InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Sues Debt Collection Law Firm
On July 14, the CFPB sued a Georgia-based law firm and its three principal partners for allegedly using high-volume litigation tactics to collect millions of dollars from consumers who may not actually have owed the debts or may not have owed the debts in the amounts claimed. The suit relates to the firm’s attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, consumer credit-card debts on behalf of both credit-card issuers and debt buyers that purchase portfolios of defaulted credit-card debts. The CFPB alleges the defendants violated the FDCPA and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by: (i) serving consumers with deceptive court filings generated by automated processes and the work of non-attorney staff, without any meaningful involvement of attorneys; and (ii) introducing faulty or unsubstantiated evidence through sworn statements even though some signers could not have known the details they were attesting to. The CFPB is seeking to permanently enjoin the firm from engaging in the alleged activity, restitution to borrowers, disgorgement, civil money penalties, and damages and other monetary relief.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Publish Additional Uniform Closing Dataset Documentation
On July 15, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced the availability of additional documentation to support the mortgage industry with the implementation of the Uniform Closing Dataset (UCD), the common industry dataset that supports the CFPB’s closing disclosure. The documents provide information to supplement the MISMO mapping document released in March 2014. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac intend to collect the UCD from lenders in the future, but have not yet determined the method or timeline for that data collection.
Massachusetts Adds "Borrower's Interest" Safe Harbor For QM Loans
Recently, the Massachusetts Division of Banks published final amendments to its regulation concerning documentation and determination of borrower’s interest to establish an additional safe harbor for any home loan that meets the definition of a “Qualified Mortgage” under the CFPB’s ability-to-repay/qualified mortgage rule. A Qualified Mortgage now will be deemed to be in the borrower’s interest under the regulation. The amendments also clarify that the exemption under the borrower’s interest regulation applies to all Qualified Mortgages which are eligible for safe harbor consideration under TILA, including the small creditor exemption, provided that the Qualified Mortgage is not higher cost. The amendments became effective July 18, 2014.
CFPB Proposes Publishing Consumer Complaint Narratives
Yesterday, in advance of a field hearing being held today on consumer complaints, the CFPB released a proposal to expand the amount of information that will be included in the Consumer Complaint Database to include certain consumer complaint narratives, along with any response to the complaint submitted by the identified financial institution. The CFPB already collects the narrative information as part of the complaint intake process, but to date has not published narratives over privacy concerns it believes it now has addressed. The CFPB describes the proposed change as a natural extension of a policy designed to “provide consumers with timely and understandable information about consumer financial products and services, and improve the functioning, transparency, and efficiency of markets for such products and services.” The CFPB will accept comments on the proposal for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register.
The Proposal
Under the proposed policy, the CFPB would seek consumer consent for publication of the complaint narrative, and would “scrub” personal information from each such narrative. The CFPB would also allow the identified company to submit a response to the narrative to be published. A company that wishes to publish a response would be instructed not to provide direct identifying information in its public-facing response, and the CFPB would take reasonable steps to remove personal information from the response to minimize the risk of re-identification.
Perceived Benefits
The CFPB has been considering publishing complaint narratives for some time, and has faced pressure from consumer advocates seeking publication of narratives. Indeed, the CFPB acknowledges this influence in the proposal, stating that in response to a prior proposed complaint policy statement, “consumer, civil rights, and open government groups supported disclosure on the grounds that disclosing narratives would provide consumers with more useful information on which to base financial decisions and would allow reviewers to assess the validity of the complaints.” In addition, during a March 2013 field hearing on consumer complaints that corresponded with a major expansion of the complaint database, consumer groups repeatedly stressed the need for more specific complaint data, including the full narrative description of complaints submitted by consumers.
The CFPB now believes that with privacy concerns addressed, the benefits will outweigh risks associated with publishing the complaints. To assess the benefits and risks of disclosing narratives, the CFPB focused on the direct and indirect benefits to consumers, the benefit to the CFPB, and the advancement of open government principles. The CFPB identifies the following as potential benefits:
- allowing consumers to share specific stories may expand the number of complaints submitted and enhance the CFPB’s consumer response function;
- additional information will increase use of the complaint database by advocates, academics, and the press; and
- consumer finance markets will benefit as the narratives influence companies to adjust prices to match product quality and improve customer service to remain competitive
The CFPB has demonstrated through its examination and enforcement activity that consumer complaints play a major role in the Bureau’s risk-based approach to supervision and enforcement, and the proposal admits that by increasing consumer complaint volume, publication of narratives would benefit “the many Bureau functions that rely, in part, on complaint data to perform their respective missions including the Offices of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending, Consumer Education and Engagement, and Research, Markets, and Rulemaking.”
Industry Concerns
Although it acknowledges that “trade groups and industry commenters nearly uniformly opposed disclosure of consumer complaint narratives,” the CFPB’s proposal makes only a superficial attempt to address those concerns. For example, the CFPB currently takes no steps to verify the accuracy of a complaint before it publishes the complaint, and the policy proposal does not propose to alter that process. The proposal admits that there is a risk that financial institutions could incur “intangible reputational damage” as a result of the dissemination of factually incorrect complaint narratives. It also briefly mentions the lost opportunity cost of consumers that may have otherwise done business with a particular company but for the (mis)information in a complaint narrative, stating that the company and the consumer that lose business would be disserved. However, the CFPB rationalizes these costs, asserting that “the marketplace of ideas would be able to determine what the data shows.”
Moreover, the CFPB asserts that its proposal to publicly release company responses to narratives mitigates this risk by assuring that, to the extent there are factual disputes, both sides of the dispute will be made public. The CFPB’s press release states that “in most cases, this response would appear at the same time as the consumer’s narrative so that reviewers can see both sides concurrently.” However, the proposal does not discuss the timing of publication of narratives, and it remains unclear exactly when consumer and company narratives would be published. Under its current practice, the CFPB publishes a consumer complaint before it receives a response from the company. If narratives and responses are not published concurrently, potentially factually incorrect information could be in the public domain before a company has an opportunity to respond. Regardless of timing, financial institutions may be hamstrung in defending themselves in this forum given, among other things, obligations to maintain the confidentiality of customer information.
Request for Comments
The CFPB asks stakeholders not to submit comments on the complaint database generally, or current data fields. The CFPB seeks comments in response to the following specific issues:
- The need for any additional information to help inform consumer consent, the precise language to most effectively communicate with the consumer, at what point in the complaint process (at complaint submission or later in the complaint handling process) and where on the Bureau website the information in support of the opt-in consent should be displayed.
- Whether company responses should be distinct and in addition to the response companies send directly to the consumer.
- The standard and methodology for removing customer information, including suggestions of appropriate analogues to the HIPAA identifiers in the consumer financial domain, and any other identifiers which could reasonably be used to identify individuals.
CFPB Issues Guidance On Ensuring Equal Treatment For Married Same-Sex Couples
On July 8, the CFPB released guidance designed to ensure equal treatment for legally married same-sex couples in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). Windsor held unconstitutional section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the word “marriage” as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and the word “spouse” as referring “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
The CFPB's guidance, which took the form of a memorandum to CFPB staff, states that regardless of a person’s state of residency, the CFPB will consider a person who is married under the laws of any jurisdiction to be married nationwide for purposes of enforcing, administering, or interpreting the statutes, regulations, and policies under the Bureau’s jurisdiction. The Bureau adds that it “will not regard a person to be married by virtue of being in a domestic partnership, civil union, or other relationship not denominated by law as a marriage.”
The guidance adds that the Bureau will use and interpret the terms “spouse,” “marriage,” “married,” “husband,” “wife,” and any other similar terms related to family or marital status in all statutes, regulations, and policies administered, enforced or interpreted by the Bureau (including ECOA and Regulation B, FDCPA, TILA, RESPA) to include same-sex marriages and married same-sex spouses. The Bureau’s stated policy on same-sex marriage follows HUD’s Equal Access Rule, which became effective March 5, 2012, which ensures access to HUD-assisted or HUD-insured housing for LGBT persons.
Special Alert: CFPB Issues Guidance On Supervision And Enforcement Of Mini-Correspondent Lenders
This afternoon, the CFPB issued policy guidance on supervision and enforcement considerations relevant to mortgage brokers transitioning to mini-correspondent lenders. The CFPB states that it “has become aware of increased mortgage industry interest in the transition of mortgage brokers from their traditional roles to mini-correspondent lender roles,” and is “concerned that some mortgage brokers may be shifting to the mini-correspondent model in the belief that, by identifying themselves as mini-correspondent lenders, they automatically alter the application of important consumer protections that apply to transactions involving mortgage brokers.”
The guidance describes how the CFPB evaluates mortgage transactions involving mini-correspondent lenders and confirms who must comply with the broker compensation rules, regardless of how they may describe their business structure. In announcing the guidance, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that the CFPB is “putting companies on notice that they cannot avoid those rules by calling themselves by a different name.”
The CFPB is not offering an opportunity for the public to comment on the guidance. The CFPB determined that because the guidance is a non-binding policy document articulating considerations relevant to the CFPB’s exercise of existing supervisory and enforcement authority, it is exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Background
The CFPB explains that generally, a correspondent lender performs the activities necessary to originate a mortgage loan—it takes and processes applications, provides required disclosures, sometimes underwrites loans and makes the final credit approval decision, closes loans in its name, funds them (often through a warehouse line of credit), and sells them to an investor. The CFPB’s focus here is on mortgage brokers who are attempting to move to the role of a correspondent lender by obtaining a warehouse line of credit and establishing relationships with a few investors. The CFPB believes that some of these transitioning brokers may appear to be the lender or creditor in each transaction, but in actuality have not transitioned to the mini-correspondent lender role and are continuing to serve effectively as mortgage brokers, i.e. they continue to facilitate brokered loan transactions between borrowers and wholesale lenders.
RESPA (Regulation X) and TILA (Regulation Z) include certain rules related to broker compensation, including RESPA’s requirement that lender’s compensation to the mortgage broker be disclosed on the Good-Faith Estimate and HUD-1 Settlement Statement, and TILA’s requirements that broker compensation be included in “points and fees” calculations, and its restrictions on broker compensation and prohibition on steering to increase compensation. Those requirements do not apply to exempt bona fide secondary-market transactions, but do apply to table-funded transactions, the difference between which depends on the “real source of funding” and the “real interest of the funding lender.”
The CFPB states that the requirements and restrictions that RESPA and TILA and their implementing regulations impose on compensation paid to mortgage brokers do not depend on the labels that parties use in their transactions. Rather, under Regulation X, whether compensation paid by the “investor” to the “lender” must be disclosed depends on determinations such as whether that compensation is part of a secondary market transaction, as opposed to a “table-funded” transaction. And under Regulation Z, whether compensation paid by the “investor” to the “creditor” must be included in the points-and-fees calculation and whether the “creditor” is subject to the compensation restrictions as a mortgage broker depends on determinations such as whether the “creditor” finances the transaction out of its own resources as opposed to relying on table-funding by the “investor.”
CFPB’s Factors For Assessing Mini-Correspondent Lenders
The guidance advises lenders that in exercising its supervisory and enforcement authority under RESPA and TILA in transactions involving mini-correspondents, the CFPB considers the following questions, among others, to assess the true nature of the mortgage transaction:
- Beyond the mortgage transaction at issue, does the mini-correspondent still act as a mortgage broker in some transactions, and, if so, what distinguishes the mini-correspondent’s “mortgage broker” transactions from its “lender” transactions?
- How many “investors” does the mini-correspondent have available to it to purchase loans?
- Is the mini-correspondent using a bona fide warehouse line of credit as the source to fund the loans that it originates?
- Is the warehouse line of credit provided by a third-party warehouse bank?
- How thorough was the process for the mini-correspondent to get approved for the warehouse line of credit?
- Does the mini-correspondent have more than one warehouse line of credit?
- Is the warehouse bank providing the line of credit one of, or affiliated with any of, the mini-correspondent’s investors that purchase loans from the mini-correspondent?
- If the warehouse line of credit is provided by an investor to whom the mini-correspondent will “sell” loans to, is the warehouse line a “captive” line (i.e., the mini-correspondent is required to sell the loans to the investor providing the warehouse line or to affiliates of the investor)?
- What percentage of the mini-correspondent’s total monthly originated volume is sold by the mini-correspondent to the entity providing the warehouse line of credit to the mini-correspondent, or to an investor related to the entity providing the warehouse line of credit?
- Does the mini-correspondent’s total warehouse line of credit capacity bear a reasonable relationship, consistent with correspondent lenders generally, to its size (i.e., its assets or net worth)?
- What changes has the mini-correspondent made to staff, procedures, and infrastructure to support the transition from mortgage broker to mini-correspondent?
- What training or guidance has the mini-correspondent received to understand the additional compliance risk associated with being the lender or creditor on a residential mortgage transaction?
- Which entity (mini-correspondent, warehouse lender, or investor) is performing the majority of the principal mortgage origination activities?
- Which entity underwrites the mortgage loan before consummation and otherwise makes the final credit decision on the loan?
- What percentage of the principal mortgage origination activities, such as the taking of loan applications, loan processing, and pre-consummation underwriting, is being performed by the mini-correspondent, or an independent agent of the mini-correspondent?
- If the majority of the principal mortgage origination activities are being performed by the investor, is there a plan in place to transition these activities to the mini-correspondent, and, if so, what conditions must be met to make this transition (e.g. number of loans, time)?
The CFPB cautions that (i) the inquiries described in the guidance are not exhaustive, and that the CFPB may consider other factors relevant to the exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authorities; (ii) no single question listed in the guidance is necessarily determinative; and (iii) the facts and circumstances of the particular mortgage transaction being reviewed are relevant.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030, jnaimon@buckleyfirm.com
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901, crockwell@buckleyfirm.com
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040, jkromer@buckleyfirm.com
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020, jkolar@buckleyfirm.com
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010, jbuckley@buckleyfirm.com
CFPB UDAAP Action Targets Payday Lender's Collection Activities
This afternoon, the CFPB announced that a nonbank consumer lender will pay $10 million to resolve allegations that it engaged in certain unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices in the collection of payday loans. This action comes exactly one year after the CFPB issued guidance that it would hold supervised creditors accountable for engaging in acts or practices the CFPB considers to be unfair, deceptive, and/or abusive when collecting their own debts, in much the same way third-party debt collectors are held accountable for violations of the FDCPA.
Based on its findings during an examination of the lender, which was coordinated with the Texas Office of Consumer Credit, the CFPB alleged that the lender and its third-party vendors used false claims and threats to coerce delinquent payday loan borrowers into taking out an additional payday loan to cover their debt. The CFPB claimed that the lender trained its staff to “create a sense of urgency” for consumers in default, and that in-house and third-party vendor staff did so by (i) making an excessive number of calls to borrowers; (ii) disclosing the existence of the debt to non-liable third parties; and (iii) continuing to call borrowers at their workplaces after being told such calls were prohibited, or calling borrowers directly after they had obtained counsel.
The CFPB further alleged that some in-house staff also misrepresented the actions that third-party collectors would take after a loan was transferred for additional collection efforts, even though those actions were prohibited or limited by the lender’s own corporate policies and contracts with outside collectors. The in-house staff also allegedly falsely advised borrowers that they could not prevent the transfer of the delinquent debt to a third-party collector. In-house and third-party staff also allegedly falsely threatened delinquent borrowers with litigation or criminal prosecution, when the lender did not, as a matter of policy, pursue litigation or criminal prosecution for non-payment or permit its third-party collectors to do so.
The CFPB characterized certain of the acts as either unfair or deceptive, and stated that the lender’s efforts to create and leverage an artificial sense of urgency to induce delinquent borrowers with demonstrated inability to repay their existing loans to take out new loans with accompanying fees “took unreasonable advantage of the inability of consumers to protect their own interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service” and thereby qualify as abusive acts or practices.
The lender, in its own press release, pointed out that the CFPB’s allegations related only to collection practices prior to March 2012, and that a third-party review revealed that more than 96 percent of the lender’s calls during the review period met relevant collections standards. The lender added that it has policies that prevent delinquent borrowers from taking out new loans, and that an analysis of those policies revealed that 99.5 percent of customers with a loan in collections for more than 90 days did not take out a new loan with the lender within two days of paying off their existing loan, and 99.1 percent of customers did not take out a new loan within 14 days of paying off their existing loan. This data suggests that the CFPB’s exception tolerance for in-house collection operations is exceedingly thin.
The order requires the lender to pay $5 million in redress to eligible borrowers and a $5 million civil money penalty. The lender stressed that it cooperated fully with the CFPB, implementing recommended compliance changes and enhancements and responding to requests for documents and information. It committed to completing those corrective actions and agreed to certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The action is at least the second public action taken by the CFPB against a payday lender. In November 2013 the CFPB entered a consent order to resolve so-called “robosigning” allegations against another lender. That action, which was resolved with a $5 million penalty and $14 million in restitution, also included allegations that the lender violated the Military Lending Act and engaged in certain unlawful examination conduct.
Special Alert: CFPB Guidance States That Successors Are Not Subject to the ATR/QM Rule
On July 8, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule stating that the addition of a successor as an obligor on a mortgage does not trigger the Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule) requirements if the successor previously received an interest in the property securing the mortgage by operation of law, such as through inheritance or divorce. Creditors may rely on the interpretive rule as a safe harbor under section 130(f) of TILA.
In adopting the interpretations described below, it appears that the CFPB primarily intended to respond to inquiries from the industry and consumer advocates about situations where one family member inherits a home from another and, in order to keep the home, requests to be added to the mortgage and to modify its terms, such as by reducing the rate or payments.
Click here to view the special alert.
* * *
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
CFPB Report Suggests Remittance Transfer History Offers Little Value For Credit Scores
On July 3, the CFPB published a report on its study of the use of remittance histories in credit scoring, which found that (i) remittance histories have little predictive value for credit scoring purposes, and (ii) remittance histories are unlikely to improve the credit scores of consumers who send remittance transfers. The report follows a 2011 CFPB report on remittance transfers, which was required by the Dodd-Frank Act and assessed, among other things, the feasibility of and impediments to using remittance data in credit scoring. At that time, the CFPB identified a number of potential impediments to incorporating remittance history into credit scoring, and noted the need for further research to better address the potential impact of remittance information on consumer credit scoring.
To conduct its supplemental analysis of the potential effect of including remittance histories in credit models, the CFPB collected a random set of 500,000 consumers from a single remittance transfer provider. The CFPB was able to match approximately 212,000 of those remitters to a credit record held by one of the three major consumer reporting agencies. The CFPB analyzed the remitter data set in comparison to a control set of 200,000 consumers with credit records.
First, the CFPB estimated a credit scoring model that used only credit history information to serve as a baseline estimate of the level of predictiveness that credit history information alone produces. The CFPB then evaluated how large of an increase in predictiveness results when remittance histories are added to that baseline model. The CFPB determined that including remittance histories in credit scoring models is unlikely to increase the predictiveness of the models enough to warrant generating scores for otherwise unscorable credit records. The report cautions that the CFPB’s analysis of the predictiveness of remittance histories is limited in numerous ways.
Second, the CFPB assessed the impact of remittance histories on the credit scores of three different populations: (i) remitters without credit files or who could not be matched to a credit file—the majority of the original 500,000 sample size; (ii) remitters with credit profiles insufficient to be scored (“unscoreable”); and (iii) remitters with credit scores.
The CFPB determined that for remitter sample members without credit records remittance histories likely would not allow those individuals to develop a credit profile. The CFPB hypothesizes that given the limited utility of remittance history for predicting future performance, credit model builders would not construct a credit scoring model for this population without any credit records. Similarly, although the CFPB found that although remittance transfers appear to be associated with better credit outcomes for the small segment of remitters with “unscorable” credit, model builders still would be unlikely to score these consumers because remittance histories offer little with regard to predictiveness,. Finally, the CFPB reported that for remitters who already have credit scores, remittance history information appears to drag down credit scores.
The report adds that remittance transfers also are likely to correlate with race or ethnicity, which could raise fair lending risk for credit model developments. Further, the CFPB states that the credit scoring value of remittance histories appears even less valuable compared to other potential alternative data—specifically rental and utility payment data. The bureau suggests that future efforts to enhance consumer credit scoring models should focus on activities that involve regularly scheduled payments, as opposed to voluntary payments like remittance transfers.
Supreme Court Holds President May Make Recess Appointments During Intra-Session Recesses Of Sufficient Length
On June 26, the Supreme Court rejected the federal government’s challenge to a January 2013 decision by the D.C. Circuit that appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made by President Obama in January 2012 during a purported Senate recess were unconstitutional. NLRB V. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281, 2014 WL 2882090 (U.S. Jun. 26, 2014). A five-member majority of the Court held that Presidents are permitted to exercise authority under the Recess Appointments Clause to fill a vacancy during both intra-session and inter-session recesses of sufficient length, and that such appointments may fill vacancies that arose prior to or during the recess.
The Court determined that the phrase “recess of the Senate” is ambiguous, and that based on the functional definition derived from the historical practice of past presidents and the Senate, it is meant to cover both types of recesses. Further, the court held that although the Clause does not indicate how long a recess must be before a president may act, historical practice suggests that a recess less than 10 days is presumptively too short. The Court did not foreclose the possibility, however, that appointments during recesses of less than 10 days may be permissible in unusual circumstances. The Court also validated the Senate’s practice of using pro forma sessions to avoid recess appointments, holding the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided it retains capacity to conduct business. Because the Senate was in session during its periodic pro forma sessions, and because the recess appointments at issue were made during a three-day recess between such sessions, the appointments were invalid.
A minority of the Court concurred in the judgment, but endorsed a narrower reading of the President’s authority to make recess appointments and the Senate’s ability to avoid triggering the President’s recess-appointment power. Writing for that minority, Justice Scalia explained that the plain constitutional text limits the President’s recess appointment power to filling vacancies that first arise during the recess. The minority reading of the Clause also limits the President’s recess appointment power to recesses between legislative sessions, and not intra-session ones. CFPB Director Richard Cordray was appointed in the same manner and on the same day as the NLRB members whose appointments were at issue in this case, but was subsequently re-nominated and confirmed for the position. He later ratified CFPB actions taken during the period he served as a recess appointee.