InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
House Republican concerned about Treasury sanctions on virtual currency mixer
On August 23, Representative Tom Emmer (R-MN) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen raising privacy and due process concerns related to recent “first-of-their-kind” sanctions issued against a virtual currency mixer accused of allegedly laundering more than $7 billion in virtual currency, including more than $455 million stolen by a Democratic People’s Republic of Korea state-sponsored hacking group that is separately subject to U.S. sanctions (covered by InfoBytes here). The U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said the sanctions resulted from the company “having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, a cyber-enabled activity originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States that is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States and that has the purpose or effect of causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources, trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
Emmer stressed, however, that adding the company to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List seemed to diverge from previous OFAC precedent since several of the company’s designated “smart contract addresses” do not appear to be a person, entity, or property, but rather are distributed technological tools that are not controlled by any entity or natural person. “OFAC has a long, commendable history of utilizing financial sanctions to enhance the national security of the United States,” the letter said. “Nonetheless, the sanctioning of neutral, open-source, decentralized technology presents a series of new questions, which impact not only our national security but the right to privacy of every American citizen.” Emmer referenced May 2019 guidance issued by FinCEN (covered by InfoBytes here), which he said drew “a distinction between ‘providers of anonymizing services’ (including ‘mixers’)” which are subject to Bank Secrecy Act obligations and “‘anonymizing software providers’” which are not. Emmer recognized that OFAC is not bound by FinCEN regulations, but said it is his understanding that the sanctioned company is “simply the anonymizing software deployed on the blockchain.”
Emmer requested clarification from Treasury on several questions, including the factors OFAC considers when designating technology to the SDN List and how OFAC plans to “uphold the appeals process for the sanctioned addresses that have no ability to appeal the sanction to OFAC” because they “are smart contracts with no agency, corporate or personal, and as such cannot speak for themselves or those whose funds they hold.”
CFPB “on track” to issue Section 1071 rulemaking by March 31
On August 22, the CFPB filed its tenth status report in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, as required under a stipulated settlement reached in February 2020 with a group of plaintiffs, including the California Reinvestment Coalition, related to the collection of small business lending data. The settlement (covered by InfoBytes here) resolved a 2019 lawsuit that sought an order compelling the Bureau to issue a final rule implementing Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Bureau to collect and disclose data on lending to women and minority-owned small businesses. The current status report states that the Bureau is on track to issue the Section 1071 final rule by March 31, 2023—a deadline established by court order in July (covered by InfoBytes here).
Find continuing Section 1071 coverage here.
FHFA to establish advisory committee on affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing
On August 23, FHFA announced plans to establish a federal advisory committee on affordable, equitable and sustainable housing. The committee’s activities will focus on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks and “their respective roles in providing a reliable source of liquidity and funding to support housing finance in the single-family and multifamily housing markets.” The committee will provide advice and input regarding affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing needs, including barriers to accessing such housing and long-term sustainability, and will advise on any regulatory or policy changes necessary to address these matters. FHFA will solicit applications and nominations for memberships in an upcoming Federal Register notice and is seeking individuals engaged in the financing, development and/or administration of affordable, equitable, and sustainable housing and housing policy who have experience in areas such as fair housing, fair lending, civil rights, and single-family/multifamily lending and servicing.
FHA requires mortgagees to provide UEI
On August 23, the FHA announced in Mortgagee Letter (ML) 2022-14 that all FHA-approved lenders and mortgagees, and institutions seeking FHA approval, must provide an active Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) as part of their institution data in the Lender Electronic Assessment Portal (LEAP) or application for FHA approval. Additionally, the ML, among other things: (i) informs mortgagees how to register for an UEI; (ii) provides instructions on updating the institution profile in LEAP; and (iii) invites feedback from interested parties for 30 calendar days from the ML’s issuance date. The new provisions must be implemented no later than December 31.
FTC seeks feedback on digital ad effects on children
On August 23, the FTC announced that it is soliciting additional public feedback on the effects digital advertising and marketing messages have on children. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in May the FTC announced that it is seeking comment on its notice of proposed changes to its “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising” (Endorsement Guides), which includes the addition of a new section highlighting special concerns related to child-directed advertising. Under the Endorsement Guides, which were enacted in 1980 and amended in 2009, advertisers are required “to be upfront with consumers and clearly disclose unexpected material connections between endorsers and a seller of an advertised product.” The Commission also noted that, in conjunction with the notice, it is hosting a public event on October 19 to address topics including “children’s capacity at different ages and developmental stages to recognize and understand advertising content and distinguish it from other content,” and the “need for and efficacy of disclosures as a solution for children of different ages, including the format, timing, placement, wording, and frequency of disclosures.” Comments are due by November 18 “to accommodate those who wish to provide input on the topics discussed at the October digital advertising event.”
FDIC issues CDO against five crypto companies
On August 19, the FDIC issued letters (see here, here, here, here, and here) to five companies demanding that they cease and desist from making crypto-related false and misleading statements regarding their FDIC deposit insurance status and take immediate corrective action to address these false statements. The FDIC noted that “each of these companies made false representations—including on their websites and social media accounts—stating or suggesting that certain crypto-related products are FDIC-insured or that stocks held in brokerage accounts are FDIC-insured.” Specifically, the FDIC noted that “a company offering a so-called cryptocurrency also registered a domain name that suggests affiliation with or endorsement by the FDIC,” calling such representations “false and misleading.” The FDIC said that the companies’ actions violated the FDI Act, which “prohibits any person from representing or implying that an uninsured product is FDIC–insured or from knowingly misrepresenting the extent and manner of deposit insurance,” and “further prohibits companies from implying that their products are FDIC–insured by using ‘FDIC’ in the company’s name, advertisements, or other documents.” The FDI Act authorizes the FDIC to enforce this prohibition against any person. The FDIC demanded that the companies take corrective actions by removing the misrepresentations or false statements and providing written confirmation to the FDIC that they have fully complied with the removal request.
OCC requests comments on various Volcker Rule requirements
On August 23, the OCC published in the Federal Register a request to renew its information collection titled “Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships with Covered Funds.” Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act “generally prohibits any banking entity from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a covered fund, subject to certain exceptions . . . that allow certain types of permissible trading and covered fund activities.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2019, the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, and SEC published a final rule amending the Volcker Rule to simplify and tailor compliance with Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act’s restrictions on a bank’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and own certain funds.
The OCC is seeking comments specifically related to the reporting, disclosure, documentation and information collection requirements under the rule, including: (i) whether the information collections are necessary for the proper function of the agency and if the information has practical utility; (ii) whether the OCC’s estimates of the burden of the information collections are accurate and the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (iii) measures to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (iv) ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, such as using automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (v) capital or start-up cost estimates, as well as costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Comments are due October 24.
CFPB reports on credit card interest rates
On August 12, the CFPB released a blog post analyzing factors affecting high credit card interest rates. According to the Bureau, over 175 million Americans have at least one credit card and nearly half of active credit card accounts carry a balance. The Bureau noted that reforms in the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) “advanced competition and saved consumers billions of dollars by restricting harmful back-end or hidden pricing practices,” however, “after the market adjusted to these changes, credit card interest rates have increased despite falling charge-off rates, a stable share of subprime cardholders, and a historically low prime rate.” The Bureau further noted that credit card interest rates increased following the Great Recession, even though several industry indicators suggested the risk of credit card lending has fallen to an all-time low. Regarding subprime accounts, since 2015, the share of credit card holders with subprime scores has remained stable, representing less than one-fifth of total accounts. Therefore, high rates persist even though presumably riskier subprime loans have not increased. Regarding prime accounts, the Bureau noted that “[c]ompared to other lending products, credit card pricing appears to be less responsive to macroeconomic trends like changes in the cost of funds – a measure of how much banks spend to acquire money to lend to consumers – as represented by the prime rate.” As for credit card profitability, the Bureau suggested that the apparent mismatch between credit card interest rates and the risk and cost of lending may explain part of the market’s profits. The Bureau further explained that in 2021, large credit card banks reported an annualized return on assets of near seven percent, which was the highest level since at least 2000, and “[w]hile credit card portfolios have higher rates of defaults than other consumer lending products, it is unclear whether these factors fully account for revenue from high interest rates.” The Bureau also noted that because six credit card issuers account for more than two-thirds of total balances every year since 2005, the CFPB plans to assess whether this is the result of “trends, like increasing rewards and high switching costs, or the result of anti-competitive practices.”
CFPB announces plans to modernize credit card data collection
On August 19, the CFPB published a blog post announcing plans to update how credit card data is collected. Current methods for collecting and publishing credit card data make it challenging for consumers to shop for credit cards or compare interest rates, the Bureau said, explaining for example that “card issuers do not have to disclose realistic rates based on someone’s creditworthiness and instead report the midpoints of broad ranges that are often meaningless to people trying to compare cards.” The Bureau said it hopes to address the lack of transparency in credit card terms and conditions to spur competition and to give consumers power to choose the best credit card for their needs.
The Bureau explained that twice a year, at least 150 issuers send the agency information on their largest credit card plans, including data on interest rates and fees through the Terms of Credit Card Plans (TCCP) Survey. To update this process, the Bureau announced it is considering modernizing the survey to make it a more useful resource on credit card price and availability for consumers. Potential changes include: (i) collecting median APR rates by credit score tiers; (ii) gathering information on credit cards available to specific communities or groups to help expand access; (iii) requiring the top 25 credit card issuers to submit data on each of their general purpose credit cards (currently these issuers only submit information on their product with the largest number of accounts); and (iv) enabling a broader range of institutions to volunteer to participate in the survey. Comments on the proposed changes, which were published in the Federal Register, are due October 17.
CFTC commissioner seeks increased digital assets oversight
On August 19, CFTC Commissioner Kristin N. Johnson delivered remarks discussing digital asset policy, innovation, legislation, and regulation before a roundtable at the CFTC. In her prepared remarks, Johnson highlighted the “increasingly diverse crypto-investing community,” including historically underserved groups who are drawn to digital asset markets by “promises of financial inclusion” and opportunities to “increase income, wealth, and resources – a promise that, if realized, may enable them to transition from fragile financial circumstances to achieving the American dream.” Johnson noted, however, that instability in these markets have led the CFTC to examine closely “the specific implications of crypto-investing for diverse communities and the potential benefits of well-tailored, carefully crafted regulation.” Johnson referenced Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s April 7, 2022 remarks at American University’s Kogod School of Business Center for Innovation, which said that while regulations should be “tech-neutral,” they should also ensure that innovation does not cause disparate harm or exacerbate inequities.
Johnson also discussed President Biden’s March 9 Executive Order (covered by InfoBytes here), Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets, which stressed the need for “steps to reduce the risks that digital assets could pose to consumers, investors, and business protections” and mitigate “illicit finance and national security risks posed by misuse of digital assets,” including money laundering, cybercrime and ransomware, terrorism and proliferation financing, and sanctions evasion. While the E.O. “marked an important step towards greater cooperation and coordination among cabinet-level agencies, market regulators and prudential regulators,” Johnson called for an “increase [in] investor education and outreach to empower consumers and contemporaneously combat illicit activity and safeguard the integrity and stability of our financial markets.”
Johnson also discussed pending legislation intended “to better protect consumers and enhance market structure and market integrity in digital assets and cryptocurrency markets,” such as the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act of 2022 (DCCPA), which “seeks to give the CFTC jurisdiction over digital asset spot market transactions by expanding the definition of ‘commodity’ in the CEA to include ‘digital commodities.’” She further explained that the DCCPA, among other things, “would require the CFTC to conduct a study on the impact of digital assets on diverse communities.” Johnson also mentioned the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, calling it “a comprehensive reform measure that introduces the concept of ‘ancillary assets’ as a pathway for clearly defining oversight of digital assets and cryptocurrencies as securities or commodities.” Johnson emphasized that market participants have expressed heightened cybersecurity concerns regarding attacks on cryptocurrency exchanges or trading platforms, and stressed that “[i]t is vital for the U.S. to bolster its role as a leader in the global financial system by developing a strong regulatory framework for digital assets[.]”