InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Releases "Know Before You Owe" Auto Initiative
On June 9, the CFPB released an auto loan worksheet designed to help consumers shop for an automobile loan. As part of its Know Before You Owe auto initiative (also known as the Take Control of Your Auto Loan initiative), the online worksheet is intended to help consumers: (i) understand the aggregate amount of the loan – not just the monthly payment – including the interest rate, optional add-ons, and certain fees; (ii) negotiate and compare between loan offers; and (iii) be mindful of how additional financing features, services, or add-ons, such as guaranteed auto protection insurance, extended warranties, and credit insurance, can increase the upfront cost of a loan. In addition to the auto loan worksheet, the CFPB’s Know Before You Owe auto initiative also contains a step-by-step guide designed to help consumers navigate the auto lending process.
The CFPB simultaneously released a report titled “Consumer Voices on Automobile Financing.” The report covers research related to direct and indirect auto financing, but does not address financing offered by “Buy Here Pay Here” dealers or leasing. According to the report, as of April 20, 2016, the CFPB has received more than 2,000 consumer complaint narratives related to vehicle financing issues. The report identifies the following as common themes among consumer complaint narratives: (i) a lack of understanding regarding the potential financing options that are available, or a lack in confidence to explore options different from what was originally offered; (ii) difficulties in understanding and negotiating the loan terms, noting that “consumers reported that they did not fully understand the level of the interest rate they were paying until they started making payments”; (iii) failed promises of receiving refinancing or better loan terms in the future; (iv) challenges related to loans lasting “beyond the life of the vehicle”; (v) problems with add-ons, noting that consumers reported that the add-ons they had purchased “were difficult or impossible to use when needed”; and (vi) issues with credit inquiries and dealers submitting loan applications to lenders without consumer permission. The research and findings outlined in the CFPB’s report was used to develop the Take Control of Your Auto Loan initiative.
CFPB Updates eRegulations Platform
On June 6, the CFPB updated its eRegulations platform, a tool that allows users to search CFPB regulations, read the official interpretation of a rule alongside its text, and see a timeline of the rule and its amendments. The platform was updated to include Regulation C (Home Mortgage Disclosure), Regulation X (RESPA), and Regulation DD (Truth in Savings). Updates to the platform also include all amendments made to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) through March 2016.
Update Regarding CFPB Proposed Rule on Arbitration Agreements
As previously announced, the CFPB published its proposed rule on arbitration agreements in the Federal Register on May 24. To clarify prior summaries, the proposed rule seeks to impose two restrictions on the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements by covered providers of certain consumer financial products and services. First, the proposed rule would prohibit covered providers from using pre-dispute arbitration agreements to bar consumer class actions in court and would require providers to include a provision in their pre-dispute arbitration agreements reflecting this limitation. Second, the proposed rule would require covered providers to submit certain records related to arbitral proceedings to the CFPB if the covered provider uses pre-dispute arbitration agreements. Comments to the proposed rule must be received by the CFPB on or before August 22, 2016.
Republicans Attempt to Replace the Dodd-Frank Act with the Financial CHOICE Act
On June 7, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) released details of the Financial CHOICE (Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs) Act, a Republican proposal to dismantle the Dodd-Frank Act. According to Chairman Hensarling’s remarks delivered to the Economic Club of New York, “Dodd-Frank has failed.” The goals of the proposed plan are: (i) to promote economic growth through competitive, transparent, and innovative capital markets; (ii) to provide the opportunity for every American to achieve financial independence; (iii) to protect consumers from fraud and deception as well as the loss of economic freedom; (iv) to end taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions and too big to fail institutions; (v) to manage systemic risk; (vi) to simplify in order to prevent powerful entities from taking advantage of complexity in the law; and (vii) to hold Wall Street and Washington accountable. Importantly, Section Three (“Empower Americans to achieve financial independence by fundamentally reforming the CFPB and protecting investors”) proposes, among other things, to replace the current single director structure of the CFPB with a five-member, bipartisan commission subject to congressional oversight and appropriations. Section Three further proposes to repeal indirect auto lending guidance. As part of its goal to end “too big to fail” institutions and bank bailouts, Section Two of the Act proposes to retroactively repeal FSOC’s authority to designate firms as systematically important financial institutions. Finally, in an effort to “unleash opportunities for small businesses, innovators, and job creators by facilitating capital formation,” Section Six of the Act proposes to repeal the Volcker Rule, along with other sections and titles of Dodd-Frank that limit capital formation.
HUD Settles with North Carolina Commercial Lender Over Alleged Fair Lending Violations
On June 8, HUD announced a conciliation agreement with a North Carolina-chartered commercial lender to resolve allegations that, as the successor of a merger with a South Carolina-based bank, it denied mortgage loans to African American, Latino, and Asian American applicants at a disproportionately higher rate than white applicants in violation of Section 804(b) and 805 of the Federal Fair Housing Act. After conducting an analysis of mortgage loans originated by the South Carolina bank between 2010 and 2011, the Department found that the bank demonstrated preferential treatment of white mortgage loan applicants through the retail channel via manual override of its automated underwriting system. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the commercial lender, having cooperated with HUD’s investigation, must among other things, (i) provide nonprofit organizations with $140,000 to use toward credit and housing counseling, financial literacy training, and related programs for first-time homebuyers in South Carolina; (ii) spend an aggregate amount of $20,000 on positive marketing, advertising, and outreach to residents in majority-minority census tracts in South Carolina; (iii) partner with a non-profit organization or community groups involved in financial education to conduct, at a minimum, 24 financial education programs in South Carolina for individuals and small business owners; (iv) hire three mortgage banker market specialists to “focus on diverse lending in Charleston-North Charleston-Summerville, Columbia, and Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin metro areas”; (v) require fair housing training for all employees and agents substantially involved in manual underwriting of mortgages; and (vi) implement “a new standardized and objective set of guidelines for a second review of retail channel residential loan applications initially denied by the automated underwriting system.”
FTC Submits Annual Report on 2015 Enforcement Actions to CFPB
On June 6, the FTC announced that it submitted its 2015 Annual Financial Acts Enforcement Report to the CFPB. The report covers the FTC’s enforcement activities related to compliance with Regulation Z (TILA), Regulation M (Consumer Leasing Act or CLA), and Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfer Act or EFTA), as well as the FTC’s related activities in rulemaking, research, policy development, and consumer/business education related to TILA. According to the report, the FTC’s enforcement efforts in 2015 concerning TILA involved mortgage-related credit and non-mortgage credit, including automobile purchases and financing, car title loans, payday lending, and consumer electronics financing. Regarding mortgage-related credit activity, the report highlights continued litigation involving mortgage assistance relief services/forensic audit scams: “[i]n these scams, mortgage assistance relief providers offer, for a substantial fee, to review or audit the mortgage documents of distressed homeowners to identify violations of TILA, Regulation Z, and other federal laws.” The report further noted that under Regulation M and as part of the FTC’s Operation Ruse Control sweep on the auto industry, the FTC issued five final administrative consent orders and one consent agreement for public comment. Finally, regarding the FTC’s enforcement activities related to compliance with the EFTA, the report states that four of the FTC’s seven cases involving the EFTA in 2015 arose in the context of “negative option” plans, where consumers agreed to a trial period in which they received certain goods or services for no additional charge or at a reduced price, but later incurred recurring charges due to failure to cancel before the trial period ended.
FFIEC Issues Cybersecurity Statement, Comments on Recent Attacks on Interbank Messaging and Payment Networks
On June 7, the FFIEC issued a statement on behalf of its members (the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, NCUA, CFPB, and State Liaison Committee) advising financial institutions to “actively manage the risks associated with interbank messaging and wholesale payment networks.” According to the statement, recent cyber attacks against interbank networks and wholesale payment systems have demonstrated the ability to: (i) bypass information security controls and compromise a financial institution’s wholesale payment origination environment; (ii) “obtain and use valid operator credentials with the authority to create, approve, and submit messages”; (iii) make use of sophisticated understanding of funds transfer operations and operational controls; (iv) disable security logging and reporting by using highly customized malware, as well as conceal and delay detection of fraudulent transactions with the use of other operational controls; and (v) quickly transfer stolen funds across multiple jurisdictions. Due to the potential financial loss and compliance risk associated with the unauthorized transactions, the statement reminds financial institutions to consider the following steps to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and FFIEC guidance: (i) establish and maintain an information security risk assessment program that “considers new and evolving threat intelligence related to online accounts and adjust customer authentication, layered security, and other controls in response to identified risks”; (ii) implement and maintain protection and detection systems, including antivirus protection and intrusion detection systems, and properly monitor system alerts; (iii) protect against unauthorized access to critical systems by, among other things, “limiting the number or credentials with elevated privileges across institutions” and establishing authentication rules; (iv) implement and regularly test controls around critical systems, and report test results to senior management, as well as the board of directors, if appropriate; (v) validate business continuity planning and ensure that the institution is able to “quickly recover and maintain payment processing operations”; (vi) strengthen information security awareness by conducting regular and mandatory training; and (vii) participate in industry information-sharing forums, such as the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center.
In light of the FFIEC’s statement, the OCC simultaneously released Bulletin 2016-08, cautioning financial institutions that use interbank messaging and wholesale payment networks to take the aforementioned risk mitigation steps.
OFAC Updates Iran-Related FAQs
On June 8, OFAC updated its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Relating to the Lifting of Certain U.S. Sanctions Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In addition to adding nine FAQs related to Foreign Entities Owned or Controlled by U.S. Persons (see, K.14 through K.22), OFAC added two FAQs, C.15 and C.16, regarding Financial and Banking Measures. Specifically, C.15 clarifies that U.S. financial institutions “can transact with, including by opening or maintaining correspondent accounts for, non-U.S., non-Iranian financial institutions that maintain correspondent banking relationships or otherwise transact with Iranian financial institutions that are not on the SDN List.” Non-U.S. financial institutions remain prohibited from routing Iran-related transactions through U.S. financial institutions or involve U.S. persons in such transactions, unless the transactions are exempt from regulation or licensed by OFAC. FAQ C.16 addresses whether or not a non-U.S., non-Iranian entity may engage in transactions with Iranian persons not on the SDN List if one or more U.S. persons serve on the non-Iranian entity’s Board of Directors or senior managers. While the presence of one or more U.S. persons on the Board of Directors or serving as a senior manager does not, according to C.16, necessarily preclude the entity from transacting with Iranian persons not on the SDN List, OFAC stresses that “U.S. persons must be walled off or “ring-fenced” from Iran-related business.” OFAC recommended that non-U.S., non-Iranian entities consider implementing broad recusal policies to wall off U.S. persons for the institution’s Iran-related business.
Illinois Adopts National SAFE MLO Test
On June 1, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors announced that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR) will now use the National SAFE Mortgage Loan Originator (MLO) Test with Uniform State Content, making it the 52nd state agency to adopt the test. Under the new process, Illinois licensees who pass the SAFE MLO Test with Uniform State Content no longer need to take an additional, state-specific test. IDFPR Secretary Bryan Schneider commented on the streamlined test process saying, “[b]y providing a more effective regulatory experience, we foster the creation of a regulatory environment conducive to strong economic growth and opportunity.”
South Carolina Approves House Bill 4548, Amends Motor Vehicle Closing Fee Statute
On June 2, the South Carolina legislature passed House Bill 4548, which amends section 37-2-307, Code of Laws of South Carolina, to give the Department of Consumer Affairs (the Department) the authority to regulate motor vehicle closing fees for reasonableness. Pursuant to HB 4548, if a motor vehicle dealer charges a closing fee of less than $225 per vehicle, the Department will not conduct a review of the amount of the closing fee. For closing fees exceeding $225, the Department may conduct a review for reasonableness that permits including the following in a closing fee: (i) all administrative expenses, costs, staff, supplies, materials, and financial work required to transfer the motor vehicle to the consumer and to obtain the closing of the transaction; (ii) all costs for administrative expenses, costs, staff, supplies, and materials needed by the dealer to ensure compliance with all state, federal, and lender requirements; (iii) all costs for administrative costs, staff, and materials needed to prepare and retrieve documents; (iv) all costs for administrative costs, staff, supplies, and materials required to protect the consumer’s private personal information; and (v) all costs for administrative costs, staff, supplies, and materials required for records retention and storage costs of those records.
In accordance with the new law, the Department issued a memorandum to South Carolina automobile dealers on June 6, advising them that they have until July 3, 2016 to comply with the recent closing fee amendments. Dealers who already filed their closing fees with the Department and wish to continue to charge the same fee after July 3 “must submit a renewal Motor Vehicle Filing Form along with a ten dollar filing fee to the Department before the Deadline.” Updated filing forms will be available via the Department’s website by June 10, 2016.