InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB resumes MLA exams
On June 16, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule explaining the reversal of its prior determination that it lacked the authority to examine supervised financial institutions for compliance with the Military Lending Act (MLA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2018, the Bureau discontinued MLA-related examination activities, contending the law does not explicitly prescribe the Bureau the authority to examine financial institutions for compliance with the MLA. In January 2019, the Bureau issued a statement from former Director Kathy Kraninger announcing that she had asked Congress to grant the agency “clear authority to supervise for compliance with the [MLA],” and in March 2019, Senate Democrats issued a letter urging the resumption of reviews for compliance with the MLA during routine lender examinations (covered by InfoBytes here and here).
The CFPB’s interpretive rule states that the Bureau has statutory authority to conduct MLA examinations “[b]ecause conduct that violates the MLA is associated with activities that are subject to TILA and the CFPA.” The Bureau also indicated it may “conduct examinations of very large banks and credit unions for purposes of detecting and assessing those ‘risks to consumers’ that are ‘associated’ with ‘activities subject to’ Federal consumer financial laws.” The interpretive rule states that the Bureau can use formal administrative adjudications, civil enforcement actions, and other authorities to enforce the MLA, which is “complemented by the Bureau’s use of the examination process to detect and assess risks to consumers arising from violations of the MLA.” The rule also points out that the Bureau “believes that the very harmful conduct that Congress sought to prevent in the MLA, which the Bureau has the authority to remedy through its other authorities (specifically enforcement action), sits within the core of this authority.” CFPB acting Director Dave Uejio further emphasizes in the Bureau’s press release that “[t]hrough our enforcement of the MLA, companies that harmed military borrowers have been ordered to pay millions of dollars in redress and civil penalties. To fulfill its purpose and protect military borrowers we must supervise financial institutions and hold them accountable for endangering consumers.” With the issuance of the interpretative rule, the Bureau will now resume MLA-related examination activities.
CFPB rolls back last year’s Covid-19 flexibilities
On March 31, the CFPB rescinded, effective April 1, the following policy statements, which provided temporary regulatory flexibility measures to help financial institutions work with consumers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic:
- A March 26, 2020, statement addressing the Bureau’s commitment to taking into account staffing and related resource challenges facing financial institutions related to supervision and enforcement activities.
- A March 26, 2020, statement postponing quarterly HMDA reporting requirements. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- A March 26, 2020, statement postponing annual data submission requirements related to credit card and prepaid accounts required under TILA, Regulation Z and Regulation E. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- An April 1, 2020, statement on credit reporting agencies and furnishers’ credit reporting obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Regulation V during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Bureau notes that the rescission “leaves intact the section entitled “Furnishing Consumer Information Impacted by COVID-19” which articulates the CFPB’s support for furnishers’ voluntary efforts to provide payment relief and that the CFPB does not intend to cite in examinations or take enforcement actions against those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies that accurately reflect the payment relief measures they are employing.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- An April 27, 2020, statement affirming that the Bureau would not take supervisory or enforcement action against land developers subject to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act and Regulation J for delays in filing financial statements and annual reports of activity. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- A May 13, 2020, statement providing supervision and enforcement flexibility for creditors to resolve billing errors during the pandemic. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- A June 3, 2020, statement providing temporary flexibility for credit card issuers regarding electronic provision of certain disclosures during the Covid-19 pandemic in accordance with the E-Sign Act and Regulation Z. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
The rescission also withdraws the Bureau as a signatory to the April 7, 2020, Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (covered by InfoBytes here), and the April 14, 2020, Interagency Statement on Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Related Financial Transactions Affected by the Coronavirus (covered by InfoBytes here).
Additionally, the Bureau issued Bulletin 2021-01 announcing changes to how it communicates supervisory expectations to institutions. Bulletin 2021-01 replaces Bulletin 2018-01 (covered by InfoBytes here), which previously created two categories of findings conveying supervisory expectations: Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs) and Supervisory Recommendations (SRs). Under the revised Bulletin, the Bureau notes that examiners “will continue to rely on [MRAs] to convey supervisory expectations” but will no longer issue formal written SRs, as the agency believes that MRAs will more effectively convey its supervisory expectations. The Bulletin further states that “Bureau examiners may issue MRAs with or without a related supervisory finding that a supervised entity has violated a Federal consumer financial law.”
Fed formalizes stance on supervisory guidance
On March 31, the Federal Reserve Board issued a final rule codifying the Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement). As previously covered by InfoBytes, an October 2018 joint proposal amended the 2018 Statement by (i) clarifying that references in the 2018 Statement limiting agency “criticisms” includes criticizing institutions “through the issuance of [matters requiring attention] and other supervisory criticisms, including those communicated through matters requiring board attention, documents of resolution, and supervisory recommendations”; and (ii) adding that supervisory criticisms should be “specific as to practices, operations, financial conditions, or other matters that could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness of the financial institution, could cause consumer harm, or could cause violations of laws, regulations, final agency orders, or other legally enforceable conditions.” The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and mirrors final rules issued by the CFPB, OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.
FDIC issues 2021 Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights
On March 31, the FDIC released the spring 2021 edition of the Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights, intended to provide information and observations related to the FDIC’s consumer compliance supervision of state non-member banks and thrifts in 2020. Topics include:
- A summary of the FDIC’s supervisory approach in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, including efforts made by banks to meet the needs of consumers and communities;
- An overview of the most frequently cited violations (approximately 74 percent of total violations involved TILA, Truth in Savings Act, Flood Disaster Protection Act, EFTA, and RESPA), as well as other consumer compliance examination observations related to RESPA, TRID, and fair lending;
- Information on regulatory developments, such as Community Reinvestment Act and flood insurance rulemaking and small-dollar loan programs;
- A summary of consumer compliance resources available to financial institutions; and
- Examples of practices that may be useful to institutions in mitigating risks.
Fed issues LIBOR transition examination guidance
On March 9, the Federal Reserve Board issued supervisory letter SR 21-7 as a follow-up to a November 2020 interagency statement issued by the Fed, FDIC, and OCC that encouraged supervised institutions to cease entering into new contracts that use LIBOR as a reference rate as soon as practicable, but by December 31, 2021 at the latest. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) However, the Fed’s SR 21-7 letter notes that the “extension of certain LIBOR tenors until June 30, 2023, will allow some existing LIBOR exposures to mature naturally.” SR 21-7 provides supervisory guidance for examiners to consider when assessing an institution’s plan to transition away from LIBOR, including the following six key aspects of a firm’s transition efforts: “(1) transition planning; (2) financial exposure measurement and risk assessment; (3) operational preparedness and controls; (4) legal contract preparedness; (5) communication; and (6) oversight.” SR 21-7 also includes specific guidance for assessing LIBOR transition efforts at institutions with less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets (which the Fed assumes “generally have less material and less complex LIBOR exposures”), as well as institutions with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on LIBOR here.
OCC updates SCRA Comptroller’s Handbook booklet
On March 4, the OCC issued Bulletin 2021-11 announcing the revision of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. The booklet rescinds the 2011 version and provides background information and examination procedures on consumer protections afforded servicemembers under the SCRA. Among other things, the revised booklet (i) summarizes SCRA protections and requirements; (ii) discusses compliance, operational, strategic, and reputation risks associated with a bank’s SCRA activities; (iii) discusses risk management practices for effective SCRA compliance; and (iv) includes procedures for examining banks’ compliance with the SCRA.
FDIC updates Consumer Compliance Examination Manual
On March 2, the FDIC announced updates to its Consumer Compliance Examination Manual (CEM). The CEM includes supervisory policies and examination procedures for FDIC examination staff evaluating financial institutions’ compliance with federal consumer protection laws and regulations. The recent updates include, among other things, changes to the sections and questions related to (i) fair lending laws and regulations and the Fair Lending Scope and Conclusions Memorandum; (ii) TILA and the Consumer Leasing Act; and (iii) the asset-based definitions for small, intermediate, and large institutions for the Community Reinvestment Act.
FDIC releases fair lending videos
On February 23, the FDIC released nine technical assistance videos on fair lending compliance. The videos provide FDIC-supervised institutions with a high-level overview on ways to assess and mitigate fair lending risk and understand how examiners evaluate fair lending compliance. Information provided in the videos includes: (i) an overview of federal fair lending laws and regulations for bank directors and senior managers; (ii) ways a bank’s compliance management system can mitigate fair lending risk; (iii) a discussion on how FDIC examiners evaluate fair lending risk during consumer compliance examinations; and (iv) commentary on the following specific fair lending risk factors, one each for overt discrimination, underwriting, pricing, steering, redlining, and marketing.
California Department of Real Estate reissues FAQs regarding licensing process
On February 10, the California Department of Real Estate reissued FAQs regarding licensing and examination processes of the department during Covid-19. The FAQs respond to questions regarding, among other things, capacity limitations at exam centers, how to reschedule a cancelled exam, the best way to complete a renewal of an expiring real estate license, completing continuing education requirements, how the shelter in place orders affect the fingerprinting process, and whether the DRE will accept electronic signatures on licensing documents.
CFPB finalizes rule stating supervisory guidance lacks force of law
On January 19, the CFPB issued a final rule codifying the Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the CFPB, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and the NCUA on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the October 2018 joint proposal amended the 2018 Statement by (i) clarifying that references in the Statement limiting agency “criticisms” includes criticizing institutions “through the issuance of [matters requiring attention] MRAs and other supervisory criticisms, including those communicated through matters requiring board attention, documents of resolution, and supervisory recommendations”; and (ii) adding that supervisory criticisms should be “specific as to practices, operations, financial conditions, or other matters that could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness of the financial institution, could cause consumer harm, or could cause violations of laws, regulations, final agency orders, or other legally enforceable conditions.”
The Bureau notes that it chose to issue a final rule that is specific to the Bureau and Bureau-supervised institutions, rather than a joint version including the five agencies as it did with the proposal. However, the final rule adopts the proposed rule without substantive change. The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Similar announcements were issued by the OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.