InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Department of Defense Updates MLA Interpretive Guidance; Addresses Timing for Safe Harbor Qualification
The Department of Defense (DoD) published a new interpretive rule (rule) under the Military Lending Act (MLA) on December 14. This interpretive rule takes effect immediately, and it both amends and adds to the interpretive rule issued by DoD in August 2016 (previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert). In general, the rule contains the following updated interpretations:
- Exemption of Credit Secured by a Motor Vehicle or Personal Property. The rule provides additional guidance on the exemption covering purchase money-secured motor vehicle and personal property loans. Specifically, the rule states that additional costs may be added to an extension of credit so long as these costs relate to the object securing the credit, and not the extension of credit itself. For example, the rule explains that credit used to finance “optional leather seats,” “an extended warranty,” or “negative equity” in connection with the purchase of a motor vehicle will not cause the loan to be subject to the MLA. However, the rule also states that, if credit is extended to cover “Guaranteed Auto Protection insurance or a credit insurance premium” or additional “cashout,” the loan is not eligible for the MLA exception.
- Security Interests in Covered Borrowers’ Accounts. The rule addresses the ability of a creditor to take a security interest in a covered borrower’s account. Specifically, the rule states that a covered borrower may “convey security interest for all types of consumer credit” to a creditor, so long as the creditor complies with all other laws and the MLA rule. Similarly, the rule notes that the MLA does not prohibit a creditor from exercising rights to take an otherwise-valid statutory lien on funds that have been deposited into a covered borrower’s account “at any time.” However, the rule also emphasizes methods a creditor may not use to obtain payment from a covered borrower’s account, such as a “remotely created check.”
- Timing for Safe Harbor Qualification. The rule provides additional clarity on when a creditor must check an applicant’s active duty status to obtain the MLA’s safe harbor. The rule states that an applicant’s covered borrower status should be determined when the applicant (i) initiates the transaction, (ii) submits an application to establish an account or during the processing of that application, or (iii) anytime during a 30-day period of time prior to such action. In addition, the rule states that a covered borrower check can qualify for the safe harbor if it is performed “during the course of the creditor’s processing of that application for consumer credit.”
OFAC Issues License and Guidance on Amended Ukrainian/Russian Sanctions
On November 28, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) released General License 1B to address amendments made to Directives 1 and 2 (Directives) of its Ukrainian/Russian-related Sectoral Sanctions. The amendments were made in accordance with the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act of 2017 (CAATSA). (See previous InfoBytes coverage on Directives here.) The Directives prohibit U.S. persons from dealings in certain equity and debt of persons determined by OFAC to be part of the Russian financial and energy sectors. According to a Treasury press release, General License 1B addresses the decrease in the maturity dates of debt transactions prohibited by Directive 1 from 30 days to 14 days, and the decrease in the maturity dates of debt transactions prohibited by Directive 2 from 90 days to 60 days. General License 1B authorizes transactions by U.S. persons, wherever located, and transactions within the United States that involve derivative products whose value is linked to an underlying asset that constitutes prohibited debt issued by person subject to Directives 1, 2 or 3 of the Sectoral Sanctions, including those issued on or after November 28 that have the reduced maturity dates targeted by CAATSA. OFAC also released updated FAQs to answer questions related to the Ukrainian-/Russian-related amended directives.
California Department of Business Reaches $1.1 Million Settlement With South Carolina-Based Mortgage Lender and Servicer
The California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced on December 11 that it had reached a $1.1 million settlement with a South Carolina-based mortgage lender and servicer to resolve allegations that the company (1) violated California’s statutory restriction on per diem interest and (2) serviced loans without a California license. This settlement marks the second time in five years that examiners discovered alleged per diem overcharges in the company’s loans. Under California law, lenders are prohibited from charging interest on mortgage loans prior to the last business day that immediately precedes the day the loan proceeds are disbursed. In addition, it is a violation of state law to service residential mortgage loans without obtaining proper licensure.
According to the terms of the settlement—which resolves violations identified during a 2016 supervisory examination—the company must: (i) refrain from loan servicing activities until licensed by the state; (ii) pay $1 million in penalties to DBO for past violations; (iii) pay $125 for each additional violation identified by an independent audit of its loan originations; and (iv) issue per diem interest refunds totaling more than $141,000 to at least 1,347 borrowers. The company has also agreed to revise its policies and procedures to prevent future violations of California law.
DOJ Announces Settlement With Mortgage Lender to Resolve Alleged False Claims Act Violations
The DOJ announced a $11.6 million settlement on December 8 with a Louisiana-based direct endorsement mortgage lender and certain affiliates to resolve allegations that the lender violated the False Claims Act by falsely certifying compliance with federal requirements in order to obtain insurance on mortgage loans from the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). According to the DOJ’s press release, between January 2005 and December 2014, the lender (i) certified loans that failed to meet HUD’s underwriting and origination requirements for FHA insurance; (ii) paid incentives to underwriters in violation of the “underwriter commission prohibition,” and continued to make incentive payments even after HUD notified the lender of commission prohibition noncompliance in 2010; and (iii) failed to, in a timely manner, “self-report material violations of HUD requirements” or perform quality reviews. The settlement also fully resolves a False Claims Act qui tam lawsuit that had been pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
CFPB Ombudsman’s Office Publishes Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Report
The CFPB’s Ombudsman’s Office published its annual report to the Director for fiscal year 2017, entitled Advocating for Fair Process in Consumer Financial Protection. The December 6 report details Ombudsman initiatives undertaken in 2017 and highlights the Bureau’s selection as one of four case studies in a December 2016 study by the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) on the use of ombudsmen in federal agencies. Specifically, the Bureau’s report focuses on systemic reviews concerning the following: (i) the accessibility of CFPB print materials for different groups of people; (ii) the telephone entry point for non-consumers; (iii) the documenting and standardizing of ex parte communications regarding proposed rules; and (iv) the implementing of improvements to the way consumers select categories when identifying issues with companies in the consumer complaint database.
The Ombudsman’s report also outlines strategic goals for the next two years, including, among other things, (i) addressing CFPB process issues facing consumers, financial entities, and trade groups; (ii) optimizing resources for effective assistance; and (iii) expanding educational efforts and engagement with stakeholders, in addition to implementing best practices to convey feedback.
Federal Reserve Requests Comments on Proposals Seeking Transparency Increases in Stress Testing Programs
The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued a request for comments on three proposals designed to increase stress testing transparency while also testing the resiliency of large, complex banks. Earlier in June, Fed Chair Janet Yellen underscored the Fed’s understanding of the need to provide transparency in its Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) process and stress test scenarios. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The first December 7 proposal, “Enhanced Disclosure of the Models Used in the Federal Reserve’s Supervisory Stress Test,” announces the Fed’s plans to publicly release, for the first time, information concerning the models and methodologies used during supervisory stress tests, including those applied in the CCAR, including:
- “enhanced descriptions of supervisory models, including key variables;”
- “modeled loss rates on loans grouped by important risk characteristics and summary statistics associated with the loans in each group;” and,
- “portfolios of hypothetical loans and the estimated loss rates associated with the loans in each portfolio.”
The information will offer banks expanded details as to how the Fed’s models treat different types of loans under stress, along with insight into the determination of annual stress test results.
The second request for comments concerns the “Stress Testing Policy Statement,” which elaborates on prior disclosures and outlines details on the principles and policies that govern the Fed’s development, implementation, and validation of its stress testing models.
Finally, the Fed issued a proposed policy statement to request comments on introduced amendments to the design of its annual hypothetical economic scenarios framework. The “Amendments to Policy Statement on the Scenario Design Framework for Stress Testing” is intended to enhance transparency and provide clarification on hypothetical economic scenarios, including the direction of housing prices, as well as the Fed’s commitment to exploring additional variables to test for funding risks.
All comments must be received by January 22, 2018.
FDIC’s OIG Issues Evaluation of Agency’s Implementation of ATR/QM and Loan Originator Rules
On December 6, the FDIC’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an evaluation report to examine how the agency implements certain consumer protection rules concerning consumers’ ability to repay mortgage loans and limits for loan originator compensation. The OIG report, FDIC’s Implementation of Consumer Protection Rules Regarding Ability to Repay Mortgages and Compensation for Loan Originators (EVAL-18-001), focused on the FDIC’s Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection (DCP), which is responsible for implementing the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage (ATR/QM) and Loan Originator rules and tracking violations of the rules. The report found that the DCP “incorporated these rules into its examination program, trained its examiners, and communicated regulatory changes to FDIC-supervised institutions.” However, based on a sample of 12 examinations, the OIG also determined that examination workpapers generally needed improvement, finding (i) inconsistent documentation by examiners on decisions to exclude compliance testing for the ATR/QM and Loan Originator rules, and (ii) in certain circumstances, incomplete, incorrect, or improperly stored examiners’ workpapers, “which would preclude someone independent of the examination team from fully understanding examination findings and conclusions, based on the workpapers alone.”
OIG further noted that, because DCP’s examination practices did not include tracking the number of institutions subject to the rules or recording how frequently examiners tested for compliance, any identified variances among the FDIC’s six regional offices could not be assessed for significance due to lack of context.
As a result of these findings, the OIG made several recommendations for the DCP to strengthen its compliance examination process, including:
- “research potential reasons for the regional variances in the number of rule violations by banks in the FDIC’s six regional offices”;
- “track the aggregate number of FDIC-supervised institutions in each region that are subject to the rules”;
- “track how often examiners test for compliance with the rules”; and
- ‘‘take steps to improve workpaper documentation and retention.”
The DCP agreed to implement these recommendations June 30, 2018.
OCC Allows Closure of Certain Financial Institutions Affected by Wildfires in California
The OCC issued a proclamation on December 7 allowing national banks and federal savings associations affected by wildfires in California to close. The OCC encouraged the affected offices to make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible and to consult OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for guidance on certain actions the institutions should consider implementing for customers in affected disaster areas, previously covered by InfoBytes here.
FHA Will Stop Insuring Mortgages With Pace Loans
In ML 2017-18, FHA announced that it will no longer insure mortgages encumbered by Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) obligations due to their superior lien status. The December 7 letter is a reversal of the policies outlined in ML 2016-11, which allowed for, in certain circumstances, the continued payment obligation to PACE on foreclosed FHA-insured properties. The new guidance is effective 30 days after issuance of the letter.
Ginnie Mae Imposes Tougher Pooling Standards on Certain Refinance Loans
Last week, Ginnie Mae announced an All Participants Memorandum, APM 17-06, regarding pooling eligibility for refinance loans. According to Ginnie Mae, the purpose of the December 7 Memorandum is to expand the pooling restrictions announced last year in APM 16-05 to address frequent loan churning and quick prepayments. Specifically, for pool issuances on or after April 1, 2018, all streamline and cash-out refinance loans are eligible for Ginnie Mae I Single Issuer Pools and Ginnie Mae II Multiple Issuer Pools only if (i) six consecutive borrower monthly payments are made; and (ii) the first payment due date of the refinance loan must be at least 210 days after the first payment due date on the original loan. Refinance Loans that are fully underwritten and meet certain criteria will not be subject to the new pooling restrictions.
APM 16-05 remains effective until APM 17-06 becomes effective on April 1, 2018. Ginnie Mae will continue active monitoring for unusually rapid prepayment rates and will institute sanctions for noncompliance. Ginnie Mae also plans to publish revised pooling standards for premium rate loans in early 2018.