InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Report Claims Financial Education Efforts Insufficient
On November 18, the CFPB published a report that examines the amount of money spent by financial institutions to inform and influence consumers’ decisions about financial products and services. The study analyzed spending over a one year period and found that financial institutions spend 25 times more money marketing financial products and services to consumers than on educating consumers about them, which the CFPB asserts highlights the need to improve consumers’ access to objective information. The report relays detailed findings about financial education spending across six major sectors and about annual spending on awareness advertising and direct marketing of financial products and services.
Federal Reserve, CFPB Announce Increased Consumer Credit, Lease Transaction Thresholds
On November 20, the Federal Reserve Board and the CFPB announced an increase in the dollar thresholds in Regulation Z (TILA) and Regulation M (Consumer Leasing) for exempt consumer credit and lease transactions. Transactions at or below the thresholds are subject to the protections of the regulations. Based on the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers as of June 1, 2013, TILA and Consumer Leasing Act generally will apply to consumer credit transactions and consumer leases of $53,500 or less beginning January 1, 2014. Private education loans and loans secured by real property remain subject to TILA regardless of the amount of the loan.
CFPB Announces First Enforcement Action Against Payday Lender
On November 20, the CFPB announced the resolution of an enforcement action against one of the largest payday lenders in the country. The consent order alleges that the lender and an online lending subsidiary made hundreds of payday loans to active duty military members or dependents in violation of the Military Lending Act, and that call center training deficiencies have allowed additional loans to be originated to spouses of active-duty members. The order also alleges unfair and deceptive debt collection practices, including so-called “robosigning” that allegedly yielded inaccurate affidavits and pleadings likely to cause substantial injury. In July, the CFPB issued a notice 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.
Notably, this is the first public action in which the CFPB alleges that the supervised entities engaged in unlawful examination conduct. The Bureau asserts that the lender and subsidiary failed to comply with examination requirements, including by not preserving and producing certain materials and information required by the CFPB. Both the lender and its subsidiary are nonbanks and have not previously been subject to regular federal consumer compliance examinations; the CFPB does not allege that the exam failures were intentional violations potentially subject to criminal charges.
Pursuant to the consent order, the lender must pay $8 million in consumer redress, in addition to the more than $6 million the lender has already distributed to consumers for alleged debt collection and MLA violations. The lender also must pay a $5 million civil money penalty. The CFPB did not reveal how it determined the penalty amount or what portion of the fine is attributable to the alleged consumer-facing violations versus the alleged unlawful exam conduct. Finally, the order requires comprehensive compliance enhancement and imposes ongoing reporting and recordkeeping obligations for a period of three years.
In written remarks released by the CFPB, Director Cordray stated: “This action should send several clear messages to everyone under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Bureau. First, robo-signing practices are illegal wherever they occur, and they need to stop – period. Second, violations of the Military Lending Act harm our servicemembers and will be vigorously policed. Third, the Bureau will detect and punish entities that withhold, destroy, or hide information relevant to our exams.”
CFPB Weighs In On New York Tribal Lending Case
On November 13, the CFPB filed an amicus brief in a Second Circuit case stemming from efforts of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) to crack down on lenders offering allegedly illegal payday loans. Certain online lenders affiliated with Native American tribes sought to enjoin the DFS from interfering with their payday lending activities, claiming that the state’s actions violate the tribes’ inherent sovereignty and the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The federal district court denied relief last month, holding that the plaintiffs failed to identify an applicable “express federal law” prohibiting the state’s activity and that the tribes are subject to the state’s anti-usury laws, which the plaintiffs’ appealed.
In its amicus brief, the CFPB urges the court to reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) prevents the state from applying its consumer-protection laws to tribally-affiliated lenders, arguing instead that the CFPA “expressly preserves states’ varying consumer-protection laws as applied here, including those that would outlaw loans with certain terms.” According to the CFPB, “[a]lthough the CFPA recognizes that tribes, like states, have a role in regulating consumer financial products and services, and that the CFPB will coordinate with tribes and states in protecting consumers, that has no bearing on whether tribally affiliated lenders must comply with state laws.”
Preliminary Observations Regarding CFPB's Final Mortgage Disclosure Rule And Forms
**Update – The CFPB has now released the final rule and related materials, available here.**
Later today, as anticipated, the CFPB will release its final rule combining the TILA and RESPA mortgage disclosure forms and rules. We will review the final forms and rule, monitor the related field hearing, and prepare a preliminary Special Alert followed by a more detailed summary.
The final rule and forms follow two years of drafting, testing, and revision by the Bureau. According to the Bureau, its testing demonstrates that the new forms significantly improve the ability of consumers with a variety of experience levels and loan types to answer questions about their loans, compare competing loans, and compare estimated and final loan terms and costs.
The text of the final rule will not be available until later today. However, we are able to make several preliminary observations based on our review of the materials made available thus far, perhaps most importantly that industry will have until August 1, 2015 to make the changes to systems and training necessary to implement the new forms, which is longer than anticipated. Additional observations follow.
Loan Estimate Disclosure
- The new Loan Estimate will combine the disclosures currently provided in the Good Faith Estimate and the initial Truth in Lending statement.
- It appears that the final rule will require lenders to provide the Loan Estimate three business days after an application is submitted by a consumer, excluding days that the lender is not open (e.g., Saturdays). However, it is not clear based from materials available thus far when a consumer has submitted sufficient information to constitute an “application.”
- The design and layout of the Loan Estimate does not appear to differ substantially from the proposed form, except that estimated closing costs and estimated cash to close are now disclosed in separate rows on the bottom of page 1. The CFPB also states that it modified the forms to include checkboxes to tell consumers whether they are receiving or paying cash at closing and to provide a streamlined calculation of that amount.
- Owner’s title insurance is listed as “optional” on page 2. During a recent House Financial Services Committee hearing with CFPB Director Cordray, two committee members–Reps. Miller (R-CA) and Perlmutter (D-CO)–expressed concern that identifying this cost as optional would not serve consumers’ best interests.
- The Total Interest Percentage (TIP) disclosure, which was required by the Dodd-Frank Act and opposed by industry, has been retained on page 3.
- The Annual Percentage Rate (APR) appears on page 3, despite requests by consumer advocates that it appear in a prominent location on the first page. In addition, it appears that the Bureau did not adopt the proposal to revise the APR calculation to include more items in the finance charge and thereby potentially increase the number of loans that would fail the Qualified Mortgage’s points-and-fees test or would be treated as “high cost” or “higher priced.”
- It is unclear from the materials provided what changes, if any, will be made to the restrictions on changes in costs (or tolerances) imposed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2010. It is also unclear whether, under the final rule, TILA or RESPA liability will apply to violations of those restrictions.
Closing Disclosure
- The Closing Disclosure will combine the disclosures currently provided in the HUD-1 settlement statement and any revised Truth in Lending statement.
- It appears that the final rule will require the lender to ensure that the consumer receive the Closing Disclosure three business days before closing. This would mean that the lender must be able to demonstrate that the consumer received the Closing Disclosure three business days before closing.
- The CFPB materials indicate that, in comparison to the proposal that changes to the information provided in the Closing Disclosure generally require re-disclosure and an additional three business day waiting period before closing, the final rule limits the additional waiting period to situations in which there is a substantial change in the APR, a change in the loan product, or the addition of a prepayment penalty.
- It is unclear from the materials provided what role, if any, the settlement agent will play in the preparation of the Closing Disclosure and whether TILA or RESPA liability will apply.
- Like the final Loan Estimate, the design and layout of the final Closing Disclosure do not appear to differ substantially from the proposed form, except for the changes noted above.
- In addition, the final Closing Disclosure, like the proposed form, eliminates the HUD-1 line numbers. The final Closing Disclosure also eliminates the Average Cost of Funds (ACF) disclosure, which was added by the Dodd-Frank Act but opposed by industry.
Other Issues
- It appears that the CFPB has not adopted the proposed requirement that lenders retain records in an electronic, machine-readable format. Instead, the CFPB will work with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to create a data standard based on the Closing Disclosure.
For additional background, please review our report on the rule as proposed.
CFPB Examinations Of Card Rewards Program Underway
On November 15, Bloomberg reported that the CFPB is examining credit card issuers’ rewards programs. The article quotes CFPB Director Cordray stating that rewards programs can involve “detailed and confusing rules” and that the CFPB “will be reviewing whether rewards disclosures are being made in a clear and transparent manner.” The CFPB’s recent Credit CARD Act report identified rewards product disclosures as one of many card practices that “pose risks to consumers and may warrant further scrutiny by the Bureau.”
Bloomberg reported that the examinations cover the marketing of rewards programs, “particularly the marquee promise of a given card, such as cash back, or redeemable airline miles, and what a customer needs to do to get it.” The article notes that there is no apparent sudden rise in consumer complaints about rewards, but the CFPB has targeted the programs because they are, according to the source, the primary reason consumers choose a particular card.
While the CFPB reportedly is not examining the disclosures on the basis that they could present UDAAP risk, the article states that the scope of the targeted examinations includes (i) the time it takes for card holders to redeem their rewards, (ii) the potentially obscure nature of the conditions on redeeming rewards, (iii) programs that require increasing amounts of spending over time to redeem an award, and (iv) forfeiture and reinstatement of rewards.
CFPB Settles With Mortgage Insurer Over Alleged RESPA Violations
On November 15, the CFPB announced a settlement with a mortgage insurer accused of paying illegal kickbacks to mortgage lenders in exchange for insurance referrals in violation of Section 8 of RESPA. The settlement resolves allegations that the company entered into captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders across the country pursuant to which the insurer at first ceded approximately 12% of its premiums per referral to lenders’ captive reinsurers, but over time ceded increasingly large percentages of its premiums—up to 40% for each referral—in exchange for lenders’ continued referral of customers.
The proposed consent order requires the company to pay $100,000 in penalties and subjects the company to regular and mandatory compliance reporting and monitoring for a period of four years. In addition, the company is enjoined from entering into or otherwise obtaining any new captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements for a period of ten years and, with respect to pre-existing arrangements, must forfeit any right to the funds not directly related to collecting on reinsurance claims.
The action follows several other RESPA enforcement actions announced earlier this year, including actions against four mortgage insurers.
CFPB Teams With City of Columbus to Field Consumer Complaints
On November 12, the CFPB announced a partnership with the City of Columbus to provide local residents access to the CFPB’s consumer complaint hotline through the city’s existing constituent service hotline. Columbus residents who call the city hotline with a question or complaint about consumer financial products or services will be transferred directly to the CFPB for assistance. The CFPB announced a similar partnership with the City of St. Louis, Missouri on October 31, and has established relationships with numerous other localities in the past, including Newark, New York, Boston, and Jackson.
Report On CFPB's Auto Finance Forum
This morning, the CFPB hosted an auto finance forum, which featured remarks from CFPB staff and other federal regulators, consumer advocates, and industry representatives.
Some of the highlights include:
- Patrice Ficklin (CFPB) confirmed that the CFPB, both before issuing the March bulletin and since, has conducted analysis of numerous finance companies’ activities and found statistically significant disparities disfavoring protected classes. She stated that there were “numerous” companies whose data showed statistically significant pricing disparities of 10 basis points or more and “several” finance companies with disparities of over 20 or 30 basis points.
- Much of the discussion focused on potential alternatives to the current dealer markup system. The DOJ discussed allowing discretion within limitations and with documentation of the reasons for exercising that discretion (e.g., competition). The CFPB focus was exclusively on non-discretionary “alternative compensation mechanisms”, specifically flat fees per loan, compensation based on a percentage of the amount financed, or some variation of those. The CFPB said it invited finance companies to suggest other non-discretionary alternatives. Regardless of specific compensation model, Ms. Ficklin stated that in general, nondiscretionary alternatives can (i) be revenue neutral for dealers, (ii) reduce fair lending risk, (iii) be less costly than compliance management systems enhancements, and (iv) limit friction between dealers on the one hand and the CFPB on the other.
- There was significant debate over whether flat fee arrangements, or other potential compensation mechanisms, actually eliminate or reduce the potential for disparate impact in auto lending. There was also criticism of the CFPB’s failure to empirically test whether these “fixes” would result in other unintended consequences. Industry stakeholders asserted that such arrangements fail to mitigate fair lending risk market-wide while at the same time potentially increase the cost of credit and constrain credit availability. Industry stakeholders also questioned the validity of the large dollar figures of alleged consumer harm caused by dealer markups. When assessing any particular model, the CFPB’s Eric Reusch explained, finance companies should determine whether (i) it mitigates fair lending risk, (ii) creates any new risk or potential for additional harm, and (iii) it is economically sustainable, with sustainability viewed through the lens of consumers, finance companies, and dealers.
- Numerous stakeholders urged the CFPB to release more information about its proxy methodology and statistical analysis, citing the Bureau’s stated dedication to transparency and even referencing its Data Quality Act guidelines. The DOJ described its commitment to “kicking the tires” on its statistical analyses and allowing institutions to do the same. The CFPB referenced its recent public disclosure of its proxy methodology, noting that this was the methodology the CFPB intended to apply to all lending outside of mortgage.
- Steven Rosenbaum (DOJ) and Donna Murphy (OCC) pointedly went beyond the stated scope of the forum to highlight potential SCRA compliance risks associated with indirect auto lending.
Additional detail from each panel follows. Please note that these details are based on notes taken during the event and could differ from actual statements made during the event. The entire report is subject to alteration or clarification, particularly if a transcript or archived video are made available.
Opening Remarks
Director Cordray opened the forum. He stressed the importance of vehicles to individual consumers and to the broader economy. He stated that some consumers may be subject to discrimination that may result in millions of dollars in consumer harm each year.
As he did in a Senate hearing earlier this week, Mr. Cordray emphasized that neither the 2012 fair lending bulletin nor the March 2013 auto finance bulletin were new; they simply served as a reminder to finance companies of liability under ECOA, particularly with regard to indirect auto finance.
He stated that the CFPB uses proven statistical methods and publicly available data to assess the probability that a particular customer belongs to a particular racial group or is of a particular national origin.
The March bulletin provided guidance about steps auto finance companies might consider taking to ensure they are ECOA-compliant. One approach described by the Director is to develop robust fair lending compliance management systems to monitor for disparate impact and promptly remedy consumer harm on an ongoing basis when it is identified. The bulletin also stated that finance companies could take steps to comply with the law by adopting some other pricing mechanism that fairly compensates dealers for their work but avoids the fair lending risks that are inherent in pricing by discretionary markup. Director Cordray stated that such mechanisms include: a flat fee per transaction, or a fixed percentage of the amount financed, or other nondiscretionary approaches that market participants may devise that would work to address these concerns.
He acknowledged that dealers are entitled to fair compensation, but stressed that the CFPB wants to make sure the process is transparent. He stated it is worth considering further how the disclosure of markup practices actually works.
Panel 1
Patrice Ficklin (CFPB): Ms. Ficklin described and defended the March bulletin, asserting that the CFPB did not provide any new legal interpretations, but rather reminded finance companies about existing law. She noted and defended the CFPB’s proxy methodology, as described recently in letters to Congress, but did not provide additional detail. She stated that the CFPB’s supervisory and enforcement work in this area is more substantial than it was in March, and continues to indicate fair lending risk—the CFPB has found “substantial and statistically significant” disparities between African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians and similarly situated white borrowers. The CFPB has identified numerous institutions with disparities over 10 basis points, and several over 20 or 30 basis points.
Going forward, the CFPB is committed to continuing a constructive dialogue with industry, a dialogue in which alternative compensation structures has been the key theme to date.
Melissa Yap (FRB): Ms. Yap described the Fed’s ECOA authority post-Dodd-Frank. She stated that pricing remains the greatest area of risk. The Fed employs the 2009 interagency fair lending procedures and looks at (i) financial incentives, (ii) the amount of discretion, and (iii) disparities in note rate and markup over buy rate. She described the Fed’s proxy methodology, which differs slightly from the CFPB’s, but which the Fed believes is appropriate for the size and complexity of the institutions it supervises. For race, the Fed geocodes and defines majority-minority census tracts as those over 50%. She defended name proxies for gender and ethnicity, stating they are as likely to over count as under count. She also referenced two webinars the Fed and other hosted this year, which included discussion of these issues, see e.g., August webinar.
Steven Rosenbaum (DOJ): Mr. Rosenbaum described the DOJ’s broad authority to enforce ECOA and noted that it has a number of investigations ongoing, including joint investigations with the CFPB. He stated that Congress created the issue that requires the use of proxies, given that ECOA protects classes in consumer lending but does not require data collection similar to HMDA. The DOJ is using the CFPB’s method on joint investigations, but it continues to “kick the tires” on its methods and analyses and invites finance companies to do the same.
He stated, twice, that ECOA does not require nor prohibit discretion in pricing; risk from discretion can be managed, for example by setting caps or requiring justifications and documentation.
Mr. Rosenbaum added that the DOJ also enforces SCRA, and stated that if finance companies have not thought about SCRA compliance in their auto finance programs, they ought to do so. He also acknowledged the DOJ’s ongoing investigation of buy-here, pay-here dealers, though the issues differ in that those dealers may be offering predatory products in minority neighborhoods.
Keith Ernst (FDIC): Mr. Ernst similarly described the FDIC’s jurisdiction and addressed in broad terms its approach to indirect auto financing. He stated that all examination and statistical results that are consistent with a violation are subject to independent review and all statistical analyses are reviewed by a team. The FDIC provides institutions with the results, data, and methods and provides an opportunity for questions and other feedback. Mr. Ernst also noted that this dialogue includes providing institutions with the opportunity to provide non-discriminatory explanations for statistical disparities. According to Mr. Ernst, the FDIC has amended analyses as part of these processes. The FDIC believes the vast majority of its banks are effectively managing fair lending risk in auto finance, but that examinations can reveal compliance management systems concerns that fall short of a fair lending violation.
Tonya Sweat (NCUA): Ms. Sweat stated that the practices identified in the CFPB bulletin are not prevalent in the credit union industry, but NCUA still examines for fair lending risk and safety and soundness. The NCUA advises credit unions that sound practices include sampling and testing of loans, particularly to ensure third-party compliance. Credit unions should implement written policies that require written approval of any changes to underwriting criteria.
Donna Murphy (OCC): Ms. Murphy provided only brief comments, and generally referenced and incorporated what others had said on proxies. The OCC is revising and updating its methods for fair lending risk assessments and scoping based on changes in markets, the legal environment, and technology. These changes are intended to result in more consistency in examinations and the ability of the OCC to conduct more analysis across banks. For auto finance, the OCC is looking at how it gathers factors regarding use of third-parties. Ms. Murphy also noted the OCC’s attention to SCRA, stating that last year it revised examination procedures and enhanced examiner training for SCRA, including in auto finance, and that those enhancements are reflected in this year’s examination cycle.
Panel 2
The second panel was moderated by the CFPB’s Rohit Chopra and featured remarks from the National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers (NAMAD), the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), the Consumer for Auto Reliability and Safety (CARS), and the NAACP.
Stuart Rossman from the NCLC described his part in a series of class actions against auto finance companies in the 2000s. Those actions, as he described, resulted in markup caps, the last of which sunsetted last year. He asserted that the market forces that led to those actions persist, as do fundamental problems in discretionary pricing policies. Citing more restrictive class action requirements and less access to critical data, he called on the CFPB to take the lead in enforcement.
NAMAD acknowledged the possibility that bad actors exist in the market, but argued against eliminating discretion. NAMAD called for approval and documentation requirements for discretionary programs. NAMAD supports uniform data collection, enhanced proxies, training and education for dealers and consumers.
CARS noted California’s markup cap statute and reported that a proposal for a ballot proposition outlawing dealer discretion has been filed with the state attorney general. CARS also encouraged the CFPB to look at the impact of percentage rate markups in the motor home market.
Panel 3
Bill Himpler, American Financial Services Association (AFSA): Mr. Himpler stressed that the current indirect auto finance model is efficient and proven. He noted that auto finance complaints are at record lows, and pointed out that even the CFPB’s database shows a small number of complaints compared to other markets. Since the CFPB has refused to assess the impact of a broad market shift towards flat fee compensation structures or other alternatives, AFSA is commissioning an independent study to assess the present model and evaluate costs and benefits of alternative models.
Chris Kukla, Center for Responsible Lending (CRL): Mr. Kukla countered that the current compensation model gives rise to potential discrimination and should be ended. Consumers have no ability to know what part of their rate is based on risk and what is due to compensation. He defended the CRL’s 2011 study on indirect auto finance from attacks, including those that followed Senator Warren’s reference to the study during a Senate hearing earlier this week. That study concluded that consumers pay $26 billion each year in markups. Mr. Kukla explained that CRL never said consumers would not otherwise be charged a portion of those fees, and only sought to define the size of the market. He referenced other research that indicates a market-wide adoption of flat fee arrangements would have little impact on dealers.
Paul Metrey, National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA): Mr. Metrey outlined a preferred approach by federal regulators to unintentional disparate impact discrimination: (i) understand the market, (ii) develop appropriate methods, and (iii) if present, address in a manner that assists consumers. He called for the CFPB to pursue more open processes on this issue, including by identifying its complete statistical methodology and fully accounting for neutral legitimate factors. He presented NADA’s case against flat fee arrangements, in part on the basis that dealers still will have discretion to select among finance sources that may offer different flat fee arrangements.
Rich Riese, American Bankers Association (ABA): Mr. Riese challenged the CFPB’s post hoc approach to obtaining input on its auto finance program, stating that the forum does not substitute for the kind of engagement the issue requires. He argued that the guidance should have been proposed and subject to notice and comment. The ABA believes proxies should be viewed with skepticism; they can be useful to identify risks and can be useful in compliance programs, but they should not be used to prove violations. Citing the 1999 interagency exam procedures, he argued that discretion is not an appropriate area to apply disparate impact, and, before straying too much from prior policy, regulators should recognize that Reg. B applies to creditors determination of creditworthiness and the discretion being applied in auto finance is for compensation and is not part of a creditor’s determination of creditworthiness.
The panelists also discussed the comparison of indirect auto finance to the mortgage market, particularly the use of broker yield spread premiums. Mr. Riese pointed out that in the mortgage context, brokers were alleged to have steered borrowers into “bad” loans without considering suitability; that is not the case in the auto market where there are no option arms, teaser rates, etc. Mr. Himpler and Mr. Metrey agreed. Mr. Metrey added that the comparison is apples to oranges—the markets have performed differently; there is nothing going on in auto ABS like there was in MBS. He added that Congress directed an end to yield spread premiums and there has been no similar action in auto, and the Fed tested to see if a fix was necessary but there has been no similar testing in auto.
Mr. Kukla responded that the mechanics may be different, but the impact and incentives are the same. A broader view of “steering” covers any instance in which a consumer is provided a loan with less advantageous terms than the consumer otherwise would have received.
CFPB Director Testifies Before Senate Banking Committee
On November 12, CFPB Director Richard Cordray testified before the Senate Banking Committee in connection with the CFPB’s recent Semi-Annual Report to Congress, which covered the period April 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013.
The session covered a range of topics, including mortgage rule implementation, auto finance, student lending, Military Lending Act rulemaking, prepaid cards, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act privacy notices, and the CFPB’s data collection practices. A summary of the discussion of each of those topics follows. Notably, the hearing did not touch on (i) short-term, small dollar lending (outside of the Military Lending Act), online lending, or the ongoing investigations of payment processors, (ii) the status of the CFPB’s HMDA rulemaking or small business lending rule, or (iii) the CFPB’s integrated mortgage disclosure rule, which is expected later this month.
Mortgage Rule Implementation
Several committee members asked the Director about the CFPB’s compliance expectations for financial institutions when the various mortgage rules take effect in January. Director Cordray reiterated statements he has made recently in other forums: (i) the CFPB believes the vast majority of financial institutions, both large and small, will be in substantial compliance by January, (ii) the CFPB is sticking with the January implementation deadline, and (iii) “in the early months” the CFPB will not be looking for strict compliance, but rather will assess whether institutions have made “good faith efforts” to come into “substantial compliance.”
Senator Coburn (R-OK) sought clarification on the terms “early months” and “good faith effort.” On the former, the Director stated that it remains undefined. With regard to the latter, the Director explained that the CFPB will look to see whether institutions generally are taking the rules seriously and if they have compliance management system is in place that allow for monitoring and reporting to the institution’s board. He added that the CFPB does not intend to play “gotcha.”
Auto Finance
Several Republican members raised concerns about the CFPB’s approach to auto finance supervision and enforcement and specifically the indirect auto finance bulletin issued earlier this year. For example, Senator Moran (R-KS) urged Director Cordray to provide more specific answers to questions recently posed by a bipartisan group of Senators, including more detail on the CFPB’s statistical methodology for determining disparate impact and its use of proxies. Director Cordray’s November 4 response to the Senate letter largely re-stated the CFPB’s response to a similar inquiry submitted by a group of House members over the summer.
In the most recent letter, Director Cordray explained further the CFPB’s integrated methodology for proxying race and national origin, which combines probabilities about an individual’s race or ethnicity based on surname and geocoding. In a related blog post, the CFPB’s Assistant Director of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity described proxy methodologies employed by “responsible lenders,” and attempted to further justify the CFPB’s methodology. During the hearing, Director Cordray asserted that the CFPB’s approach to both is time honored and well-tested. He explained that the CFPB’s proxy methodology is a refinement of that used by the Federal Reserve Board and is “state of the art.” He acknowledged that some may have a problem with the state of the art, but asserted that the methodology is proven in social science literature and used beyond the lending context, and added that the CFPB has to have confidence in the approach knowing that it could be tested in court.
Director Cordray expressed concern about discussing the CFPB’s specific methods in detail because they relate to ongoing investigative processes the CFPB is pursuing with the DOJ. He also repeatedly referenced today’s auto finance forum as a venue in which these issues will be discussed in more detail, and one that will provide industry an opportunity to weigh in on the CFPB’s approach. He dismissed concerns that the CFPB’s activities in the auto finance realm—in particular its push towards flat fee compensation arrangements for dealers—might constrain credit or raise consumer costs, citing the “red hot” car market.
Senator Warren (D-MA) commented on dealer markups, citing “studies” that show markups cost consumers $26 billion a year and that minorities pay a higher share of those costs. She called for Congress to remove the Dodd-Frank Act exemption for dealers and provide the CFPB authority over all auto lending. Director Cordray later stated that the law drew an “unnatural line” between finance companies on the one hand and dealers on the other, but that the CFPB understands its jurisdiction and does not want to be perceived to be extending its reach to cover dealers.
Student Lending
Student loans were the only product that received special, though not new, attention in the CFPB Director’s written testimony. There and in his oral statement he highlighted the comments and complaints the CFPB has received on student lending issues and again identified problems in the student loan market that the CFPB believes mirror those seen in the mortgage market prior to the financial crisis.
Senator Coburn posited that some of the student debt problem is attributable to borrowers maxing out loans for purposes other than paying for costs not directly associated with education and suggested that Congress look at limiting acceptable uses of federal loans.
Military Lending Act
In response to a question from Senator Reed (D-RI), Director Cordray stated that the CFPB, the DOD and other agencies are close to proposing new rules under the MLA. He indicated that the proposal is pending OMB review.
Prepaid Cards
Senator Menendez (D-NJ) complained about prepaid card fees and stated he plans to reintroduce his prepaid card bill. Director Cordray generally agreed that the CFPB has concerns about the prepaid market and noted the Bureau’s 2012 ANPR. The CFPB’s spring rulemaking agenda indicated the CFPB could propose a prepaid card rule before the end of this year. However, the Director did not provide an updated timetable for issuing a prepaid card rule during his testimony.
GLB Act Privacy Notices
Senator Brown (D-OH) continued to push his bill that would exempt from the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s annual privacy policy notice requirement any financial institution that (i) provides nonpublic personal information only in accordance with specified requirements and (ii) has not changed its policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from its most recent disclosure. The House of Representatives passed its version earlier this year and the Senate could move the bill before the end of this year. Director Cordray indicated that the CFPB continues to work on a rulemaking on this issue, and that while the CFPB may not be able to go as far as Congress could through legislation, the CFPB rule is “moving in the same direction” as the legislation.
CFPB Data Collection
Much of the hearing again centered on the CFPB’s collection and use of personally identifiable information (PII). Sen. Crapo (R-ID) continued to press the issue for Republicans, and was joined by Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Toomey (R-PA). Those members asked Director Cordray to describe the types of data the CFPB collects and how that data is protected. Sen. Crapo focused primarily on the credit card account data that the CFPB obtains from Argus, which the Senator estimated to include 900 million accounts. Senator Crapo believes that even though the data may be “de-identified,” the possibility exists that it could be reverse engineered to allow CFPB staff to obtain PII or review individual accounts. Director Cordray repeatedly explained that the CFPB’s interest in that data set is to monitor market trends and the broad treatment of card holders, and the CFPB is not interested in monitoring individual accounts. He asserted the CFPB lacks the capability or interest to obtain or use consumer PII in that context. He pointed out that other regulators have had and continue to have access to the same data. Senator Crapo noted that he has requested a GAO review of this issue; Director Cordray welcomes the audit.
CFPB Rulemaking and Examination Processes
Senators Corker (R-TN) and Toomey (R-PA) brought up the recent Bipartisan Policy Center report on the CFPB to make the case that the CFPB should pursue open rulemakings instead of issuing guidance. Director Cordray stated that the CFPB will continue to use guidance when it is restating or clarifying the law, but otherwise will use open rulemakings. He admitted the auto finance guidance process could have been more open or inclusive, but again cited the upcoming forum as a way to address those concerns. He defended the CFPB’s debt collection bulletin and its 2012 fair lending bulletin.
Director Cordray stated that the CFPB still is only 80% staffed on supervision. While he agrees that the CFPB may have been slow on closing out examinations, the CFPB deliberately chose quality and consistency over speed while it staffed-up. He asserted that speed and responsiveness have greatly improved in recent months and will continue to improve next year.