InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB posts blog entry analyzing cash-out refinancing
On December 18, the CFPB posted a blog entry regarding cash-out refinance mortgages and their borrowers between 2013 to 2023. According to the entry, which noted reflects the authors’ views, and not those of the CFPB, refinance mortgage originations decreased amid 2022’s rapid interest rate hikes, and notably favored cash-out refinances over non-cash-out options. Cash-out refinances involve borrowing significantly more than the amount owed on an existing mortgage, often used for diverse purposes like debt settlement or home improvements. Despite reduced volumes due to rising rates, the post noted that cash-out refinances are “worth monitoring” since they were considered one of the factors that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
Analyzing loans from 2013 to 2023 from data in the National Mortgage Database, the blog entry revealed some insights into delinquencies. Some of the findings include: (i) cash-out refinances held a larger share of all refinances when interest rates rose; (ii) borrowers opting for cash-out refinances typically had lower income and lower credit scores compared to those pursuing different refinancing avenues; (iii) borrowers with stronger credit scores showed minimal serious delinquencies irrespective of the refinancing type; and (iv) borrowers with lower credit scores showed similar two-year delinquency rates for both cash-out and non-cash-out refinancing, except for borrowers in 2017, a year marked by rising interest rates and lower credit scores for cash-out borrowers. Based on this last finding, the blog post noted that there may be increased delinquencies among cash-out refinances originated in 2022, a year with similar interest rate increases and decrease in cash-out borrowers’ credit score.
CFPB reports on consumers’ experience with overdraft, NSF fees
On December 19, the CFPB released a report titled Overdraft and Nonsufficient Fund Fees: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey and Consumer Credit Panel, a report providing insight into consumers’ experience with overdraft/NSF activity. The CFPB stated that the report is based on data from the 2023 Making Ends Meet survey (covered by InfoBytes here) and the CFPB’s Consumer Credit Panel. Among other findings, the report found that roughly a quarter of consumers reside in households that were charged an overdraft or NSF fee in the past year. The report additionally found that 43 percent of consumers charged an overdraft fee were surprised by their most recent account overdraft, while only 22 percent expected it. The report noted that this trend is more pronounced among those who experience infrequent overdrafts (15 percent) as opposed to those who have been charged multiple overdraft fees (56 percent).
The CFPB additionally highlighted most households incurring overdraft and NSF fees have available credit on a credit card, adding that “among consumers in households charged 0, 1-3, 4-10, and more than 10 overdraft fees in the past year, the shares with no credit available on a credit card are 19 percent, 32 percent, 38 percent, and 49 percent, respectively.”
CFPB reports on consumers’ experience with overdraft, NSF fees
On December 19, the CFPB released a report titled Overdraft and Nonsufficient Fund Fees: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey and Consumer Credit Panel, a report providing insight into consumers’ experience with overdraft/NSF activity. The CFPB stated that the report is based on data from the 2023 Making Ends Meet survey (covered by InfoBytes here) and the CFPB’s Consumer Credit Panel. Among other findings, the report found that roughly a quarter of consumers reside in households that were charged an overdraft or NSF fee in the past year. The report additionally found that 43 percent of consumers charged an overdraft fee were surprised by their most recent account overdraft, while only 22 percent expected it. The report noted that this trend is more pronounced among those who experience infrequent overdrafts (15 percent) as opposed to those who have been charged multiple overdraft fees (56 percent).
The CFPB additionally highlighted most households incurring overdraft and NSF fees have available credit on a credit card, adding that “among consumers in households charged 0, 1-3, 4-10, and more than 10 overdraft fees in the past year, the shares with no credit available on a credit card are 19 percent, 32 percent, 38 percent, and 49 percent, respectively.”
District Court grants motion to dismiss in FDCPA case regarding an undated Model Validation Notice
On December 5, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a debt collection agency (the defendant) a motion to dismiss an individual’s (plaintiff’s) complaint. The case considers whether an undated Model Validation Notice (MVN) is a material detail that provides standing to sue under the FDCPA. An MVN is a form provided by the CFPB in Appendix B of the Debt Collection Rule to assist debt collection agencies in complying with FDCPA notice and disclosure requirements. However, the CFPB provides an undated MVN, so many debt collectors who use this template fail to provide a date when sending a debt collection letter to individuals, leading to a recipient’s confusion when the debt collector writes “today” or “now.”
In this case, the plaintiff alleges that the undated collection letter suggests the defendant “withheld a material term from [p]laintiff which made it confusing for him to understand the nature of the subject debt.” The plaintiff did not pay the debt, and instead, he alleged that he suffered damages from the defendant’s “suspicious, misleading, deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable actions.”
Before addressing the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, the court applied Article III standing to determine if the plaintiff had a basis to sue. The court considered whether the plaintiff had suffered a “concrete, particularized injury” in receiving an undated letter from the defendant and concluded that the plaintiff did not suffer harm as a result of this act under Article III because “[t]ime and money spent due to concern and confusion are not concrete harms.” The court held the plaintiff had no standing to bring this action and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. The court, however, gave the plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
NY enacts the Fair Medical Debt Reporting Act
On December 13, the New York governor signed into law S4907A, or the Fair Medical Debt Reporting Act (the “Act”), a medical debt credit reporting bill that will bar credit reporting agencies from directly or indirectly incorporating medical debt into consumer credit reports. The Act specifically prohibits hospitals, health care professionals, and ambulances from reporting medical debt to credit agencies. The Act defines medical debt as any amount owed or claimed by a consumer “related to the receipt of health care services, products, or devices provided to a person” by a hospital, health care professional, or ambulance service. Notably, obligations charged to a credit card are excluded from medical debts unless the card is specifically designated for health care expenses under an open-ended or closed-end plan.
NY state court granted decision to continue its new check cashing fee methodology
On December 7, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a motion to dismiss a challenge made to NYDFS’s check cashing regulation and ruled in favor of NYDFS. As previously covered in InfoBytes, the January regulation’s methodology capped the maximum percentage check cashing fee for most check types (social security, unemployment, emergency relief, veterans’ benefits) at 2.2 percent or $1, whichever is greater, and eliminated automatic fee increases based on CPI every year that had been in place since 2005.
Shortly after the rule took effect in June, several plaintiffs sued NYDFS alleging that the amended regulation was arbitrary and capricious, violated the purpose of the banking law, and was an unconstitutional property deprivation. The NY Supreme Court found that the amended regulation had a rational basis and was supported by the administrative record. Because NYDFS neither violated the NY state banking law nor the Administrative Procedures Act, the court further declared that the “amended regulation did not constitute a deprivation of property in the absence of either procedural or substantive due process.” Because the court dismissed the petition entirely in NYDFS’s favor, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as merely “academic.”
OCC issues guidance on BNPL loans
On December 6, the OCC posted Bulletin 2023-37 to provide banks with guidance on Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) loans. The OCC defined BNPL as point-of-sale or “pay-in-4” installment loan products. The OCC noted that, if BNPL products are used responsibly, they “can provide consumers with a low-cost, short-term, small-dollar financing alternative to manage cash flow.”
The OCC emphasized that the banks should offer BNPL loans in accordance with standards for safety and soundness, treat customers fairly, provide fair access to financial services, and act in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. In the bulletin, the OCC highlighted the risks to banks associated with offering BNPL lending, including credit, compliance, operational, strategic, and reputational risks to banks. In particular, the bulletin also underscores the risks that borrowers may not fully understand their BNPL repayment obligations, the challenges of underwriting BNPL applicants who have limited or no credit history, the lack of standardized disclosure language, and the risks of merchant disputes, among other risks.
The OCC recommended banks consider risk management practices, such as maintaining “underwriting, repayment terms, pricing, and safeguards that minimize adverse customer outcomes” tailored to the unique characteristics and risks of BNPL loans. The bulletin also advised banks to pay close attention to “the delivery method, timing, and appropriateness of marketing, advertising, and consumer disclosures,” in particular to ensure that all such documents clearly disclose the borrower’s obligations and any fees that may apply.
Freddie Mac standardizes down payment assistance programs
On December 4, Freddie Mac announced new, standardized mortgage documents aimed at of making down payment assistance (DPA) programs more accessible nationwide. According to Freddie Mac, the subordinate lien programs for DPA programs have been specific to particular housing finance agencies which created confusion. By standardizing these documents, Freddie Mac hopes to benefit lenders by making DPA programs more efficient.
To create the standardized documents, Freddie Mac partnered with Fannie Mae and state housing finance agencies. These documents will initially be available for 19 states, and eventually for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These changes come in tandem with Freddie Mac’s new tool, DPA One®, to aggregate and showcase down payment assistance programs on a single platform.
CFPB comments on California DFPI licensing provisions, income-based advances
On December 1, the CFPB posted a blog entry sharing its comment letter responding to the California DFPI’s notice of proposed rulemaking for “income-based advances” from earlier this year. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the DFPI’s proposed regulations would, among other things, clarify licensing provisions and the applicability of the CFL to certain activities. Within the CFPB’s comment letter, it stressed the importance of regulatory consistency of consumer financial products and services across federal and state law. The letter noted the CFPB’s view that companies offering “income-based advances” (also marketed as “earned wage access”) are subject to federal oversight, and the CFPB supports state oversight of such companies as well. Moreover, the CFPB said that DFPI’s particular treatment of income-based advances takes a similar approach to TILA and Regulation Z and that the CFPB plans to issue further guidance regarding the applicability of TILA to these products.
CFPB’s report on Americans’ financial health, post-pandemic.
On December 1, the CFPB released a report titled: “Making Ends Meet in 2023: Insights from the Making Ends Meet Survey” that discussed Americans’ financial health in 2023 in comparison to 2019 – before the Covid-19 pandemic. From June 2019 to February 2021, consumers benefited from increased savings and expanded unemployment benefits; however, beginning in 2022 and carrying into 2023, consumers experienced an increased strain on their finances. When comparing the last two years to 2019, the CFPB found that: (i) more families are facing greater difficulty paying their bills; (ii) more families are unprepared for a short interruption of income; (iii) access to credit remains difficult; (iv) liquidity remains available to households; and (v) large disparities in financial stability continue.