InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Following Hearing, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Formally Introduces Financial CHOICE Act of 2017
On April 26, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing to discuss The Financial CHOICE Act – a GOP proposal to “reform the financial regulatory system” that was initially introduced and considered, though differing in a number of respects from the current version, but not adopted in the last Congress. The hearing debated the merits of a discussion draft, which was released on April 19 by Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX). Shortly after Wednesday’s hearing, Chairman Hensarling formally introduced H.R. 10, The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017. An Executive Summary of the proposed legislation has also been released.
The April 26 hearing – a video of which can be accessed here – included testimony from the following witnesses:
- Mr. Peter J. Wallison, a Senior Fellow and Arthur F. Burn Fellow, Financial Policy Studies with the American Enterprise Institute
- Dr. Norbert J. Michel, a Senior Research Fellow, Financial Regulations and Monetary Policy, with the Heritage Foundation
- The Honorable Michael S. Barr, a Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School
- Mr. Alex J. Pollock, a Distinguished Senior Fellow with the R Street Institute
- Dr. Lisa D. Cook, an Associate Professor of Economics and International Relations at Michigan State University
- Ms. Hester Peirce, a Director in the Financial Markets Working Group and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University
- Mr. John Allison, Former President and Chief Executive Officer with the Cato Institute
On April 28, Democrats held a separate hearing pursuant to Clause (d)(5) of Rule 3 of the Committee rules, which entitles members of the minority party to call its own hearing on any matter that is the subject of a majority hearing. The second hearing day – a video of which can be accessed here – included testimony from the following witnesses:
- The Honorable Elizabeth Warren, United States Senator
- Rohit Chopra, Senior Fellow, Consumer Federation of America
- Corey Klemmer, Corporate Research Analyst, Office of Investment, AFL-CIO
- Rev. Willie Gable, Pastor, National Baptist Convention USA, Inc.
- John C. Coffee Jr., Adolf A. Berle Professor of Law, Columbia University
- Rob Randhava, Senior Counsel, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
- Melanie Lubin, Maryland Securities Commissioner, North American Securities Administrators Association
- Emily Liner, Senior Policy Advisor, Economic Program, Third Way
- Amanda Jackson, Organizing and Outreach Manager, Americans for Financial Reform
- Ken Bertsch, Executive Director, Council of Institutional Investors
- Sarah Edelman, Director, Housing Policy, Center for American Progress (CAP)
Ranking Minority Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) also used the hearing to express her strong disapproval of what she has dubbed the “Wrong Choice Act.” Among other things, the ranking member alleged that the proposed legislation would “destroy[] Wall Street reform, gut[] the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and returns us to the financial system that allowed risky and predatory Wall Street practices and products to crash our economy.”
CFPB Sues Online Lenders Following Investigation into Debt Collection Practices
On April 27, the CFPB announced that it filed a suit against four online installment lenders for allegedly deceiving customers by collecting debts that were not legally owed. In a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the Bureau claims, among other things, that the lenders engaged in unfair, abusive, and deceptive acts—a violation of Dodd-Frank—by collecting on installment loans that are partially or wholly void under state law. The Bureau further claims that lenders violated the TILA for failing to disclose the annual percentage rate for their loans when they were required to do so. The complaint alleges that the lenders originated, serviced, and collected high-cost, small-dollar installment loans. Since at least 2012, consumers could borrow between $300 and $1,200 with annual percentage rates from 440 percent up to 950 percent. These high-cost loans allegedly violate licensing requirements or usury limits in a least 17 states—thus rendering the loans void in whole or in part. The CFPB asserts that the lenders not only misrepresented that consumers were obligated to pay debts that were void, but also reinforced the misrepresentations through actions such as sending letters, making phone calls demanding payment, and originating ACH debit entries from consumers’ bank accounts.The complaint seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the lenders from committing future violations of federal consumer financial law, as well as other legal and equitable relief including restitution to affected consumers, disgorgement of ill-gotten revenue, and civil money penalties.
Rep. Luetkemeyer Introduces CLEARR Act to Provide Regulatory Relief to Community Banks
On April 26, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) introduced the Community Lending Enhancement and Regulatory Relief Act of 2017 (CLEARR Act) (H.R. 2133) designed to provide community financial institutions with regulatory relief from certain burdensome federal requirements. Among other things, the CLEARR Act would limit the authority of the CFPB by raising the asset size threshold for CFPB supervision from $10 billion to $50 billion and amend Section 1031 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 by removing the term “abusive” from the CFPB’s “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” acts or practices authority. The CLEARR Act would also provide relief in the mortgage lending area by exempting community banks from certain escrow requirements and amend the Truth in Lending Act by adding a safe harbor for qualified mortgage loans held in portfolio. Moreover, the CLEARR Act would repeal all regulations issued to implement the Basel III and NCUA capital requirements. It would also repeal the Dodd-Frank Act provision amending the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require collection of small business and minority-owned business loan data, as well as prohibit federal banking agencies from requiring depository institutions to terminate a specific account or group of accounts unless the agency has a material reason not based solely on reputational risk.
Rep. Luetkemeyer—who is a senior member on the House Financial Services Committee and the Chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee—also issued a statement after President Trump called for the Treasury Secretary to conduct reviews of the Orderly Liquidation Authority and Financial Stability Oversight Council: “As a former bank examiner, community banker, and Chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, I have long advocated for eliminating the OLA, because it puts taxpayers on the hook for bailouts, instead of putting private companies on the hook for bankruptcy. For years, I have also introduced legislation to change FSOC’s arbitrary designation processes, which lead to higher costs, fewer services, and less available credit for American consumers. The American people deserve financial independence and I look forward to working with President Trump and my colleagues to help them achieve it.”
CFPB to Discuss Small Business Lending at May 10 Field Hearing
On May 10, the CFPB will hold a field hearing on small business lending in Los Angeles, CA. The announcement, which is posted on the Events page of the CFPB’s website, indicates that the hearing will feature “remarks from Director Cordray, as well as testimony from community groups, industry representatives, and members of the public.” Notably, “small business data collection” was among the topics covered by the Bureau in its latest fair lending report (See previous InfoBytes coverage here). Specifically, the CFPB noted in its report that Congress “expressed concern that women-owned and minority-owned businesses may experience discrimination when they apply for credit, and has required the CFPB to take steps to ensure their fair access to credit.” In response to this observation, the Bureau indicated in its report that its “[s]mall business lending supervisory activity will also help expand and enhance the Bureau’s knowledge in this area, including the credit process; existing data collection process; and the nature, extent, and management of fair lending risk.”
CFPB Releases Supervisory Highlights Focused on Student Lending and Mortgage Servicing
On April 26, the CFPB released its Supervisory Highlights for spring 2017, which outlines its supervisory and oversight actions in areas such as mortgage servicing and student loan servicing. According to the Supervisory Highlights, recent supervisory resolutions have “resulted in approximately $6.1 million in restitution to more than 16,000 consumers.”
Student loan servicing. Bureau examiners reported that student loan servicers (i) routinely acted on incorrect information about whether the borrower was enrolled in school, and (ii) failed to reverse certain charges, including improper late fees and capitalization of unpaid interest, even after they knew they had wrongly ended a deferment.
Mortgage servicing. According to the report, the Bureau continued to see “serious issues for consumers seeking alternatives to foreclosure, or loss mitigation, at certain servicers.” CFPB examiners found problems with premature foreclosure filings, mishandling of escrow accounts, and incomplete periodic statements. Furthermore, examiners found that one or more mortgage servicers:
- failed to identify the additional documents and information borrowers needed to submit to complete a loss mitigation application and then denied the applications for not including those documents;
- launched the foreclosure process prematurely after receiving loss mitigation applications from borrowers, thereby failing to give required foreclosure protections to qualified consumers;
- mishandled escrow accounts by using funds to pay insurance premiums on unrelated loans, creating shortages in the escrow accounts and higher monthly payments for consumers; and
- issued incomplete periodic statements that used vague language such as “Misc. Expenses” and “Charge for Service” when describing transaction activity.
The report also outlined the Bureau’s position on employee production incentives and presented guidance and examples of where “incentives contributed to substantial harm.”
CFPB Draws Mixed Reactions in Response to Request for Comments on Proposed Student Lending Information Collection
Back in February, the CFPB proposed information collection on the student loan servicing market, since then two trade associations have submitted comment letters, one in support of the information collection and one believing that the information collection would be unduly burdensome. According to the Bureau, the proposed information collection was intended to provide the Bureau “with a broader and deeper look into the student loan market.” The comment period for its request closed earlier this month.
Americans for Financial Reform (AFR). On April 24, the AFR and 31 other organizations sent a sign-on letter to the CFPB expressing support for the CFPB’s proposed student loan servicing data collection initiative. The letter argues, among other things, that “compiling such metrics and borrower outcomes would benefit market participants, federal and state agencies, policymakers, and borrowers,” by allowing each to “[o]btain[] a clearer view of the student loan market overall” while also “inform[ing] all market participants on how best to serve student loan borrowers.” The AFR letter also offers several suggests as to how the Bureau can best ensure the “quality and transparency of the data.” The letter emphasized, among other things, that “transparency is critical to having a servicing system that works for borrowers,” especially given the large number of student loan defaults.
Consumer Bankers Association (CBA). In an April 24 comment letter, the CBA expressed agreement with the CFPB’s ultimate goal of creating a private student loan market that is both transparent and fair, but argues that its consumer bank members already “effectively tailor[]” their loan products “to meet their customer’s needs” and strive to make loans only “to customers who are judged highly likely to repay them.” Specifically, the CBA believes, among other things, that the CFPB information collection would require unnecessarily duplication of existing publicly reported private loan data. CBA also raised additional concerns, including: (i) whether the CFPB could collect the same data effectively, and with greater protection afforded to loan holders and servicers, through the supervisory process; (ii) whether the CFPB has “grossly underestimate[d]” the burden on servicers to collect the requested data, and (iii) whether the CFPB’s stated market monitoring objectives could be met through less burdensome methods.
CFPB Deputy Director Addresses Community Bank Advisory Council on Financial Data Usage
On April 25, CFPB Deputy Director David Silberman addressed the Community Bank Advisory Council (CBAC) in Washington, D.C. on the Bureau’s work involving the use of data in the financial marketplace. CBAC was established almost five years ago to ensure that the Bureau had a direct line of communication with community banks. The Bureau is focused on understanding “how consumers are exercising control over their personal financial data, including the data that is maintained by their financial institutions.” In November of last year, the CFPB issued a Request for Information (RFI) regarding ways to “address the risks and technological challenges posed when consumers seek ready access to this data and seek to share it electronically with third parties.” The Bureau’s goal is to evaluate how to balance consumer needs without exposing the providers that maintain this data to undue costs and risks, while also making sure consumer data is not misused.
Silberman discussed the use of new types of data to assess the creditworthiness of consumers when applying for credit. The Bureau is exploring the possibility that “thoughtful and responsible use of alternative data—that is, data that is not part of the traditional credit reporting system—could expand the credit available to underserved consumers.” (See previous InfoBytes summary.) In February 2017, the CFPB issued another RFI to seek feedback about the “potential benefits and risks of using, applying, and analyzing unconventional sources” such as rent or utility payments to “assess people’s creditworthiness.” Silberman acknowledged community banks’ skill and “willingness to go beyond the numbers” in order to make lending decisions based on the totality of information they have available about their customers. The Bureau is exploring ways to combine the objectivity and rigor of automated underwriting with the community banks approach.
CFPB Fines Servicemember Auto Lender for Violating Consent Order
On April 26, the CFPB issued a second consent order against an Ohio-based auto lender, specializing in extending credit to servicemembers, for violating an earlier 2015 consent order issued by the Bureau (see previous InfoBytes summary). The 2015 order required, among other things, that the lender to pay restitution of over $2 million to affected consumers in addition to a $1 million civil money penalty for allegedly engaging in unfair, abusive, and deceptive debt collection practices. The 2017 consent order claims the lender violated the earlier order by failing to provide the required consumer redress or the redress plan consistent with the 2015 consent order. The Bureau contends that the lender issued worthless account “credits” to settled-in full accounts and to consumers whose debts were discharged in bankruptcy, and failed to provide the appropriate redress to consumers making payments under settlement agreements. The consent order requires that the lender: (i) pay an additional $1.25 million civil money penalty; (ii) pay $718,900 to the Bureau, which will be sent as refunds to consumers; (iii) issue $372,157 in account credits to consumers who have account balances, in addition to properly crediting consumers making payments under settlement agreements; and (iv) pay $75,000 in redress-administration costs to the Bureau.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Snapshot Highlights Issues Related to Student Loans
On April 25, the CFPB released its monthly complaint report highlighting consumer complaints year-to-date April 1. The Bureau has handled approximately 1,163,200 consumer complaints across all categories since it began collecting complaints. Of the roughly 28,000 received in March, 2,033 focused on private and federal student loans. Common problems raised by student borrowers included:
- lost documentation, extended application processing time, and unclear guidance when enrolling in income-driven repayment plans;
- misapplied payments, such as overpayments being applied to all accounts instead of being applied to a specific account;
- confusion over Public Student Loan Forgiveness programs and other loan forgiveness programs, specifically regarding enrollment issues, payment problems, and issues due to inaccurately reported employment data; and
- credit reporting companies receiving incorrect data, resulting in negative scores or collection companies contacting consumers about accounts that were paid in full or for debts that were not owed.
Similar to past CFPB-issued complaint snapshots, the report identifies the top 10 most common complaint categories with respect to all financial products, as well as the top 10 companies for which they received the most student loan complaints. The report spotlighted Nevada, noting that (i) Nevada consumers have submitted 14,600 of the 1,163,200 complaints received; (ii) debt collection complaints accounted for 29 percent of complaints received from Nevada, exceeding the national average by 2 percent; and (iii) mortgage-related complaints accounted for 23 percent of all complaints submitted by Nevada consumers, a rate equal to the national rate of mortgage complaints.
CFPB Provides Resources for Consumers During Money Smart Week
On April 22, the CFPB highlighted a series of consumer education resources as part of its participation in Money Smart Week—(April 22-29)—and Financial Literacy Month. The CFPB blog post is here. Among the financial decision-making resources are: (i) Ask CFPB—an online tool that the Bureau states will provide “clear, unbiased” answers to common financial questions; (ii) Owning a Home—a tool that provides resources for homebuyers; and (iii) Money as You Grow—a resource center where parents can find activities and conversation starters to help children build money skills. In addition, the Bureau also advised consumers that there are numerous free financial education classes and seminars conducted by local and regional organizations covering a variety of money-management topics such as buying a house, credit management, saving for college, and financing retirement. Consumers should visit Money Smart Week to find events and online resources.