in its announcement. “Our latest innovation levels the playing field and helps make homes more accessible to borrowers whose lenders might not have qualified them with traditional methods of underwriting. This should particularly help first-time homebuyers and underserved communities.”
Lenders and brokers must obtain borrowers’ permission in order to submit financial data showing 12 or more months of cash flow activity. Data may be obtained from checking, savings, and investment accounts, including those used for direct deposit of income and monthly bill payments, such as rent, utilities, and auto loans, Freddie said, stressing that “account data submitted can only positively affect the borrower’s credit risk assessment.” Lenders and brokers will also be able to obtain financial account data from designated third-party service providers through LPA’s asset and income modeler—the same automated process used to verify assets, income, employment, and on-time rent payments, Freddie explained. Additionally, LPA will advise lenders when a borrower may benefit from the submission of additional account data.
The announcement follows Freddie’s decision to start considering on-time rent payments as part of its loan purchase decisions to increase homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
VA seeks comments on loss-mitigation options for guaranteed loans
On October 17, the Department of Veterans Affairs published a proposed rule in the Federal Register related to the Department’s Loan Guaranty Service. The proposed rule requests public comments regarding the expansion of the VA’s incentivized loss mitigation options that are available to servicers assisting veterans whose VA-guaranteed loans are in default. Specifically, the VA encourages comments regarding “any other topic that will help VA as it explores whether to expand the incentivized loss-mitigation options outlined in VA regulation.” Comments are due by January 17.