InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Cordray Discusses Youth Financial Education, CFPB Responsibilities
Recently, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered prepared remarks at the Financial Literacy and Education Commission Meeting in Washington, DC on May 24 and at the People and Places Conference in Arlington, VA on May 31.
Financial Literacy and Education Commission (Commission). Coordinated by the Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Security, the Commission presented results from the 2015 Programme for International Student Assessment study on financial education in the U.S. and how it compares to other countries. Cordray’s opening remarks stressed the-importance of providing financial resources and educational tools empowering young people and outlined efforts the CFPB has underway, such as the Youth Financial Education resource page, the online Money as You Grow tool, and other community outreach education programs.
People and Places Conference. A keynote speaker at the conference, Cordray outlined the three main components of the CFPB’s work: (i) supervision and enforcement; (ii) implementing common-sense rules; and (iii) hearing and addressing consumer complaints to help keep companies accountable. Regarding supervisory and enforcement actions, Cordray stated that the Bureau’s activities serve to help change institutions’ practices for the better by (i) providing consistent supervision; (ii) initiating public enforcement actions to serve as a deterrent to “bad behavior”; and (iii) upholding “laws that ban unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.” Cordray asserted that by setting expectations financial institutions must meet in their own compliance work, similar violations can be avoided. Cordray spoke next about the need to establish “common-sense rules of the road” in order to protect consumers. He used the mortgage industry as an example of how the Bureau responded to Congress’s directive for developing “much-needed reforms” by “implementing rules to govern underwriting, servicing, and loan originator compensation” and “temper[ed] these regulations for small creditors so as to ease regulatory burdens on community banks and credit unions.” Furthermore, Cordray stated the Bureau’s ability to receive and process consumer complaints is crucial to identifying, understanding, and prioritizing problems.
FTC Submits Annual Report on 2016 Enforcement Actions to CFPB
On June 1, the FTC announced that it submitted its 2016 Annual Financial Acts Enforcement Report to the CFPB. The report—requested by the Bureau for its use in preparing its 2016 Annual Report to Congress—covers the FTC’s enforcement activities related to compliance with Regulation Z (Truth in Lending Act or TILA), Regulation M (Consumer Leasing Act), and Regulation E (Electronic Funds Transfer Act or EFTA), as well as its initiatives to engage in research and consumer education.
According to the report, the FTC’s enforcement actions in 2016 concerning TILA involved automobile purchasing and financing, payday loans, and financing of consumer electronics. Regarding mortgage-related credit activity, the report highlights continued litigation in two cases involving mortgage assistance relief services involving “forensic audit scams.” Furthermore, the FTC continued its consumer and business education efforts on issues related to consumer credit transactions in the following areas: military lending, auto sales and financing, payday lending, marketplace lending, and consumer disclosures and testing.
Regarding the Consumer Leasing Act, the report noted the FTC had issued a final administrative consent order for deceptive advertising practices and failure to disclose key lease offer terms. The FTC also filed two federal court actions against automobile dealers. The FTC also engaged in research and policy development and educational activities in this area.
Concerning the EFTA, the FTC reported six new or ongoing cases, including four cases alleging violations in the context of “negative option” plans, in which a consumer agrees to “receive various goods or services from a company for a trial period at no charge or at a reduced price” but later incurs unauthorized recurring charges after the end of the trial period, in violation of the EFTA. The remaining two cases involved payday lending and consumer electronics financing. The FTC also engaged in rulemaking, research, policy development, and educational activities involving the EFTA.
Financial Services Associations Comment on CFPB’s HMDA Proposal
As previously covered in an InfoBytes Special Alert, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its proposal to amend the 2015 HMDA rule, which would incorporate changes primarily for the purpose of clarifying data collection and reporting requirements. The request, which closed for public comment on May 25, received 46 public comments from several banking and credit union industry associations.
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). On May 25, the MBA—a national association representing the real estate financial industry—submitted a comment letter outlining outstanding issues and calling upon the Bureau to provide clarifying and technical corrections to Regulation C, which implements HMDA. The MBA outlined the following points, among others, for consideration:
- delay the effective date of the Final Rule and amendments pending completion of key actions in the following areas: “HMDA data collection portals; publication and implementation of data quality edits; geocoder production release and integration specs; data privacy concerns; resubmission expectations; updated filing instructions guides; guidance on reporting and collection issues; impacts of the proposed amendments; uniform residential loan application; government monitoring information”;
- address recommendations pertaining to multifamily lending: (i) “multifamily loans should not be subject to HMDA reporting”; (ii) “purchases and assumptions of multifamily loans should be exempt from introductory rate period reporting”; (iii) “the CFPB should accept simplified reporting from smaller-volume HMDA reporters, particularly smaller-volume multifamily reporters”; and (iv) “further consideration and clarification of the multifamily definition is needed”; and
- a one-year delay would allow the CFPB to address privacy concerns that “might dictate that certain data not be disclosed publicly,” thereby giving the Bureau time to “reconsider whether the many data points required under Dodd-Frank . . . should be required.”
According to the CFPB’s request for comment, most of the amendments in the Final Rule are to go into effect January 1, 2018; however, the MBA noted that data collection must commence in 2017 for loan applications that may become reportable in 2018. Therefore, the MBA urged the Bureau to delay implementation for at least one year to allow sufficient time for data collection and reporting which would give the CFPB “time to provide much-needed information and materials, and to allow HMDA reporters more time to finalize and implement the changes effectively.”
American Bankers Association (ABA). Separately, on May 25, the ABA submitted a comment letter opining that many of the Bureau’s “technical corrections, clarifying amendments or minor changes” are “substantive in nature” and require a more comprehensive and formal process to “identify industry questions and proposed solutions.” Specifically, among other things, the ABA emphasized the following recommendations:
- the January 1, 2018 effective date of the Final Rule should be “suspended immediately” in order to “promote the orderly, coordinated, and thorough consideration and resolution of all the interrelated issues presented and to make sure that all of the privacy and security issues are adequately addressed”;
- the CFPB should consider updating, rather than discontinuing, its reference tool for lenders entitled A Guide to HMDA: Getting it Right;
- several categories require further clarification: loans in process or loans originated before but purchased after the rule’s effective date; multifamily dwellings; home improvement loans; temporary financing; the threshold for reporting; counteroffers; applicant or borrower’s reported income; the annual percentage rate; rate spreads and rate set dates; reporting when there are no closing disclosures; corrected disclosures; the unique loan identifier; the geocoding tool’s use; and information pertaining to ethnicity and race; and
- pending guidance on error resolution and software required for reporters should be finalized “as soon as possible,” and regulations on privacy and data security should be proposed “with the utmost speed.”
“Piecemeal corrections based on informal and anecdotal evidence only adds to regulatory burden, which adds costs to borrowers and reduces access to mortgage credit,” the ABA noted.
CFPB Seeks Public Comment on its Plans for Assessing the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule
On May 25, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plans for assessing the 2014 Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule’s effectiveness in meeting the purposes and objectives outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to assess each significant rule or order it adopts under Federal consumer financial laws. According to the request for comment, and a May 25 blog post on the CFPB’s website, the self-assessment will focus on objectives to ensure that: (i) consumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; (ii) consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; (iii) outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens; (iv) federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, without regard to the status of a person as a depository institution, in order to promote fair competition; and (v) markets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.
The Dodd-Frank Act established new standards for mortgage lending and created a class of “qualified mortgage” (QM) loans. The standards required lenders to assess consumers’ ability to repay (ATR). Dodd-Frank also provided for a class of QM loans that must not have “certain risky product features and are presumed to comply with the ATR requirement.”
The CFPB issued rules to make ATR and QM standards “clear and effective” in January 2013. As previously covered in a Special Alert, the rule and its amendments that took effect on January 10, 2014 provide a mechanism for curing point-and-fees overages on QM loans as well as more minor amendments to its mortgage origination and servicing rules.
CFPB Announces Plans to Directly Supervise Service Providers
As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the CFPB released its Spring 2017 Supervisory Highlights, which outlined its supervisory and oversight actions in areas such as mortgage servicing and student loan servicing. The Supervisory Highlights also announced the CFPB’s plans to develop and implement a program to directly monitor key service providers to institutions it supervises to “potentially reduce risks to consumers at their source.” Section 1002(26)(A) of Dodd-Frank defines a “service provider” as “any person that provides a material service to a covered person in connection with the offering or provision by such covered person of a consumer financial product or service, including a person that: (i) participates in designing, operating, or maintaining the consumer financial product or service; or (ii) processes transactions relating to the consumer financial product or service….” Sections 1024(e) and 1025(d) of Dodd-Frank authorize the CFPB to supervise service providers to banks or non-banks that are already supervised by the CFPB such as depository institutions having more than $10 billion in assets as well as the following: mortgage originators, brokers or servicers; payday lenders; private student lenders; and other providers of consumer financial products or services in areas such as auto finance, debt collection, student loan servicing, consumer reporting, and international money transfers.
The Bureau stated that its initial work involves conducting baseline reviews of some service providers to learn about their structure, operations, compliance systems, and compliance management systems. “In more targeted work, the CFPB is focusing on service providers that directly affect the mortgage origination and servicing markets,” the Bureau noted. The CFPB plans to shape future service provider supervisory activities based on what it learns through its findings.
CFPB Closes Public Comments on Remittance Transfer Rule; Industry Groups Submit Responses
As previously covered in InfoBytes, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plan for assessing the effectiveness of its May 2013 final rule governing consumer remittance transfers (Remittance Rule). The request, which closed for public comment on May 23, focused on, among other things: (i) “whether the market for remittances has evolved . . . in ways that promote access, efficiency, and limited market disruption”; and (ii) whether the Remittance Rule (and other CFPB regulatory activity) has “brought more information, transparency, and greater predictability of prices to the market.” The CFPB received over 35 public comments from a vast array of large and small credit unions, as well as some of the leading providers of money transfer by volume. The consensus among these institutions was that implementing and maintaining the Remittance Rule’s new disclosures, cancellation windows, and audits are costly and the benefits to consumers are negligible. Specifically, one commenter noted increased consumer confusion, increased consumer delays in receiving their funds, and some have discontinued offering money transfers altogether.
On May 23, the American Bankers Association (ABA) submitted a comment letter calling upon the Bureau to conduct an evidence-based assessment on whether the rule has preserved consumers’ access to remittance services. According to a survey conducted by the ABA of 75 member banks of varying asset sizes and cited in the comment letter, the rule—intended to “provide additional information to help consumers shop for remittances and establish error resolution procedures and protections”—has “restricted consumers’ access to remittances, increased fees for use of the service, and unnecessarily delayed remittance requests.” As explained in the letter, the ABA expressed concern about the rule, stating that there is “little evidence that the final rule has improved consumer decision-making or facilitated comparison shopping.” Furthermore, the ABA has asked the CFPB to examine the following issues: (i) whether consumers, including those in rural areas, have access to remittance transfer services; (ii) whether consumers are provided information about remittance services that inform rather than confuse; and (iii) whether regulation of remittances is not unnecessarily burdensome to the financial institutions that provide this service.
Separately, on May 23, The Clearing House, the Consumer Bankers Association, the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade, and the ABA (Associations), issued a joint letter urging the CFPB to examine the effects of the rule from the perspective of both consumer-senders of remittance transfers and the providers of those services. The Associations outlined recommendations for the CFPB including: (i) continuing to permit depository institutions to provide estimates of third-party fees and exchange rates rather than actual fees and rates in cases where obtaining exact data is not feasible; (ii) excluding from the rule high-value transfers in excess of a certain dollar amount as well as excluding from coverage transfers effectuated through reloadable prepaid cards; (iii) modifying disclosure requirements and cancellation and resend rights; and (iv) making changes to the rule’s error resolution provisions to hold the sender responsible for transaction costs resulting from sender error.Payday Lenders Argue Case for Operation Choke Point Injunction, Claim Regulator Activities Violate Their Rights to Due Process
On May 19, a group of payday lenders filed a brief with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia claiming a U.S. district court judge was wrong to deny their request for a preliminary injunction against regulator activities they claim violate their rights to due process. (See Advance America v. FDIC, et al, 2017 WL 2212168 (C.A.D.C.).) As previously discussed in InfoBytes, the lenders claim the DOJ’s “Operation Choke Point” initiative—designed to target fraud by investigating U.S. banks and the business they do with companies believed to be a higher risk for fraud and money laundering—is a threat to their survival. The lenders’ brief alleges that federal agencies, including the DOJ and the FDIC, began as early as June 2008 to expand the interpretation of “reputation risk.” According to the lenders, reputation risk originally referred to risk to a bank’s reputation that arose from its own actions; however, the regulators expanded that to apply to risks that could arise from activities of a bank’s customers, which meant “bank servicing businesses identified as ‘high risk’ would be required to incur significant additional regulatory compliance costs and face the risk of increased regulatory scrutiny.” This, the lenders assert, became a justification to pressure banks to sever their banking relationships with payday lenders.
Notably, the U.S. district court judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction and was not persuaded that the lenders would be able to prove that these regulatory actions caused banks to deny services the lenders needed to operate.
However, the lenders claim in their brief that they can show a violation of their procedural due process rights under three theories: “stigma-plus,” “reputation-plus,” and “broad preclusion.”
- The lenders describe the “stigma-plus” theory as requiring them to show they were stigmatized in connection with an “alteration of their background legal rights” without any due process protections. They believe they can prove this occurred because they were labeled as high-risk customers and denied access to the banking system with no legal protections.
- The “reputation-plus” theory would require a deprivation of banking services in connection with defamatory statements that harmed their reputation, the lenders claim. The lenders contend this can be proved because the “’stigmatizing charges certainly occurred in the course of the termination of the accounts, which is all that is required for a reputation-plus claim to succeed.” Each lender claims to have lost a relationship with at least one bank due to false regulator claims that the relationships could threaten the bank’s stability.
- The “broad preclusion” theory also applies, the lenders assert, because the regulators’ statements to banks have prevented them “pursuing their chosen line of business.”
Furthermore, the lenders take issue with the U.S. district court judge’s position that they are required to show they lost all access to banking services in order to show a due process violation. They also argue that a loss of their constitutional right to due process is a sufficient irreparable injury to justify a preliminary injunction.
OIG Recommends CFPB Improve Enforcement Data Security
On May 15, the Office of Inspector General for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued findings in a report entitled The CFPB Can Improve Its Practices to Safeguard the Office of Enforcement’s Confidential Investigative Information (the Report), stemming from an evaluation to determine whether the Bureau has effective controls to manage and safeguard access to Confidential Investigative Information (CII). The Report found that the Bureau’s practices could be improved. According to the findings, the Bureau’s Office of Enforcement (Office) allowed 113 unique users to have access to databases in which there was CII—which may include personally identifiable information—about companies that were subject to reviews by enforcement staff. Of those 113 users, 72 were still employed by the CFPB but did not have a need for access to that information, the report said.
Specifically, the OIG determined users continued to have access to at least one electronic application when it was no longer relevant to the performance of the users’ assigned duties. The OIG also cited instances of improper handling and safeguarding of sensitive information and inconsistent naming conventions for matters across its four electronic applications and two internal drives, which impeded the Office’s ability to verify, maintain, and terminate access to files. The OIG noted in the report that during its assessment the Office took several steps to correct these issues.
The OIG presented the following recommendations: (i) enhance practices for managing access rights to matter folders; (ii) improve the handling of printed sensitive information; and (iii)establish a standard naming convention for electronically stored information.
House Democrats Seek Full Review of Financial CHOICE Act by Appropriate Committees; Investor Group Claims Act Will Undercut Shareholder Rights
As previously covered in InfoBytes, on May 4 the House Financial Services Committee approved the revised Financial CHOICE Act of 2017, H.R. 10, in a party-line vote, 34-26. Earlier this month the Ranking Members of two House committees sent letters to their respective Chairmen, urging their committees to not waive their jurisdiction over H.R. 10 and allow their respective committees to debate and vote on the legislation given its wide ranging effects on the U.S. economy. Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-Va.) of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce stated in his letter that Democrats on the Education and the Workforce Committee “have expressed great concern over the attempts to weaken oversight and enforcement power of the [CFPB] and the important role it plays regarding the integrity of student loan finance services.” Ranking Member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) of the House Committee on the Judiciary urged the Chairman in his letter that “[i]t is particularly critical that our Committee examine and vote on this legislation given numerous provisions squarely within our Rule X jurisdiction that will prevent government agencies from protecting the rights of consumers and hold the financial marketplace more accountable.” As reported previously in InfoBytes, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) also called for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to assert jurisdiction over H.R. 10.
Additionally, on May 17, an advocacy group of institutional investors called upon the House of Representatives to oppose H.R. 10, saying the bill will undercut shareholder rights. The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) submitted a letter to all members of the House, urging them to oppose the bill. It was signed by CII and 53 institutional investors that collectively hold more than $4 trillion in assets, including representatives from the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association, and New York State Teachers’ Retirement System. The letter said the bill would rollback curbs on “abusive” executive pay practices, restrict shareholder rights in board elections, and raise the cost of proxy advisers. The letter also cautioned that the bill would impede the SEC’s oversight of financial markets by requiring “excessive cost-benefit analysis” and including “unwise limits on enforcement.”
Legislation Reintroduced to Make CFPB Spending Accountable to Congress
On May 19, Rep. Andy Barr, (R-Ky.) reintroduced legislation that would amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to make the CFPB’s budget subject to congressional appropriations. As set forth in a press release issued by Rep. Barr’s office, the Taking Account of Bureaucrats’ Spending Act (H.R. 1486), first introduced in March 2015 to the House and referred to the House Financial Services Committee, would give Congress power over what Rep. Burr terms an “unaccountable agency.” “I am reintroducing the TABS Act because the Bureau deserves the same scrutiny and the same checks and balances as any other federal agency,” said Rep. Barr. “Congressional oversight and accountability will ensure that the Bureau stays true to its mission of consumer protection, and avoids politically motivated overreaches, wasteful spending, and unnecessary regulations.” Currently, the CFPB is funded directly by the Federal Reserve. As previously covered in InfoBytes, House Republicans are also trying to overhaul existing financial regulations with the approval of the Financial CHOICE Act (H.R. 10) by the House Financial Services Committee, which would subject the Bureau to greater congressional oversight and tighter budgetary control.