InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal Prudential Regulators Issue Final Stress Test Guidance
On May 14, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued guidance on stress tests for banks with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. The final guidance provides, in a manner largely consistent with the proposed guidance, principles for banks to follow when conducting stress tests, including: (i) a stress testing framework, (ii) general stress testing principles, (iii) stress testing approaches and applications, (iv) the importance of stress testing in assessing the adequacy of capital and liquidity, and (v) the need for internal governance and controls over the stress testing framework. The regulators amended the final guidance to clarify certain issues raised during the comment period, including changes to (i) incorporate an additional principle for stress testing, (ii) clarify application of the guidance to U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, (iii) clarify the role of a bank’s liabilities and operational risk in conducting a stress test, (iv) explain that senior management should have the primary responsibility for stress testing implementation and technical design, and (v) clarify that a banking organization’s minimum annual review and assessment should ensure that stress testing coverage is comprehensive, tests are relevant and current, methodologies are sound, and results are properly considered. In a separate announcement, the banking regulators explicitly addressed concerns raised by community bankers by explaining that community banks are neither required nor expected to conduct the stress tests described above. However, the statement stresses that all banking organizations, regardless of size, should have the capacity to analyze the potential impact of adverse outcomes on their financial condition.
CFPB Outlines Potential Mortgage Loan Originator Compensation and Qualification Rules
On May 9, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) outlined in its outreach materials to small business representatives its proposals to implement the loan originator compensation provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). These proposals will amend the rules applicable to compensation in mortgage loan transactions, and they would also "help level the playing field" in connection with regulation of mortgage loan originators under the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act). The CFPB intends to finalize rules on these topics by January 21, 2013.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, restrictions were placed on the ability of creditors and consumers to compensate mortgage loan originators (which includes employee loan officers, mortgage brokerages, and employees of mortgage brokerages). This restriction is similar to the restrictions implemented by the Federal Reserve Board (Board), effective April 2011, that prohibit a creditor from compensating a loan originator based on the terms and conditions of the transaction.
The Dodd-Frank Act generally provides that loan originators may be compensated only by consumers, unless two conditions are met: (i) the loan originator must not receive any compensation directly from a consumer; and (ii) the consumer must not make an upfront payment of discount points, origination points, or fees, other than bona fide third-party fees that are not retained by the creditor, the loan originator, or either company's affiliates.
The CFPB has the authority to create exemptions to the second "points and fees" provision if it finds that an exemption is "in the interest of consumers and in the public interest." In its proposal, the CFPB states that it is considering using this exemption authority to permit consumer payment of upfront points and fees under certain circumstances, and the CFPB is further considering whether to propose particular conditions for payments to affiliates. The CFPB is considering a number of proposals that would carry out this restriction:
- No-Discount-Point Loan Option: Under the CFPB's proposal, the loan originator would be required to offer a no-discount-point transaction. Offering this option, according to the CFPB, would enable the homebuyer to better compare competing offers from different lenders.
- Interest-Rate Reductions When Consumers Pay Discount Points: The CFPB's proposal would mandate that any "discount point" be a "bona fide" discount point that actually reduces the interest rate by at least a minimum amount.
- Origination Charges Must Not Vary with the Size of the Loan: The CFPB proposes that mortgage brokerage firms and creditors would be allowed to charge only flat origination fees instead of fees that vary with the size of the loan. The CFPB proposes that upfront fees may be paid to affiliates, provided that these fees are likewise flat and so do not vary with the size of the loan (except for title insurance payments).
In connection with these proposals, the CFPB indicates that it may allow (i) certain payments and bonuses to loan originator based on profitability, (i) certain payments to mortgage brokerage employees when the consumer pays the brokerage, and (iii) certain types of pricing concessions to be covered by the loan originator's compensation. The CFPB's proposal also considers whether to permit certain types of "point banks," and whether to impose record-retention requirements on loan originators directly. Further, the CFPB is considering whether to "sunset" any potential partial exemption from the statute that it implements.
Significantly, the CFPB's proposal would restrict the ability of a lender to charge its own up-front origination fees, except for a fixed fee that does not vary based on loan size. Under the Board's rules, compensation to loan originators is restricted, but lenders may charge origination fees and discount points without restriction. This proposal, if implemented, would require lenders to make significant adjustments to their fee schedules. Further, the CFPB interprets the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments as imposing a ban on loan originator compensation that varies based on loan terms (except principal balance) even in transactions in which the consumer pays compensation directly.
Although the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to draft rules related to the anti-steering provisions of the loan originator compensation rules, the CFPB indicates that it will address those provisions at a later date.
In a second major aspect of the outline, the CFPB indicates its intention to carry out its authority under TILA to ensure that loan originators be "qualified." Currently, the SAFE Act imposes registration or licensing requirements on loan originators, but these requirements vary widely based on whether the loan originator is an employee of a depository institution or of a non-bank institution.
Under the CFPB's proposal, loan originators-regardless of employer-would be subject to certain qualifications:
- All loan originators would be subject to the same standards for character, fitness,
and financial responsibility;
- Loan originators would be subject to a criminal background check; and
- Loan originators would be required to undertake training commensurate with the size and mortgage lending activities of the employer. This training would be analogous to the continuing education requirement that applies to individuals who are subject to SAFE Act licensing.
As a result of these proposals, registered mortgage loan originators would be subject to some of the same requirements as licensed loan originators.
The CFPB proposal was created in connection with the CFPB's compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), which mandates that the CFPB convene a Small Business Review Panel anytime a proposed rule may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This panel meets with selected representatives of small businesses, and these representatives provide feedback to the panel on the potential economic impact of the proposal. In addition to the outline, the CFPB also issued a press release, a fact sheet, and a set of discussion questions for the panel.
CFPB Announces Director of Diversity Office, Outlines Planned Activities
On April 30, the CFPB announced that Stuart Ishimaru will lead its Office of Minority and Women Inclusion. A former Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner, Mr. Ishimaru will lead an office that plans to (i) develop standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of CFPB-regulated entities, (ii) provide advice on the impact of CFPB policies and regulations on minority and women-owned businesses, (iii) coordinate with the Director to create and implement solutions to civil rights violations, and (iv) develop and implement standards of equal employment for the CFPB. In announcing Mr. Ishimarus hiring, Director Cordray stated that the financial industry has not traditionally reflected all of its customers and the new office will work with banks and nonbanks to develop systems that encourage diversity.
CFPB Begins Study of Arbitration Clauses, Extends Comment Period for Overdraft Inquiry
On April 24, the CFPB released a request for information to inform its study of the use and impact of arbitration clauses in consumer financial services agreements. Through June 23, 2012, the CFPB is seeking information from the public regarding (i) the prevalence of use of these arbitration clauses, (ii) what claims consumers bring in arbitration against financial services companies, (iii) whether claims are brought by financial services companies against consumers in arbitration, and (iv) how consumers and companies are affected by actual arbitrations and outside of actual arbitrations. The study is required by the Dodd-Frank Act and must be completed before the CFPB can begin exercising its Dodd-Frank authority to conduct rulemakings regarding arbitration agreements. Therefore, at this time the CFPB is not seeking comments on whether and how the use of such agreements should be regulated.
The CFPB also this week extended through June 29, 2012, the comment period for its inquiry into overdraft programs and their costs, benefits, and risks to consumers.
Banking Regulators Clarify Volcker Rule Compliance Timeline, Senators Push for Final Rule
Recently, the Federal Reserve Board approved a statement clarifying that an entity covered by the Volcker Rule, section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, has until July 21, 2014 to comply unless the Board extends the conformance period. The clarified compliance date reflects the full two-year period provided by the statute for covered institutions to fully conform activities and investments. Generally, the Volcker Rule imposes certain prohibitions and requirements on banking entities and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board that engage in proprietary trading and have certain interests in, or relationships with, a hedge fund or private equity fund. The Federal Reserve Board and other federal banking regulators continue their efforts to adopt regulations implementing the statutory restrictions. In October 2011, the Federal Reserve Board sought comment on a proposed rulemaking, as did the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in January 2012, but no final rules have emerged. On April 26, 22 Senators sent a letter to the regulators urging that they adopt a strong clear rule this summer.
FDIC Approves Proposed Rule Regarding Enforcement of Subsidiary and Affiliate Contracts
On March 20, the FDIC approved for publication a proposed rule to implement new authorities granted by the Dodd-Frank Act that permit the FDIC, as receiver for a financial company whose failure would pose a significant risk to financial stability, to enforce certain contracts of subsidiaries and affiliates of the covered company. This proposed rule would include contracts that purport to terminate, accelerate, or provide for other remedies based on the insolvency, financial condition, or receivership of the covered company, so long as the FDIC complies with statutory requirements. The proposed rule would apply broadly to all contracts and make clear that the FDIC’s authority as receiver effectively preserves contractual relationships of subsidiaries and affiliates during the liquidation process.
SEC and CFTC Propose Rules Regarding Detecting Identity Theft
On February 28, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC, together with the SEC, the Commissions) jointly issued proposed rules that would require entities subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction to address identity theft in two ways: (i) financial institutions and creditors would be required to develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identify theft with either certain existing accounts or opening new accounts, and (ii) credit and debit card issuers subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction would be required to assess the validity of change-of-address notifications under certain circumstances. Section 1088 of the Dodd-Frank Act transferred authority over certain parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act from the Federal Trade Commission to the Commissions for entities they regulate. The Commissions’ proposed rules are substantially similar to rules adopted in 2007 by the FTC and other federal financial regulatory agencies that previously were required to adopt such rules. The proposed rules set out the four elements that regulated entities would be required to include in their identify theft prevention programs: (i) identify relevant red flags, (ii) detect the occurrence of red flags, (iii) respond appropriately to the detected red flags, and (iv) periodically update the program to reflect changes in risks to customers or to the safety and soundness of the financial institution or creditor from identity theft. The Commissions issued jointly proposed guidelines in an appendix to the proposed rules to assist regulated entities in formulating and maintaining a Program that would satisfy the proposed rule requirements. The Commissions are accepting comments on the proposal through May 7, 2012.
CFPB Proposes Rule to Define "Larger Participants" in the Consumer Debt Collection And Consumer Reporting Markets
On February 16, the CFPB released a proposed rule to define “larger participants” in the markets for consumer debt collection and consumer reporting, thereby beginning the process by which the CFPB will determine which such entities are subject to its supervision. In short, the proposal uses annual receipts as the metric for determining larger participants. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has authority to supervise, regardless of size, nonbanks that provide to consumers (i) origination, brokerage, or servicing of residential mortgage loans secured by real estate, and related mortgage loan modification or foreclosure relief services; (ii) private education loans; and (iii) payday loans. The CFPB also has the power to supervise “larger participants” in any other market for consumer financial products or services, and the Act grants the CFPB authority to define “larger participants.” In this first effort to define larger participants in specific markets, the CFPB proposes to supervise debt collectors with more than $10 million in annual receipts from debt collection activities, which would cover approximately 175 debt collection firms that collectively account for 63 percent of annual receipts from the debt collection market. Consumer reporting agencies with more than $7 million in annual receipts from consumer reporting activities also would be covered, capturing approximately seven percent of consumer reporting agencies, or about 30 firms, which the CFPB estimates account for approximately 94 percent of the annual receipts from consumer reporting. Stakeholders and the public can submit comments on the proposal through April 17, 2012. The CFPB plans to issue larger participant proposed rules for other markets. Final rules for all markets must be published by July 21, 2012.
CFPB Issues Draft Monthly Mortgage Statement, Outlines Future Mortgage Servicing Rules
On February 13, the CFPB released a draft model monthly mortgage statement designed to help implement Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the Truth in Lending Act that require such statements. The CFPB acknowledges that many financial institutions already provide monthly statements to borrowers. However, the Dodd-Frank Act requires specific information to be provided in regular statements, including (i) the principal amount, (ii) the current interest rate, (iii) the interest rate reset date, (iv) a description of late or prepayment fees, (v) housing counselor information, (vi) certain contact information, and (vii) other information prescribed by CFPB regulations. The CFPB has been testing the draft model statement with consumers and now is seeking broader public comment though its website. After this informal comment period ends, the CFPB will proceed to a formal rulemaking through which it will set the requirements for monthly statements and provide a model form for use in complying with the new rules. Institutions will have some flexibility to adjust the model. One day prior, CFPB Director Richard Cordray published an op-ed in which he outlined additional agency efforts regarding mortgage servicing, including future rules that would restrict the use of force-placed insurance and require additional disclosures relating to hybrid adjustable rate-mortgages.
FTC Submits Information Regarding 2011 Enforcement Actions and Planned 2012 Activities
On February 10, the FTC released a letter it recently submitted to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) that reviews the FTC’s efforts in 2011 to enforce certain consumer financial services laws. The information provided in the letter will be used by the FRB in its 2011 Annual Report to Congress. In addition to reviewing past activity, the letter also outlines the FTC’s plans to exercise new authorities provided by the Dodd-Frank Act, including new or enhanced authority with regard to payment cards, motor vehicles, and mortgage disclosures.