InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SEC Announces Its First Ever Deferred Prosecution Agreement With An Individual
On November 12, the SEC announced a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with a former hedge fund administrator, the agency’s first ever DPA with an individual. The DPA follows a November 2012 SEC enforcement action against a hedge fund and its manager, who allegedly misappropriated more than $1.5 million from the hedge fund and overstated its performance to investors. The SEC action derived from and was aided by information provided by the hedge fund administrator. In return for the assistance provided, the SEC agreed to enter the DPA instead of pursuing allegations that the settling administrator aided and abetted the fund’s securities law violations. The DPA requires the administrator to disgorge $50,000, and prohibits the administrator from, (i) serving as a fund administrator or otherwise providing any services to any hedge fund for a period of five years, and (ii) associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, or registered investment company. The SEC states the agreement demonstrates its commitment to rewarding proactive cooperation. According to the SEC, the agreement strikes a balance between holding the administrator accountable for his part in the alleged misconduct, while giving him credit for reporting the fraud and providing full cooperation without any assurances of leniency.
New York Banking Regulator Plans Virtual Currency Hearing, Considers Licensing Requirements
On November 14, New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky issued a notice that the DFS intends to hold a public hearing on virtual currency regulation in New York City “in the coming months.” The hearing will focus on the interconnection between money transmission regulations and virtual currencies. Additionally, the hearing is expected to consider the need for and feasibility of a licensing regime specific to virtual currency transactions and activities (i.e. a “BitLicense”), which would include anti-money laundering and consumer protection requirements for licensed entities. The notice makes clear that no decisions on licensing or other regulation of virtual currencies has been made. Rather the hearing and license notice is part of the agency’s broader inquiry launched in August into the need for a regulatory framework specific to virtual currencies. With regard to potential licensing, the DFS would like stakeholders to consider: (i) what, if any, specific types of virtual currency transactions and activities should require a BitLicense; (ii) whether entities that are issued a BitLicense should be required to follow specifically tailored anti-money laundering or consumer protection guidelines; and (iii) whether entities that are issued a BitLicense should be required to follow specifically tailored regulatory examination requirements.
New York Enacts Consumer Protections for Convenience Checks
On November 13, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed AB 3601, a bill intended to protect payment card holders from liability for unauthorized use of unsolicited convenience checks. Effective immediately, cardholders are held harmless for unauthorized use of unsolicited convenience checks associated with their account. The New York Bankers Association opposed the bill because its title and the accompanying sponsor’s memo misstate the purpose of the bill as being an outright ban on the unsolicited mailing of convenience checks to consumers when, in fact, the bill does not ban the practice.
Proposed California Ballot Initiative Targets Dealer Markups
Recently, the consumer advocacy group Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety announced that it submitted a new ballot initiative in California that would, among numerous other things, prohibit dealer markups in auto finance transactions. The text as proposed would prohibit, in connection with the assignment of a conditional sale contract for a motor vehicle, any seller or employee of a seller from accepting, and any purchaser of a conditional sale contract from paying to any person or entity, compensation of any kind for arranging, assigning, or otherwise transferring a loan that varies based on the interest rate or other finance charges, or varies based on any other factor related to such interest rate or finance charges. The prohibition would not apply to, among other things, (i) an assignment that is with full recourse or under other terms requiring the seller to bear the entire risk of financial performance of the buyer or (ii) an assignment that is more than six months following the date of the conditional sale contract. The proposal is in the early stages of California’s ballot initiative qualification process.
Second Circuit clarifies FDCPA's False Name Exception For Creditors
On November 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that where a creditor hires a third party to send collection letters but does not rely on the third party for any other bona fide efforts to collect the debts, the creditor can be held liable for violating the FDCPA under the statute’s false name exception to creditor immunity. Vincent v. The Money Store, No. 11-4525, 2013 WL 5989446 (2nd Cir. Nov. 13, 2013). In this case, a group of debtors filed a putative class action against a mortgage lender who purchased mortgages initially payable to other lenders and subsequently hired a law firm to send allegedly deceptive collection letters to borrowers on the lender’s behalf. Although creditors generally are not considered debt collectors subject to the FDCPA, the court determined in this case that a statutory exception to creditor immunity applied because the creditor, in the process of collecting its own debts, used a name other than its own, which typically would indicate that a third party is collecting or attempting to collect such debts. The court explained that the appropriate inquiry to determine whether a representation to a debtor indicates that a third party is collecting or attempting to collect is whether the third party is making bona fide attempts to collect the debts of the creditor or whether it is merely operating as a “conduit” for a collection process that the creditor controls. Because that inquiry requires a factual determination and because a jury could find that the law firm was acting only as a conduit for the lender, the lender could be held liable if the letters falsely indicated that the law firm was collecting the debt. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the debtors’ TILA claims, holding that because the mortgage documents did not name the lender as the person to whom the debt was initially payable, the lender is not a “creditor” under TILA. However, after a review of TILA’s legislative history, the court identified for Congress an apparent oversight in TILA that “allows an assignee to escape TILA liability when it overcharges the debtor and collects unauthorized fees, where the original creditor would otherwise be required to refund the debtor promptly.” The court remanded the action for further proceedings.
Federal Magistrate Recommends Court Order Diligence Firm To Respond To RMBS Working Group Subpoena
On November 11, a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut recommended that the District Court grant the U.S. Attorney’s motion, filed on behalf of the federal-state RMBS Working Group, to enforce a subpoena seeking information and documents from a firm that performed due-diligence work on mortgage loans and loan pools for numerous financial institutions. U.S. v. Clayton Holdings, No. 3:13mc116 (D. Conn. Nov. 11, 2013). In its opposition, the diligence firm objected to the subpoena as a “fishing expedition” that would require it to produce information for all 193 of its clients, even after it has cooperated as a third-party witness in connection with 16 companies the Working Group has identified as subjects of its RMBS investigations. Generally, the magistrate determined that the government’s request was not overly broad and burdensome, and recommended that the court order the firm to produce, for the period 2005 through 2007, (i) its entire database and all data used, maintained, or accessed in connection with due diligence services on mortgage loans and mortgage loan pools, and (ii) all communications, including e-mails, instant messages, or Bloomberg messages, concerning the provision of due diligence services on mortgage loans and mortgage loan pools. The recommended ruling does restrict the response to information and documents related to work performed for specific financial institution clients. The parties have until November 25 to object to the recommendation.
NACHA Proposes Rules To Improve ACH Network Quality
On November 12, NACHA, which manages the development, administration, and governance of the ACH network, released two proposed rules that it describes as complementary approaches to improving ACH Network quality by reducing the incidence of exceptions. The first proposal would improve NACHA’s ability to identify and enforce rules against “outlier” originators by: (i) reducing the existing return rate threshold for unauthorized debits from 1% to 0.5%; (ii) establishing a 3% return rate threshold for account data quality returns, and an overall debit return rate threshold of 15%; (iii) clarifying permissible and impermissible practices for the collection of ACH debits returned for insufficient funds and other reasons; and (iv) explicitly applying certain risk management rules to third-party senders. In addition, the proposed rule would expand NACHA’s authority to initiate enforcement proceedings for a potential violation of the NACHA Rules related to unauthorized transactions. The second proposal would establish economic incentives for originating institutions and their originators to improve origination quality, and provide partial cost-recovery to receiving institutions for handling exceptions. Specifically, the rule would apply fees when: (i) the proposed economic incentives are fees that would be applied to instances when a receiving institution; (ii) returns an ACH transaction due to incorrect account data within the transaction; (iii) corrects information within an ACH transaction and sends the correction back; or (iv) returns an ACH transaction due to a problem with the receiver's authorization. NACHA is accepting comments on the proposals until Monday, January 13, 2014.
Payment Card Group Refines Data Security Standards
On November 7, the PCI Security Standards Council (PCI SSC), an organization that develops standard for payment card security, released updated data security standards. One standard applies to entities involved in payment card processing—merchants, processors, acquirers, issuers, and service providers, as well as all other entities that store, process or transmit cardholder data. The other standard applies to software vendors and others who develop payment applications that store, process, or transmit cardholder data as part of authorization or settlement, where these payment applications are sold, distributed, or licensed to third parties. PCI SSC updates the standards every three years. This most recent update includes, among other things, requirements that payment card processors: (i) evaluate evolving malware threats for any systems not considered to be commonly affected; (ii) control physical access to sensitive areas for onsite personnel, including a process to authorize access, and revoke access immediately upon termination; (iii) protect devices that capture payment card data via direct physical interaction with the card from tampering and substitution; (iv) implement a methodology for penetration testing; (v) implement a process to respond to any alerts generated by the change-detection mechanism; and (vi) maintain information about which security requirements are managed by each service provider, and which are managed by the entity.
FINRA Launches Enhanced BrokerCheck
On November 12, FINRA released an enhanced version of BrokerCheck, its online system that allows investors to research the professional background of investment professionals. The enhancements allow investors to search both the BrokerCheck and Investment Adviser Public Disclosure record of any securities professional or firm directly on the FINRA homepage. Additional changes were made to present data in a more user-friendly format.
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.