Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On March 21, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2013-02, which provides guidance to bank and nonbank indirect auto lenders about compliance with federal fair lending requirements, and specifically addresses the practice by which auto dealers “mark up” the indirect lender’s risk-based buy rate and receive compensation based on the increased interest revenues. The CFPB explains that indirect auto lenders are creditors under ECOA and Regulation B if they regularly participate in making credit decisions. Based on information the Bureau has collected to date, it believes the “standard practices” of indirect auto lenders constitute participation in a credit decision.
The CFPB contends that by permitting dealer markup and compensating dealers on that basis, lenders may be liable under the legal theories of both disparate treatment and disparate impact when pricing disparities on a prohibited basis exist within their portfolios. As such, the CFPB urges indirect lenders to (i) impose controls on, or otherwise revise, dealer markup and compensation policies, and monitor the effects of those policies and address unexplained pricing disparities on prohibited bases; or (ii) eliminate dealer discretion to mark up buy rates and compensate dealers in some other way.
The guidance also identifies what the CFPB considers to be core aspects of a robust fair lending compliance program, including: (i) an up-to-date fair lending policy statement; (ii) regular fair lending training for all employees involved with any aspect of the institution’s credit transactions, as well as all officers and board members; (iii) ongoing monitoring for compliance with fair lending and other policies and procedures intended to reduce fair lending risk; (iv) review of lending policies for potential fair lending violations, including potential disparate impact; (v) depending on the size and complexity of the financial institution, regular analysis of loan data in all product areas for potential disparities on a prohibited basis in pricing, underwriting, or other aspects of the credit transaction; (vi) regular assessment of the marketing of loan products; and (vii) meaningful oversight of fair lending compliance by management and, where appropriate, the institution’s board.
On March 20, 2013, Michael Bresnick, Executive Director of DOJ’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force gave a speech at the Exchequer Club of Washington, DC highlighting recent accomplishments of the Task Force and outlining its priorities for the coming year. He began by discussing a number of areas of known focus for the Task Force, including RMBS fraud, fair lending enforcement, and servicemember protection. He then outlined three additional areas of focus that the Task Force has prioritized, including (i) the “government’s ability to protect its interests and ensure that it does business only with ethical and responsible parties;” (ii) discrimination in indirect auto lending; and (iii) financial institutions’ role in fraud by their customers, which include third party payment processors and payday lenders.
The third priority, which was the focus of Mr. Bresnick’s remarks, involves the Consumer Protection Working Group’s prioritization of “the role of financial institutions in mass marketing fraud schemes -- including deceptive payday loans, false offers of debt relief, fraudulent health care discount cards, and phony government grants, among other things -- that cause billions of dollars in consumer losses and financially destroy some of our most vulnerable citizens.” He added that the Working Group also is investigating third-party payment processors, the businesses that process payments on behalf of the fraudulent merchant. Mr. Bresnick explained that “financial institutions and payment processors . . . are the so-called bottlenecks, or choke-points, in the fraud committed by so many merchants that victimize consumers and launder their illegal proceeds.” He said that “they provide the scammers with access to the national banking system and facilitate the movement of money from the victim of the fraud to the scam artist.” He further stated that “financial institutions through which these fraudulent proceeds flow . . . are not always blind to the fraud” and that the FFETF has “observed that some financial institutions actually have been complicit in these schemes, ignoring their BSA/AML obligations, and either know about -- or are willfully blind to -- the fraudulent proceeds flowing through their institutions.” Mr. Bresnick explained that “[i]f we can eliminate the mass-marketing fraudsters’ access to the U.S. financial system -- that is, if we can stop the scammers from accessing consumers’ bank accounts -- then we can protect the consumers and starve the scammers.”
Mr. Bresnick stated that the Task Force’s message to banks is this: “Maintaining robust BSA/AML policies and procedures is not merely optional or a polite suggestion. It is absolutely necessary, and required by law. Failure to do so can result in significant civil, or even criminal, penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, FIRREA, and other statutes.” He noted that banks should endeavor not only to know their customers, but also to know their customers’ customers: “Before they agree to do business with a third-party payment processor, banks should strive to learn more about the processors’ merchant-clients, including the names of the principals, the location of the business, and the products being sold, among other things.” They further should be aware of glaring red flags indicative of fraud, such as high return rates on the processor’s accounts: “High return rates trigger a duty by the bank and the third-party payment processor to inquire into the reasons for the high rate of returns, in particular whether the merchant is engaged in fraud.” (See BuckleySandler’s previous Spotlight on Anti-Money Laundering posts here, here and here.) Mr. Bresnick underscored this point by mentioning a recent complaint filed by the DOJ in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
With respect to the financial institutions’ relationships with the payday lending industry, Mr. Bresnick stated that “the Bank Secrecy Act required banks to have an effective compliance program to prevent illegal use of the banking system by the banks’ clients.” He explained that financial institutions “should consider whether originating debit transactions on behalf of Internet payday lenders – particularly where the loans may violate state laws – is consistent with their BSA obligations.” Although he acknowledged that it was not a simple task for a financial institution to determine whether the loans being processed through it are in violation of the state law where the borrower resides, he suggested “at a minimum, banks might consider determining the states where the payday lender makes loans, as well as what types of loans it offers, the APR of the loans, and whether it makes loans to consumers in violation of state, as well as federal, laws.”
In concluding, Mr. Bresnick said, “It comes down to this: When a bank allows its customers, and even its customers’ customers, access to the national banking system, it should endeavor to understand the true nature of the business that it will allow to access the payment system, and the risks posed to consumers and society regarding criminal or other unlawful conduct.”
The agenda outlined by Mr. Bresnick reinforces ongoing efforts by FinCEN and the FDIC, and adds to the priorities recently sketched out by CFPB and the OCC. Together they describe an ambitious, and increasingly aggressive, financial services enforcement agenda for federal regulators and enforcement authorities.
On March 20, the CFPB presented to Congress its annual report on implementation and enforcement of the FDCPA. The report (i) summarizes the Bureau’s Consumer Response function, which does not currently cover debt collection complaints, and the number and types of consumer complaints regarding debt collection received by the FTC in 2012, (ii) describes the CFPB’s debt collection supervision program, (iii) presents recent enforcement and advocacy program developments, (iv) discusses recent education and outreach, as well as research and policy initiatives, and (v) discusses coordination and cooperation between the CFPB and the FTC. Because the FTC and the CFPB share FDCPA implementation and enforcement responsibilities, the report incorporates a letter from the FTC regarding its FDCPA-related activities. The CFPB reported that the FTC continues to receive more complaints for the debt collection industry than for any other. The report also highlights (i) the debt collection aspects of a CFPB enforcement action against a credit card company, (ii) the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding court discretion to award costs to prevailing FDCPA defendant creditors, and (iii) FTC enforcement activities.
On March 19, the Senate Banking Committee approved Mary Jo White to serve as SEC Commissioner/Chair through June 2014, and Richard Cordray to serve a five-year term as CFPB Director. The vote on Ms. White was 20-1. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) was the lone dissenter, citing his general concern with nominees who previously worked for the industry they are intended to regulate. Mr. Cordray was approved on party lines, 12-10. In an opening statement Ranking Member Michael Crapo (R-ID) reiterated Republican opposition to any nominee until structural changes are made to the CFPB.
The Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLS) held its fifth annual NMLS User Conference and Training in San Antonio, Texas from February 26 through March 1, 2013. The Conference brought together state and federal mortgage regulators, industry professionals, compliance companies, top law firms, and education providers to learn about the latest developments in mortgage supervision and to discuss pressing issues confronting the industry.
The first day of the Conference included the bi-annual NMLS Ombudsman Meeting, which provided an opportunity for NMLS users to raise issues concerning the NMLS, state and/or federal regulation. NMLS Ombudsman Timothy Siwy, Deputy Secretary of Non-Depository Institutions with the Pennsylvania Department of Banking, presided over the meeting, in which specific questions submitted by industry representatives were addressed. Several of the submitted questions focused on the new Uniform State Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) Exam or Uniform State Test (the UST) of which 24 agencies have already adopted. Concerns were raised by the regulators as some state statutes require that a state’s specific laws be tested as a pre-requisite of MLO licensure. Others, such as regulators from California and Utah, had concerns that MLOs would not adequately learn state specific laws and regulations prior to licensure. In light of these concerns, industry representatives indicated that the UST is only the first step in licensure, and continuing education requirements, monitoring, and examinations would also serve as opportunities to ensure MLOs are well-versed in applicable state specific licensing laws and regulations.
Other areas of focus included NMLS’s expansion to include non-mortgage licenses, such as payday lender and pawn broker licenses. Some industry representatives voiced concern that approval of a license via the NMLS now carries with it an image of legitimacy with the public and expanding licensure to non-mortgage, less regulated industries could undermine that image. Regulators responded that the NMLS is a tracking mechanism—a way for regulators to track licensees state-to-state and industry-to-industry—not an independent licensing credential.
Full details regarding the specific issues submitted for comment, as well as accompanying exhibits, will be available on the NMLS Website, Ombudsman Page. A recording of the Ombudsman Meeting should be posted to the NMLS Resource Center in the near future.
The remaining days of the Conference covered various federal and state regulatory rule implementation, updates for industry, and a look ahead at new initiatives and changes to the NMLS (please refer to the NMLS Conference Agenda, which also includes copies of presentations). Specifically, various sessions covered the following topics, among others:
- The collaboration of the CFPB and state regulators to level the playing field between banks and non-banks with respect to enforcing regulations and conducting examinations. David Liken, the Deputy Director of Supervision and Enforcement with the CFPB, explained that Dodd Frank contemplated a partnership between state regulators and the CFPB, which includes information sharing and joint examinations. The CFPB plans to provide state regulators with training conducted by CFPB personnel at no cost to state regulators.
- The future of the NMLS which includes a goal to initiate three system releases/ enhancements per year. 2013-2014 will include launching an advance change notice function, electronic surety bond management, and a requirement for annual volume reports for non-mortgage entities.
- The state of financial supervision, in particular, concerns about industry diversity and cooperation between state and federal agencies to leverage their resources to address emerging issues and trends in the financial market.
- Regulation of debt collectors as the “larger participant” rule giving the CFPB supervisory authority over debt collectors was issued in October 2012 and took effect on January 2, 2013. The CFPB has started looking at collection practices of creditors when the creditor collects in its own name and through third party collectors.
In addition, the Conference covered major changes to the NMLS and also included a presentation from the CFPB summarizing the CFPB’s final rules:
- Advance Change Notification—The NMLS will launch its Advance Change Notice functionality that will allow licensees to provide notice electronically to NMLS participating states of proposed changes to the company and its branches, including, but not limited to: name changes, address changes, and change of control. The initial roll out of this functionality is slated for June 2013.
- Money Services Regulator Panel—A Money Services Regulator Panel, which included Stephanie Newberg, Deputy Commissioner of the Texas Department of Banking, and Deb Bortner of the Washington Department of Financial Institutions, discussed the benefits and challenges associated with the addition of money services licenses to the NMLS. The NMLS has provided money services business with a streamlined system to apply for licenses and keep regulators updated on license changes; however, licensees continue to struggle with certain aspects of the system (e.g., transmission of materials via the NMLS and confusion with completing certain control person and direct and indirect owner forms, given varying state interpretations).
- The New System of Dual Regulatory Supervision—A panel, which included Charlie Fields, Director, Non-Depository Entities Division, North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks, Calvin Hagins, Program Manager, Supervision, Fair Lending & Enforcement with the CFPB, and various industry representatives, discussed the coordinated efforts of state regulators and the CFPB to conduct licensee examinations. The panel focused on (1) examination selection criteria—i.e., how the Multi-State Examination Committee or CFPB may decide to examine an entity, (2) factors weighed by the Multi-State Examination Committee when deciding whether to join CFPB in an examination, (3) CFPB examination process—i.e., CFPB’s preference to collect date on-site while processing and analyzing data off-site, and (4) encouraging entities to engage in “self-regulation” and “self-review.”
- 2013 Mortgage Final Rules Overview—Kelly Thompson Chochran, Assistant Director for Regulations of the CFPB summarized several recently issued CFPB rules, which are expected to be implemented in the next year, including: the Ability-to-Repay / Qualified Mortgages Final Rule, the Mortgage Servicing Final Rule, and the Loan Originator Compensation, HOEPA, Escrows, and Appraisal Final Rule.
BuckleySandler recently issued detailed summaries of the CFPB rules.
For more information about NMLS, visit the NMLS Resource Center, About NMLS.
On March 14, the CFPB proposed a rule to allow it to supervise “larger participant” nonbank student loan servicers. The CFPB has authority to supervise, regardless of size, nonbanks that originate private education loans, and can define and supervise larger participants in other markets for consumer financial products or services. The CFPB proposes to supervise any nonbank student loan servicer whose volume exceeds one million accounts, which the CFPB expects will cover the seven largest servicers. The CFPB’s test to determine volume would consider the number of accounts serviced, whether for federal or private loans, for which an entity and its affiliated companies were responsible as of December 31 of the prior calendar year. After designation, a servicer would remain a larger participant until two years after the first day of the tax year in which the servicer last met the account volume test. The CFPB would use its existing student loan examination procedures to review larger participants’ “student loan servicing,” which the proposed rule defines as: (i) collecting and processing loan payments on behalf of holders of promissory notes, (ii) maintaining account records and communicating with borrowers on behalf of loan holders during deferment periods, and (iii) interacting with borrowers to facilitate collection and processing of loan payments. An entity notified that the CFPB intends to undertake supervisory activity would have an opportunity to challenge the larger participant determination. The CFPB is accepting comments on the proposal for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
On March 12, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced that it will seek, in consultation with the Department of Justice, U.S. Supreme Court review of the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision invalidating the appointment of certain NLRB members. On January 25, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that appointments to the NLRB made by President Obama in January 2012 during a purported Senate recess were unconstitutional. CFPB Director Richard Cordray was appointed in the same manner and on the same day as the NLRB members, and his appointment is the subject of a lawsuit currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The NLRB’s petition is due on April 25, 2013.
On March 12, the CFPB publicly introduced its four regional directors. Edwin Chow heads the West Region. He joined the CFPB in September 2010, bringing 26 years of experience with the Office of Thrift Supervision and its predecessor. The Midwest Region is led by Anthony Gibbs, who recently joined the CFPB after 19 years with a major bank. Steve Kaplan, a former Pennsylvania Secretary of Banking, leads the Northeast Region, and Jim Carley, previously at the division of banking regulation at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, heads the Southeast Region. The CFPB announced the directors as part of its push to hire more examiners for its field offices.
On March 12, the Senate Banking Committee held a confirmation hearing for Richard Cordray to serve as CFPB Director, and for Mary Jo White to serve as SEC Commissioner/Chairman. While majority and minority committee members commended Mr. Cordray for his leadership of the CFPB to date, the basic disagreement over the structure of the agency itself remains. Democrats maintain that Mr. Cordray deserves a confirmation vote, citing the facts that Congress already approved the structure of the CFPB, that it is the only financial regulator subject to a funding cap and whose rules are subject to a veto. Republicans argue that the CFPB lacks transparency and accountability, and that it should be changed to a commission structure and subject to congressional appropriations. In his testimony, Mr. Cordray stressed his efforts to be transparent and accountable, and Chairman Johnson (D-ND) entered into the record a letter from Rep. Stivers (R-OH) to the Committee calling on members to confirm Mr. Cordray as someone who could help bridge the gap on policy differences. Committee members also generally supported Ms. White. In her testimony, Ms. White addressed concerns from Senators on both sides about potential conflicts of interest given her recent work as a defense attorney, and stated her primary focus will be to finalize rules required by the Dodd-Frank Act and the JOBS Act. Additional priorities identified by committee members that Ms. White agreed should be agency priorities included finalizing rules for (i) credit rating agency conflicts of interest, (ii) money market funds, (iii) CEO pay versus median employee pay disclosures, (iv) high frequency trading, and (vi) crowd funding. Ms. White also pledged to vigorously enforce existing laws. The committee is scheduled to vote on both nominees on March 19, 2013.
On March 12, the CFPB published a preliminary list of rural and underserved counties for use in implementing certain new mortgage rules, including the rule on escrow account requirements for first-lien higher-priced mortgage loans (HPMLs). That rule created a new exemption for small creditors that operate predominantly in rural or underserved areas. Such a creditor is not required to establish an escrow account for taxes and insurance for an HPML if (i) during the preceding calendar year, it extended more than 50 percent of its total covered transactions on properties that are located in designated rural or underserved counties; (ii) the creditor and its affiliates together originated 500 or fewer covered transactions during the preceding calendar year; (iii) as of the end of the preceding calendar year, the creditor had total assets of less than $2 million; and (iv) the creditor and its affiliates do not maintain certain types of escrow accounts. The CFPB expects to finalize the list of counties, together with technical changes to the rule, before the escrow rule takes effect on June 1, 2013, and notes that some counties’ rural status may change for the 2014 list based on the 2010 Census. The list also impacts implementation of several other CFPB mortgage rules that take effect in January 2014, including the ability to repay/qualified mortgage rule, the HOEPA rule, and the appraisals for HPMLs rule. BuckleySandler has prepared detailed analyses of each of those rules.
- Daniel R. Alonso discussed "Transnational corruption: A chat with former U.S. federal prosecutors in New York" at Marval Live Talks
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk and Lauren Frank to discuss "New CFPB interpretation on UDAAP" at a California Mortgage Bankers Association Mortgage Quality and Compliance Committee webinar
- Daniel R. Alonso to moderate "Regional anti-corruption enforcement colloquium" at the Latin Lawyer GIR Interactive Anti-Corruption & Investigations
- APROVED Webcast: 20 for the ’20s: What the coming decade holds for MLO licensing
- Kathryn L. Ryan to discuss "NMLS mortgage call report – Where’s NMLS 2.0?" at the QuestSoft Lending Compliance Conference
- Thomas A. Sporkin to discuss "Managing internal investigations and advanced government defense" at the Securities Enforcement Forum
- H Joshua Kotin to discuss "Mortgage servicing in a recession: Early intervention, loss mitigation and more" at the NAFCU Virtual Regulatory Compliance Seminar
- Daniel R. Alonso to discuss "Independent monitoring in the United States" at the World Compliance Association Peru Chapter IV International Conference on Compliance and the Fight Against Corruption
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "The future of fair lending" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Michelle L. Rogers to discuss "Major litigation" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Kathryn L. Ryan to discuss "Pandemic fallout – Navigating practical operational challenges" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "Consumer financial services" at the Practising Law Institute Banking Law Institute