InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FINRA fines firm $2.8 million for faulty trade confirmations
On June 29, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC), which ordered a New York-based member firm to pay $2.8 million to settle allegations that it sent customers inaccurate trade confirmations. According to FINRA, from November 2008 through the present, the firm allegedly sent customers roughly “270 million confirmations that inaccurately disclosed the firm’s execution capacity, the customer’s price, the market center of execution, or whether the trade was executed at an average price.” FINRA attributed the inaccuracies to 11 underlying issues, including technology issues, a drafting error, and a misunderstanding of regulatory guidance that allegedly went undetected for at least five years. Additionally, FINRA claimed that from at least November 2008 through March 2020, the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written procedures, to achieve compliance with the confirmation requirements, and claimed this alleged failure “persisted even though, by mid-2017, [the firm] was aware due to FINRA examinations of multiple systemic issues resulting in tens of millions of inaccurate confirmations.” Rather than implementing a “reasonable” supervisory system, FINRA contended that the firm took a year to set up a system and procedures that monitored only whether confirmations were delivered, not whether they were accurate. The firm neither admitted nor denied the findings set forth in the AWC agreement but accepted and consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings and censure and agreed to certify within 120 days that it corrected the identified issues.
Agencies list distressed middle-income areas
On July 1, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC released the 2022 list of distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies where revitalization or stabilization activities are eligible to receive Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration. The agencies designated the identified distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies in accordance with their CRA regulations that continue to “reflect local economic conditions, including unemployment, poverty, and population changes.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the agencies released a joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in May to update how CRA activities qualify for consideration, where CRA activities are considered, and how CRA activities are evaluated. Under the CRA, banks are encouraged to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The agencies will receive comments on the NPRM through August 5.
Yellen stresses importance of stablecoin regulatory framework
On June 30, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen discussed stablecoin risks during a meeting of principals representing the President’s Working Group (PWG) on Financial Markets in addition to the OCC, FDIC, and the CFPB, where she reiterated her call for a regulatory framework for stablecoins. Participants discussed developments since the release of a stablecoin report issued by the PWG, OCC, and FDIC last November (covered by InfoBytes here). The report noted that stablecoins may be more widely used in the future as a means of payment, which Yellen said at the time could increase “risks to users and the broader system.” The report also recommended that Congress promptly enact legislation to address the risks of payment stablecoins and ensure that payment stablecoins and payment stablecoin arrangements are subject to consistent and comprehensive federal oversight.
According to Treasury’s readout, Yellen “emphasized how recent events have underscored the urgent need to ensure that stablecoin arrangements are subject to a federal framework on a consistent and comprehensive basis” and “highlighted the need to continue to constructively engage in serious legislative efforts to promptly put in place a regulatory framework for stablecoins that would address current and future risks, such as those related to runs, safety and soundness, consumer protection, the payment system, and the concentration of economic power, while complementing existing authorities with respect to market integrity, investor protection, and illicit finance.” She also “commended the steps that individual agencies have taken within the scope of their mandates and authorities.”
U.S.-UK partnership exchanges views on crypto, digital assets
On July 1, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a joint statement providing an overview of recent meetings of the U.S.-UK Financial Innovation Partnership (FIP) where Regulatory and Commercial Pillar participants exchanged views “on topics of mutual interest in the U.S. and UK regarding crypto and digital asset ecosystems.” Participants also discussed options for deepening ties between U.S. and UK financial authorities on financial innovation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FIP was created in 2019 as a way to expand bilateral financial services collaborative efforts, study emerging fintech innovation trends, and share information and expertise on regulatory practices. The first meeting of the FIP took place in August 2020 (covered by InfoBytes here). Topics discussed in the most recent meeting included, among other things, crypto-asset regulation and market developments, including recent developments related to stablecoins and the exploration of central bank digital currencies, and other recent market developments on digital assets. Participants acknowledged “the continued importance of the ongoing partnership on global financial innovation as an integral component of U.S.-UK financial services cooperation.”
Halperin discusses invoking UDAAP under CFPA
On June 29, the American University Washington College of Law held a symposium centered in part around the CFPB’s new approach for examining institutions for unfair conduct. During the CFPB’s New Approach to Discrimination: Invoking UDAAP symposium, CFPB Assistant Director for the Office of Enforcement Eric Halperin answered questions related to updates recently made to the Bureau’s Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices Examination Manual. These updates detail the agency’s view that its broad authority under UDAAP allows it to address discriminatory conduct in the offering of any financial product or service as an unfair act or practice. (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert here.) The Bureau published a separate blog post by its enforcement and supervision heads explaining that they were “cracking down on discrimination in the financial sector,” and that the new procedures would guide examiners to look “beyond discrimination directly connected to fair lending laws” and “to review any policies or practices that exclude individuals from products and services, or offer products or services with different terms, in an unfairly discriminatory manner.”
Assistant Director Halperin’s remarks were followed by a discussion of the Bureau’s revisions to its Examination Manual by a panel that consisted of David Silberman of the Center for Responsible Lending, Kitty Ryan of the American Bankers Association, and John Coleman of Buckley LLP, which was moderated by Jerry Buckley. Topics covered included a June 28 letter that trade associations sent to the CFPB urging recission of revisions to the Examination Manual.
In his interview with American University Law School Professor V. Gerard Comizio, Halperin stated that the CFPB’s Examination Manual updates provide guidance on how examiners will implement the Bureau’s statutory authority to examine whether an act or practice is unfair because it may cause or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. He stressed that the update does not create a new legal standard under the three prongs of the unfairness standard. Halperin also discussed how the Bureau’s UDAAP authority interacts with laws enacted specifically to prevent discriminatory conduct such as ECOA and the Fair Housing Act, and touched on steps institutions should consider taking to ensure compliance. Notably, when asked whether the Bureau intends to pursue disparate impact claims under the CFPA, Halperin stated that disparate impact, along with disparate treatment, are wholly distinct concepts from Dodd-Frank’s prohibition on unfair acts and practices. He added that in assessing an unfair act and practice, the key is to examine the substantial injury prong and then assess the reasonable avoidability and the countervailing benefits prongs. He further explained that the unfairness test does not contain an intentional standard and noted that there have been cases brought by both the FTC and the Bureau where there was injurious conduct that was not intentional or specifically known to the party engaging in this practice. According to Halperin, substantial injury alone is not sufficient to prove unfairness and using disparate impact as the mechanism of proof is not what the Bureau uses to prove an unfairness claim.
Halperin reiterated that the CFPB Examination Manual is designed to provide transparency to financial institutions about the types of issues that examiners will be inquiring about in furtherance of determining whether there has been an unfair act or practice under the current framework, and does not extend or create new law. In terms of practical compliance implications, Halperin said most financial institutions should already have robust UDAAP compliance systems in place and should already be looking for potential unfair acts or practices and examining patterns and group characteristics to identify the root cause of any issues, and to avoid substantial injury to consumers. With respect to a white paper recently sent to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra from several industry groups and the U.S Chamber of Commerce urging the Bureau to rescind the UDAAP exam manual (covered by InfoBytes here), Halperin commented that he has not had time to fully digest the white paper in detail but hoped that some of what was discussed during the symposium, particularly on the legal principles that will be used both in the exam manual and in any supervision and enforcement actions, clarifies that the Bureau is looking for conduct that violates the unfairness test.
CFPB reports on credit card line decreases
On June 29, the CFPB issued a report analyzing the impact of credit card line decreases (CLD) on consumers. The report is a part of a CFPB series that examines consumer credit trends using a longitudinal sample of approximately five million de-identified credit records maintained by one of the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies. The report described how credit card companies increasingly used credit line decreases during both the Great Recession and at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the Bureau, in issuing the report it “sought to examine the importance and impact of these decisions by credit card companies” because of the “critical role credit plays in financial resiliency, especially during a downturn.” Key findings of the report include, among other things, that: (i) 67 percent of consumers who had CLDs did not show evidence of a recent delinquency on any credit card, and 83 percent had no delinquency on the card that received the CLD; (ii) the median amount of credit decreased by approximately 75 percent for consumers across different credit score tiers; (iii) the median deep subprime, subprime, near-prime, and prime account utilization reached 94 percent when the CLD was applied; and (iv) the median credit scores for consumers with a recent card delinquency on any card decreased between 33 and 87 points.
Freddie to consider rent payments in automated underwriting
On June 29, Freddie Mac announced that it will begin considering on-time rent payments as part of its loan purchase decisions to increase homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers. Starting July 10, with a borrower’s permission, mortgage lenders and brokers will be able to submit bank account data showing 12-months of on-time rent payments through Freddie’s automated underwriting system. According to Freddie, bank account data will be “obtained from designated third-party service providers using the same automated process used to verify assets, income and employment” using its asset and income modeler. Freddie explained that eligible rent payment data includes checks, electronic transactions, or digital payments made through specific payment apps. “These automated capabilities provide greater efficiencies to lenders and allows them to deliver a better borrower experience while continuing to meet Freddie Mac’s strong credit underwriting standards,” the announcement said. Additional requirements for submitting rent payment data to Freddie’s underwriting system will be announced in an upcoming July Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide Bulletin.
CFPB ends EWA sandbox
On June 30, the CFPB issued an order terminating a financial services company’s sandbox approval order related to its earned wage access (EWA) lending model. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued a two-year approval order to the company in December 2020, which provided the company safe harbor from liability under TILA and Regulation Z (to the fullest extent permitted by section 130(f) as to any act done in good faith compliance with the order). The company’s product allowed employees access to their earned but unpaid wages prior to payday and granted employees of a participating employer the ability to download the company’s app and agree to the company’s terms prior to engaging in an EWA program. The Bureau said in its announcement that it had informed the company earlier in June “that it was considering terminating the approval order in light of certain public statements the company made wrongly suggesting a CFPB endorsement of its products.” According to the Bureau, the company then requested termination of the order in order, citing the need to make changes to its fee model that would have required modifying the existing approval order. The Bureau noted that the company “requested termination of the order so it could make fee model changes quickly and flexibly.” The Bureau’s announcement indicated that it plans to issue guidance “soon” regarding earned wage access products and the definition of “credit” under TILA and Regulation Z.
CFPB warns debt collectors on “pay-to-pay” fees
On June 29, the CFPB issued an advisory opinion to state its interpretation that Section 808 of the FDCPA and Regulation F generally prohibit debt collectors from charging consumers “pay-to-pay” fees for making payments online or by phone. “These types of fees are often illegal,” the Bureau said, explaining that its “advisory opinion and accompanying analysis seek to stop these violations of law and assist consumers who are seeking to hold debt collectors accountable for illegal practices.”
These fees, commonly known as convenience fees, are prohibited in many circumstances under the FDCPA, the Bureau said. It pointed out that allowable fees are those authorized in the original underlying agreements that consumers have with their creditors, such as with credit card companies, or those that are affirmatively permitted by law. Moreover, the Bureau stressed that the fact that a law does not expressly prohibit the assessment of a fee does not mean a debt collector is authorized to charge a fee. Specifically, the advisory opinion interprets FDCPA Section 808(1) to permit collection of fee only if: (i) “the agreement creating the debt expressly permits the charge and some law does not prohibit it”; or (ii) “some law expressly permits the charge, even if the agreement creating the debt is silent.” Additionally, the Bureau’s “interpretation of the phrase ‘permitted by law’ applies to any ‘amount’ covered under section 808(1), including pay-to-pay fees.” The Bureau further added that while some courts have adopted a “separate agreement” interpretation of the law to allow collectors to assess certain pay-to-pay fees, the agency “declines to do so.”
The Bureau also opined that a debt collector is in violation of the FDCPA if it uses a third-party payment processor for which any of that fee is remitted back to the collector in the form of a kickback or commission. “Federal law generally forbids debt collectors from imposing extra fees not authorized by the original loan,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said. “Today’s advisory opinion shows that these fees are often illegal, and provides a roadmap on the fees that a debt collector can lawfully collect.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau finalized its Advisory Opinions Policy in 2020. Under the policy, entities seeking to comply with existing regulatory requirements are permitted to request an advisory opinion in the form of an interpretive rule from the Bureau (published in the Federal Register for increased transparency) to address areas of uncertainty.
Agencies release host state loan-to-deposit ratios
On June 28, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and OCC (collectively, "the agencies") released the current host state loan-to-deposit ratios for each state or territory, which the agencies use to determine compliance with Section 109 of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Interstate Act). Under the Interstate Act, banks are prohibited from establishing or acquiring branches outside of their home state for the primary purpose of deposit production. Branches of banks controlled by out-of-state bank holding companies are also subject to the same restriction. Determining compliance with Section 109 requires a comparison of a bank’s estimated statewide loan-to-deposit ratio to the estimated host state loan-to-deposit ratio. If a bank’s statewide ratio is less than one-half of the published host-state ratio, an additional review is required by the appropriate agency, which involves a determination of whether a bank is reasonably helping to meet the credit needs of the communities served by the bank’s interstate branches.