InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Latest CFPB Rulemaking Agenda Adds Some New Initiatives, Updates Timelines For Others
On December 3, the CFPB released its fall 2013 rulemaking agenda, part of the broader government Unified Agenda initially published last week. The CFPB’s latest agenda pushes back the timelines on several key initiatives, but offers relatively few new initiatives. One notable exception is that the CFPB included planned activities related to a potential rule on overdraft products, which will build off of the CFPB’s overdraft white paper released earlier this year.
The CFPB agenda also indicates that the Bureau plans additional activities related to the mortgage rules issued earlier this year and updated throughout the year. For example, the agenda states the CFPB will consider additional guidance that would facilitate the development of automated underwriting systems for purposes of calculating debt-to-income ratios in connection with qualified mortgage determinations. Also, as expected, the CFPB plans to conduct further analysis to consider possible amendments to the definitions of "rural" and "underserved" for purposes of certain exemptions from the mortgage rules.
With regard to timelines, for example, “prerule activities” related to the eventual HMDA rule have again been delayed, with no public action expected before February 2014. Similarly, a proposed rule related to GPR prepaid cards now is expected no sooner than May 2014. The CFPB also promised to return to its prior efforts to streamline and modernize regulations that it inherited from other agencies, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's annual privacy notice requirements.
CFPB Asks Student Loan Servicers About Payment Practices
On November 26, the CFPB sent a letter to student loan servicers offering them an opportunity to submit information about the options they make available to borrowers seeking to make extra payments on their private student loans. Last month, the CFPB recommended servicing policy changes and published a consumer advisory containing customizable, sample text that borrowers can electronically submit their servicers to indicate that they wish to allocate payments in excess of the amount due to their highest-rate loan in order to reduce their total interest paid. The Bureau states that it has since received inconsistent feedback from industry participants about the usefulness of this approach.
In response, the CFPB is now seeking additional information for use in responding to consumer inquiries and developing additional consumer education materials. The CFPB asks servicers to provide information about (i) the allocation of lump sum payments by the Department of Defense and other third parties on behalf of servicemembers or others seeking to direct lump-sum payments to specific loans; (ii) the percentage of borrower payments made through online bill pay systems and direct debit, and servicer practices related to borrower instructions provided with such payments; (iii) servicers’ ability to accommodate standing instructions for future excess payments; and (iv) the methods by which servicers communicate with borrowers about directing prepayments.
The CFPB plans to make the information its gathers public, but will not identify any particular servicer. Servicers that intend to voluntarily provide information in response to the Bureau’s requests are instructed to do so by December 17, 2013.
Special Alert: CFPB Finalizes Rule Combining TILA and RESPA Mortgage Disclosures
UPDATED OCTOBER 14, 2014: Updated to reflect amendments proposed by the CFPB on October 10, 2014.
On November 20, 2013, the CFPB finalized its long-awaited rule combining the mortgage disclosures consumers receive under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). For more than 30 years, the TILA and RESPA mortgage disclosures had been administered separately by, respectively, the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) transferred authority over TILA and RESPA to the Bureau and directed the Bureau to create “rules and model disclosures that combine the disclosures required under [TILA] and sections 4 and 5 of [RESPA], into a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions covered by those laws.” Congress did not, however, amend TILA and RESPA provisions governing timing, responsibility, and liability for the disclosures, leaving it to the Bureau to resolve the inconsistencies. The final rule generally applies to covered transactions for which the creditor or mortgage broker receives an application on or after August 1, 2015.
Click here to read our Special Alert. (Updated 10/15/14)
Questions regarding the matters discussed in this Alert may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
CFPB Reports On Impacts Of Regulations For Banks
On November 22, the CFPB released findings of a study the Bureau conducted on the impact of certain deposit regulations on the day-to-day operations of banking institutions, focusing on compliance costs related to checking accounts, traditional savings accounts, debit cards, and overdraft programs. The study collected information from seven banks about activities related to compliance with regulations implementing the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the financial privacy requirements of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Regulations DD, E, P, and V, respectively), as well as FCRA’s adverse action requirements, which are not implemented by regulation. According to the Bureau, compliance costs were concentrated in the Operations, Information Technology, Human Resources, Compliance, and Retail functions, and banks incurred the most substantial costs complying with rules related to authorization rights, error resolution requirements, disclosure mandates, and advertising standards.
The report identifies the compliance-related activities that entailed the highest costs across business functions and suggests that “authorization rights” (i.e., opt-ins and opt-outs) and error-resolution requirements are the most costly to administer. The report also discusses the potential for the study—which the Bureau characterizes as representing “some of the most rigorous information currently available” on compliance costs—to advance research on the cost of compliance, influence the ultimate understanding of regulatory impacts on consumers and markets, and inform the CFPB’s ongoing efforts to avoid unnecessary compliance costs. The Bureau states that estimating the operational effects of consumer financial services regulation alone has “limited value to policymaking” and is mainly helpful in determining the impact of a specific regulation on product pricing and availability or market structure and competition. The Bureau concluded that research on the effects of regulations will remain an ongoing priority, but it will nevertheless continue to address problems observed in the marketplace — “mindful that, whatever the costs of regulation, the costs of not regulating adequately can be even larger.”
The full report, Understanding the Effects of Certain Deposit Regulations on Financial Institutions' Operations: Findings on Relative Costs for Systems, Personnel, and Processes at Seven Institutions, is available here.
CFPB Director Delivers Remarks On Nonbank Supervision, Payment Systems
On November 21, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered remarks at The Clearing House Annual Conference, including a review of the CFPB’s efforts to resolve concerns raised by the mortgage market through adoption of new mortgage rules and the objective of evenhanded oversight that is not dependent on charter choice or regulator. Mr. Cordray placed particular emphasis on the CFPB’s ability and efforts to “level the playing field” through its nonbank supervision program.
Notably, Director Cordray raised questions about recent efforts by other regulators and law enforcement authorities to investigate and take action against nonbank entities, like online payday lenders, by focusing on how these nonbanks get paid through bank payment systems. Cordray cautioned that, “[t]he focus of these . . . actions may create burdens that fall disproportionately on individual banks that are participants in the payment systems” and that the referenced approach “may not be the most efficient or effective approach.” Rather, Director Cordray suggested that further attention should be given to “how [payment] systems are designed and how they function for all of the institutions that participate in them.” The Director also expressed interest in working with the Clearing House to improve the CFPB’s understanding of using enhanced computer analytics and communications to identify patterns in payment systems, which he stated would better enable the CFPB to “identify and enforce the law against illegitimate firms that are otherwise able to reduce their own costs by hitching a free ride on the payments system,” as well as to consider necessary changes in law or practice.
Deputy AG Outlines Financial Crimes Enforcement Approach, Compliance Expectations
On November 18, at an American Bar Association/American Bankers Association conference on the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML), Deputy Attorney General (Deputy AG) James Cole challenged financial institutions’ compliance efforts and outlined the DOJ’s financial crimes enforcement approach. Noting that compliance within financial institutions is of particular concern to the DOJ, based in part on recent cases of “serious criminal conduct by bank employees,” the nation’s second highest ranking law enforcement official detailed DOJ’s approach to investigating and deciding in what manner to pursue potential violations. The Deputy AG included among his examples of serious misconduct recent BSA/AML, RMBS, mortgage False Claims Act, and LIBOR cases. He explained that the DOJ is particularly concerned about incentives that encourage excessive risk taking, and stated that “too many bank employees and supervisors value coming as close to the line as possible, or even crossing the line, as being ‘competitive’ or ‘aggressive.’”
Deputy AG Cole stated that the DOJ’s decisions about bringing criminal prosecutions are informed by the Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations, which include, among other factors: (i) the nature and seriousness of the offense; (ii) the pervasiveness of the wrongdoing within the corporation, including the complicity of corporate management; (iii) the corporation’s history of similar misconduct, including prior criminal, civil, and regulatory actions against it; and (iv) the adequacy of a corporation’s pre-existing compliance program. He added that the DOJ “look[s] hard at the messages that bank management and supervisors are actually giving to employees in the context of their day-to-day work.” Specifically, the DOJ (i) reviews chats, emails, and recorded phone calls; (ii) talks to witnesses to assess management’s compliance message; and (iii) examines the “incentives that banks provide their employees to either cross the line, or to exhibit compliant behavior.”
The Deputy AG stressed that “[i]f a financial institution wants to encourage compliance – if its values are not skewed towards making money at all costs – then that message must be conveyed to employees in a meaningful and effective way if they’d like [the] Department to view it as credible.” He echoed past calls by federal authorities for institutions to create “cultures of compliance” that include “real, effective, and proactive” compliance programs. Any institution that fails to do so, he cautioned, could be subject to prosecution.
Comptroller Identifies BSA/AML Risks, Calls For Increased Information Sharing
On November 17, the Comptroller of the Currency, Thomas Curry, delivered remarks at the American Bar Association/American Bankers Association BSA/AML conference in which he identified common BSA/AML compliance risks and failures, and identified steps industry participants and regulators should take to improve compliance. The Comptroller explained that successful BSA/AML compliance is dependent not only on “the strength of the institution’s technology and monitoring processes, and the effectiveness of its risk management,” but also on strong corporate governance processes and management’s willingness to commit adequate resources. Comptroller Curry called on banks to commit sufficient resources and take a “holistic approach” toward BSA/AML compliance, for example, by dispersing accountability throughout the organization instead of concentrating compliance in a single unit. Noting that this is particularly important in the M&A context, the Comptroller stated that it is vital that due diligence go beyond a target’s credit portfolio to include a review of the target’s BSA/AML program. In addition to lack of compliance resources, the Comptroller identified as risk trends: (i) poor management of international activities—foreign correspondent banking, cross-border funds transfers, bulk cash repatriation, and embassy banking; (ii) third-party relationships and payment processors; and (iii) emerging payment technologies, including virtual currencies. He stressed the importance of information sharing among institutions and between institutions and their regulators, and called for (i) legislation that would encourage the filing of SARs by strengthening the statutory safe harbor from civil liability for filing financial institutions, (ii) broadening the Patriot Act safe harbor for institutions that share information with each other about potential crimes and suspicious transactions, and (iii) exploring ways government can provide more robust and granular information about money laundering schemes and typologies to institutions in a more timely way.
Federal, State Authorities Announce Largest RMBS Settlement To Date
On November 19, the DOJ, other federal authorities, and state authorities in California, Delaware, Illinois, and Massachusetts, announced a $13 billion settlement of federal and state RMBS civil claims, which were being pursued as part of the state-federal RMBS Working Group, part of the Obama Administration’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The DOJ described the settlement as the largest it has ever entered with a single entity. Federal and state law enforcement authorities and financial regulators alleged that the bank and certain institutions it acquired mislead investors in connection with the packaging, marketing, sale and issuance of certain RMBS. They claimed the institutions’ employees knew that loans backing certain RMBS did not comply with underwriting guidelines and were not otherwise appropriate for securitization, yet allowed the loans to be securitized and sold without disclosing the alleged underwriting failures to investors.The agreement includes $9 billion in civil penalties and $4 billion in consumer relief. Of the civil penalty amount, $2 billion resolves DOJ’s claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), $1.4 billion resolves federal and state securities claims by the NCUA, $515.4 million resolves federal and state securities claims by the FDIC, $4 billion settles federal and state claims by the FHFA, while the remaining amount resolves claims brought by California ($298.9 million), Delaware ($19.7 million) Illinois ($100.0 million), Massachusetts ($34.4 million), and New York ($613.0 million). The bank also was required to acknowledge it made “serious misrepresentations.” The agreement does not prevent authorities from continuing to pursue any possible related criminal charges.
OCC, FDIC Finalize Deposit Advance Guidance
On November 21, the OCC and the FDIC separately issued guidance that establishes numerous expectations for institutions offering deposit advance products, including with regard to consumer eligibility, capital adequacy, fees, compliance, management oversight, and third-party relationships. For example, under the guidance the agencies expect banks to offer a deposit advance product only to customers who (i) have at least a six month relationship with the bank; (ii) do not have any delinquent or adversely classified credits; and (iii) meet specific financial capacity standards. The guidance also establishes, among other things, that (i) each deposit advance loan be repaid in full before the extension of a subsequent loan; (ii) banks refrain from offering more than one loan per monthly statement cycle and provide a “cooling-off period” of at least one monthly statement cycle after the repayment of a loan before another advance is extended; and (iii) banks reevaluate customer eligibility every six months. The final guidance is substantially the same as the versions proposed in April. However, the agencies added language to clarify that eligibility and underwriting expectations do not require the use of credit reports, and to emphasize that the guidance applies to all deposit advance products regardless of how the extension of credit is offered. Acknowledging the demand for short-term, small-dollar credit products, and dismissing the concerns that the guidance might restrict such credit, the FDIC encouraged banks to continue to offer “properly structured products” and to develop new or innovative programs to effectively meet the need for small-dollar credit. As a reminder, the Federal Reserve Board did not propose similar guidance, but instead issued a policy statement.
Governor Yellen Addresses Bank Director Removal Over Foreclosure Practices; Lawmakers Press Regulators On Independent Foreclosure Review Details
On November 18, Federal Reserve Chair nominee Janet Yellen responded to a recent inquiry by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) seeking more details about the Federal Reserve Board’s process for determining whether bank officers or directors should be removed because they directly or indirectly participated in the alleged violations that have resulted in various mortgage servicer settlements. Governor Yellen stated that the Federal Reserve Board “has not, to date, taken any actions removing or prohibiting insiders of the mortgage servicing organizations that were subject to the 2011 and 2012 mortgage servicing enforcement actions for their conduct in connection with servicing or foreclosure activities”, but “[the Federal Reserve Board is], however, continuing to investigate whether such removal or prohibition actions are appropriate.” In addition, on November 15, Senator Warren, joined by Representatives Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Maxine Waters (D-CA), again pressed the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC to release a public report on the Independent Foreclosure Review process. This latest request follows other similar requests made earlier this year.