InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Issues Integrated Mortgage Disclosure Rule Compliance Resources
On April 17, the CFPB issued a guide to completing the disclosure forms required by its November 2013 TILA-RESPA integrated disclosures rule, which generally applies to transactions for which a creditor or broker receives an application on or after August 1, 2015. The guide provides instructions for completing the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure and highlights common situations that may arise when completing the forms. The CFPB states in addition to serving as a resource to creditors, the guide also may assist settlement service providers, software providers, and other service providers. The disclosure forms guide follows the release last month of a small entity compliance guide, which summarizes the rule and highlights issues that small creditors, and their partners or service providers, might find helpful to consider when implementing the rule.
FTC Settles Suit Against Tribe-Affiliated Lenders; Dispute Over CFPB Investigation Of Tribe-Affiliated Lenders Moves To Federal Court
On April 11, the FTC announced that a tribe-affiliated payday lending operation and its owner agreed to pay nearly $1 million to resolve allegations that they engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices and violated the Credit Practices Rule in the collection of payday loans. The FTC alleged that the lenders illegally tried to garnish borrowers’ wages and sought to force borrowers to travel to South Dakota to appear before a tribal court, and that the loan contracts issued by the lenders illegally stated that they are subject solely to the jurisdiction of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. The announced settlement payment includes a $550,000 civil penalty and a court order to disgorge $417,740. The companies and their owner also are prohibited from further unfair and deceptive practices and are barred from suing any consumer in the course of collecting a debt, except for bringing a counter suit to defend against a suit brought by a consumer.
Also on April 11, in a separate matter related to federal authority over tribe-affiliated lending, a group of tribe-affiliated lenders responded in opposition to a recent CFPB petition to enforce civil investigative demands (CIDs) the Bureau issued to the lenders. In September 2013, the CFPB denied the lenders’ joint petition to set aside the CIDs, rejecting the lenders’ primary argument that the CFPB lacks authority over businesses chartered under the sovereign authority of federally recognized Indian Tribes. The lenders subsequently refused to respond to the CIDs, which the CFPB now asks the court to enforce. The CFPB argues that the lenders fall within the CFPB’s investigative authority under the terms of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which the CFPB argues is a law of general applicability, including with regard to Indian Tribes and their property interests. The lenders continue to assert that they are sovereign entities operating beyond the CFPB’s reach.
CFPB Proposes Remittance Rule Amendments
On April 15, the CFPB issued a proposed rule and request for comment to extend a temporary exception to Regulation E’s requirement that remittance transfer providers disclose certain fees and exchange rates to consumers. Pursuant to Regulation E, as amended to implement section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act, insured depository institutions are permitted to estimate certain third-party fees and exchange rates in connection with a remittance transfer until July 21, 2015, provided the transfer is sent from the sender’s account with the institution, and the institution is unable to determine the exact amount of the fees and rates due to circumstances outside of the institution’s control. The CFPB is proposing to exercise its statutory authority to extend this exception for an additional five years, until July 21, 2020. The agency explained that, based on its outreach to insured institutions and consumer groups, allowing the initial temporary exception to lapse would negatively affect the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers. Comments on the proposed rule are due within 30 days of its publication in the Federal Register.
The proposed rule also includes several clarifications and technical corrections to the CFPB’s final remittance rule and official commentary, which were subsequently amended or delayed—including in August 2012 and January 2013—leading to a May 2013 revised final rule. In this latest round of proposed amendments, the CFPB is seeking to address concerns about the remittance rule’s applicability to U.S. military installations abroad. Because the rule does not expressly address transfers to such installations, the CFPB now seeks (i) comments on whether to treat locations on U.S. military installations abroad as being located within a State or a foreign country for the purposes of the rule, (ii) data on the relative number of transfers sent to and from individuals and/or accounts located on U.S. military installations abroad, and (iii) comments on the appropriateness of extending any clarification regarding U.S. military installations to other U.S. government installations abroad, such as U.S. diplomatic missions.
With respect to transfers from accounts (as defined under Regulation E), the CFPB is also proposing amendments to make clear that whether a transfer is for personal, family, or household purposes—and thus, whether the transfer could be a remittance transfer subject to the rule—is determined by ascertaining the purpose for which the account was established, rather than the purpose of the particular transfer. The proposed amendments would therefore clarify that the rule does not apply to, e.g., transfers from an account that was established as a business or commercial account or an account owned by a business entity. In addition, the proposed rule seeks to clarify that faxes are considered writings for purposes of the remittance rule, and that, in certain circumstances, a remittance transfer provider may give oral disclosures after receiving a written remittance inquiry from a consumer. The CFPB is also proposing to revise the rule’s error resolution requirements, including with regard to errors based on the sender’s provision of incorrect or insufficient information. Specifically, the proposed amendment would clarify that, where such errors occur, the remittance transfer provider may not deduct its own fee from the amount refunded or applied towards a new transfer.
Debt Settlement Firm Pleads Guilty In CFPB's First Criminal Referral
On April 8 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that a debt settlement company and its owner pled guilty to fraud charges, resolving the first criminal case referred to the DOJ by the CFPB. The DOJ alleged that from 2009 through May 2013, the company systematically exploited and defrauded over 1,200 customers with credit card debt by charging them for debt settlement services the company never provided. The DOJ claimed that the company (i) lied about and/or concealed its fees, and falsely assured customers that fees would be substantially less than those the company eventually charged; (ii) deceived customers by fraudulently and falsely promising that the company could significantly lower borrower debts when, for the majority of its customers, the company allegedly did little or no work and failed to achieve any reduction in debt; and (iii) sent prospective customers solicitation letters falsely suggesting that the agency was acting on behalf of or in connection with a federal governmental program. The company’s owner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The company pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and faces a fine of up to twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense, and up to five years' probation. The defendants also entered into a stipulation of settlement of a civil forfeiture action and consented to the entry of a permanent injunction barring them from providing, directly or indirectly, any debt relief or mortgage relief services in the future. The CFPB subsequently dismissed its parallel civil suit.
CFPB To Hold Forum On Mortgage Closing Process
The CFPB announced today that it will hold a forum on the mortgage closing process. The event will take place at the CFPB’s headquarters in Washington, DC at 1:30 p.m. on April 23, 2014. It will be open to members of the public who RSVP and also will be available through a live stream on the CFPB’s website. Consistent with its past practice, the CFPB has not provided advance details about the specific topics to be addressed or the participants. The event is likely to review the feedback the CFPB received in response to a January 2014 request for information about consumer “pain points” associated with the mortgage closing process, an initiative the CFPB first revealed in November 2013 in conjunction with the release of the final rule combining mortgage disclosures under TILA and RESPA. We plan to attend the event and will provide an update later this month.
CFPB Issues Annual Consumer Complaint Report
On March 31 the CFPB published its Consumer Response Annual Report, providing a review of the CFPB’s complaint process and a description of complaints received during January 1 through December 31, 2013. According to the report the Bureau received approximately 163,700 complaints in 2013. Mortgage complaints outpaced all others (37%), followed by complaints regarding debt collection (19%), bank accounts (12%), and credit cards (10%). Complaints related to consumer loans, student loans, payday loans, money transfers, and “other” each comprised 3% or less of the total. The report also breaks down the types of complaints for each category and summarizes companies’ responses. The majority of closed complaints for all categories were resolved with an explanation by the company, i.e. without monetary or other relief, and companies responded to complaints in a timely fashion 99% of the time, or better. The report also stated that the CFPB “continues to evaluate, among other things, the release of consumer narratives, the potential for normalization of the data to make comparisons easier, and the expansion of functionality to improve user experience.”
Federal Reserve OIG Criticizes CFPB's Supervision Program
On April 1, the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), which also is responsible for auditing the CFPB, issued a report that is critical of the CFPB’s supervisory activities and recommends that the CFPB take specific actions to strengthen its supervision program. The report shares concerns raised by entities having been through the examination process.
The report covers the CFPB’s supervisory activities from July 2011 through July 2013, including 82 completed examinations (excluding baseline reviews), which yielded 35 reports of examination and 47 supervisory letters. Of those 82 completed examinations, 63 were of depository institutions, and 19 were of nondepository institutions.
Among the findings, the OIG concludes that:
- The CFPB failed to meet reporting timelines. CFPB staff routinely failed to meet internal timeliness requirements for submitting draft examination products to headquarters. These failures resulted in a “significant number of examinations outstanding for longer than 90 days,” which the OIG believes creates unacceptable uncertainty for supervised institutions.
- The CFPB failed to consistently use standard compliance rating definitions. In two out of eight examinations sampled, CFPB staff edited standard ratings definitions to omit information and add qualifying language, including in one ECOA examination report altering the FFIEC’s definition for a 3 rating to state that no “overt” discriminatory acts or practices were identified. In that instance, examiners flagged as a potential fair lending violation the discretion accorded the institution’s customer service representatives to grant fee waivers. The CFPB required the institution to create policies and procedures that limit the discretion of customer service representatives to grant fee waivers, but the examination report did not indicate “whether the CFPB identified any discriminatory acts or practices, suggesting that the CFPB did not reach a definitive conclusion as to whether fee waivers had been granted on a discriminatory basis.” The OIG concluded that “inserting the word ‘overt’ creates the appearance that the CFPB deviated from the standard template language to qualify its rating of the supervised institution, calling into question the appropriateness of the assigned rating.” The report states that the CFPB has since reviewed examination ratings and determined that adjustments were not necessary.
- The CFPB failed to timely record examination milestones. The report states that the CFPB has not adopted a requirement for the timely recording of examination data. To assess timeliness, the OIG used seven days as a standard. The OIG found that at least 25% of examination milestones were not recorded within seven days, and that in eight instances, examination milestones were not recorded for more than 200 days after their occurrence. In addition, CFPB staff entered dates before the milestone occurred 109 times.
- The CFPB’s examination reporting policy is not current. The report states that the CFPB has not updated its examination reporting policy since the CFPB reorganized its supervision offices in December 2012. In addition, the policy does not reflect the CFPB’s current definition for the “completion of field work”, which is a key milestone because it initiates the reporting process. Notably, a senior CFPB official advised the OIG that the CFPB is still determining the most effective process for reviewing examination reports.
- The CFPB and prudential regulators can improve coordination. The report notes that the CFPB and prudential regulators do not formally share supervisory actions documented outside of an examination report, which excludes prudential regulators from commenting on other supervisory actions. The OIG notes that only 19% of closed examinations of depository institutions resulted in reports of examination, and that of the CFPB’s examinations of depository institutions that resulted in a matter requiring attention, only 30% were documented in reports of examination. The remaining 70% were documented in supervisory letters or baseline reviews and, therefore, were not formally shared with the prudential regulators. Further, for institutions subject to continuous monitoring, the CFPB states that it shares findings with the prudential regulator at the end of the examination cycle. The OIG observes, however, that as of July 2013, none of the continuous full-scope examinations had been finalized or shared with the prudential regulators. The OIG believes that the CFPB’s current approach increases the risk that regulators will not receive important supervisory information and increases the likelihood of duplication of efforts and other inefficiencies.
The OIG also found that (i) the CFPB did not consistently retain evidence of required communication with prudential regulators; (ii) the CFPB regions use different and inconsistent practices for scheduling examination staff and do not track examination staff hours; and (iii) the CFPB has not finalized its examiner commissioning program.
The report states that since the OIG completed its field work in October 2013, the CFPB has assured the OIG that it has taken steps to address certain of the findings, including streamlining the report review process and reducing the number of examination reports that have not been issued. The OIG plans to conduct follow-up activities to assess whether the CFPB’s subsequent actions address the OIG’s findings and recommendations.
CFPB Report, Field Hearing, Build Record For Changes To Payday Lending Market
On March 25, the CFPB released a report and held a field hearing on payday loans. Through both, the CFPB sought to expand the record on which it will formulate new rules to address its concerns about the payday lending market. Director Cordray indicated in his remarks at the field hearing that the CFPB is on the verge of initiating the public phase of a rulemaking.
The Report
The report—the first such “Data Point” report from the CFPB’s Office of Research—focuses on “loan sequences,” what the CFPB describes as “a series of loans taken out within 14 days of repayment of a prior loan.” The analysis was performed using the same data obtained from storefront payday lenders through the supervisory process and used by the CFPB in its prior analysis and report. Like the prior analysis, this latest analysis did not include online payday lending data. The CFPB acknowledges certain limitations of the data used, including that data collected from different lenders contain different levels of detail and that some lender data did not include default-related information. (Note that the CFSA challenged, under the Information Quality Act, the CFPB’s prior report and the data on which it relied. The CFPB rejected that challenge.)
The CFPB reports that over 80% of payday loans are rolled over or followed by another loan within 14 days. In addition, the CFPB’s report offers the following findings:
- State rollover restrictions: Same-day renewals are less frequent in states with mandated cooling-off periods, but 14-day renewal rates in states with cooling-off periods are nearly identical to states without such limitations.
- Sequence duration and volume: 36% of new loans end with loan being repaid; more than half of loans that are renewed are only renewed one time, but 22% of sequences extend for seven or more loans; 15% of new sequences are extended for 10 or more loans.
- Loan size and amortization: For more than 80% of the loan sequences that last for more than one loan, the last loan is the same size as or larger than the first loan in the sequence. Loan size is more likely to go up in longer loan sequences, and principal increases are associated with higher default rates.
- Loan usage: Monthly borrowers are disproportionately likely to stay in debt for 11 months or longer. Among new borrowers (i.e., those who did not have a payday loan at the beginning the year covered by the data), 22% of borrowers paid monthly averaged at least one loan per pay period. The majority of monthly borrowers are government benefits recipients. Most borrowing involves multiple renewals following an initial loan, rather than multiple distinct borrowing episodes separated by more than 14 days. Roughly half of new borrowers (48%) have one loan sequence during the year. Of borrowers who neither renewed nor defaulted during the year, 60% took out only one loan.
The Field Hearing
In remarks to open the hearing, Director Cordray offered his conclusion that “the business model of the payday industry depends on people becoming stuck in these loans for the long term, since almost half their business comes from people who are basically paying high-cost rent on the amount of their original loan.” He stated that the “fundamental problem is that too many borrowers cannot afford the debt they are taking on or at least cannot afford the size of the payments required by a payday loan.” He identified as a particular concern borrowers who receive monthly payments, including borrowers “who receive Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability or retirement benefits, are thus in serious danger of ensnaring themselves in a debt trap when they take out a payday loan.” Director Cordray suggested that state-mandated cooling off periods are insufficient to help consumers avoid these so-called debt traps.
Based on its payday lending supervisory program, the CFPB has concerns about the following payday practices: (i) inhibiting borrowers from using company payment plans that are intended to assist them when they have trouble repaying their outstanding loans; (ii) use of the electronic payment system in ways that pose risks to consumers; and (iii) unfair or deceptive collection activities, including using false threats, disclosing debts to third parties, making repeated phone calls, and continuing to call borrowers after being requested to stop.
Director Cordray stated that the Bureau is in “the late stages of its consideration about how [it] can formulate new rules to bring needed reforms to this market.” His comments and the study findings suggest that these new rules could include, among other things, ability to repay requirements, a two-week or more cooling off period, and limits on the number of rollover or renewal loans. The Director did not provide any additional detail on a rulemaking timeline, but it is likely to take many months . Director Cordray promised that any eventual rule will not limit access to small dollar credit for those who can afford it.
Federal Regulators Propose Framework for State Supervision of Appraisal Management Companies
On March 24, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the FDIC, the CFPB, the FHFA, and the NCUA proposed a rule to implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s minimum requirements for registration and supervision of Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs). While current federal regulations mandate that appraisals conducted for federally related transactions must comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), this rule would represent the first affirmative federal obligations relating to the registration, supervision, and conduct of AMCs.
Generally, the proposed rule would establish a framework for the registration and supervision of AMCs by individual states that choose to participate, and for state reporting to the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). Although state participation is optional, AMCs would be prohibited from providing appraisal management services for federally related transactions in states that do not establish such a program.
Comments on the proposal will be due 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
Scope of Proposal
The proposal defines an AMC as any person that (i) provides appraisal management services to creditors or secondary mortgage market participants; (ii) provides such services in connection with valuing a consumer’s principal dwelling as security for a consumer credit transaction (including consumer credit transactions incorporated into securitizations); and (iii) within a given year, oversees an appraiser panel of more than 15 state-certified or state-licensed appraisers in a state or 25 or more state-certified or state-licensed appraisers in two or more States. “Appraisal management services” include, among other things, recruiting, selecting, and retaining appraisers and contracting with state-certified or –licensed appraisers to perform appraisal assignments. Notably, the rule would apply to appraisals for any consumer credit transaction secured by the consumer’s principal dwelling, whereas current federal regulations apply only to appraisals for transactions that involve an entity regulated by a federal financial regulatory agency and that require the services of an appraiser (federally related transactions).
The definition of AMC does not cover commercial real estate transactions or securitizations involving commercial real estate mortgages and would not apply to a department or division of an entity when such a department or division provides appraisal management services only to that entity. However, affiliate AMCs would be covered, even if they only provide services to their affiliated entity.
Minimum Requirements for State Supervision Programs
The rule would require participating states to implement, within 36 months after the final rule takes effect, a licensing program within a state agency that has authority to: (i) review and approve or deny an AMC’s application for initial registration; (ii) review and renew or refuse to renew an AMC’s registration periodically; (iii) examine the books and records of an AMC operating in the state and require the AMC to submit reports, information, and documents; (iv) verify that the appraisers on the AMC’s appraiser list, network, panel, or roster hold valid state certifications or licenses, as applicable; (v) conduct investigations of AMCs to assess potential violations of applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; (vi) discipline, suspend, terminate, and refuse to renew the registration of an AMC that violates applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; and (vii) report an AMC’s violation of applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders, as well as disciplinary and enforcement actions and other relevant information about an AMC’s operations, to the ASC.
Requirements for AMCs
The rule would require an AMC to register with, and be subject to supervision by, a state appraiser certifying and licensing agency in each state in which the AMC operates. As proposed, an AMC that is a subsidiary owned and controlled by a federally regulated insured depository institution or an insured credit union would be exempt from state registration requirements.
In addition, an all AMCs would be required to (i) use only state-certified or state-licensed appraisers for federally related transactions; (ii) establish processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC engages appraisers who have the requisite education, expertise, and experience necessary to complete competently the assignment for the particular market and property type; (iii) establish processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC conducts its appraisal management services in accordance with TILA requirements relating to appraisal independence; and (iv) require appraisers to perform appraisal assignments in accordance with USPAP.
CFPB Releases Annual Report on Debt Collection
On March 20, the CFPB released its third annual report summarizing its activities in 2013 to implement and enforce the FDCPA. The report describes the CFPB’s and the FTC’s shared FDCPA enforcement authority, incorporates the FTC’s annual FDCPA update, and reiterates the intention of both the FTC and the CFPB to exercise their authority to take action—both independently and in concert—against those in violation of the FDCPA.
The report highlights the debt collection-related complaints the Bureau has received—over 30,000 since the CFPB began accepting and compiling consumer complaints in July 2013, making the third-party debt collection market the largest source of consumer complaints submitted to the CFPB. The report states that the majority of the complaints the CFPB has received involve attempts to collect debts not owed and allegedly illegal communication tactics. The report also identifies several changes within the debt collection industry over the past year that will remain points of emphasis for the CFPB, including the expansion of the debt buying market, the growth of medical debt and student loan debt in collection, and the use of expanded technologies to communicate with debtors.