InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB finalizes nonbank supervisory rule
On November 10, the CFPB announced a final rule finalizing changes to a nonbank supervision procedural rule issued in April. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau announced earlier this year that it was invoking a “dormant authority” under the Dodd-Frank Act to conduct supervisory examinations of fintech firms and other nonbank financial services providers based upon a determination of risk. Specifically, the Bureau said it intends to use a provision under Section 1024 of Dodd-Frank that allows it to examine nonbank financial entities, upon notice and an opportunity to respond, if it has “reasonable cause” to determine that consumer harm is possible. Concurrently, the Bureau issued a request for public comment on an updated version of a procedural rule that implements its statutory authority to supervise nonbanks “whose activities the CFPB has reasonable cause to determine pose risks to consumers,” including potentially unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Provisions outlined in the procedural rule would exempt final decisions and orders by the Bureau director from being considered confidential supervisory information, thus allowing the Bureau to publish the decisions on its website. Subject companies would be given an opportunity seven days after a final decision is issued to provide input on what information, if any, should be publicly released, the Bureau said.
After reviewing public comments received on the procedural rule, the Bureau incorporated certain changes to clarify the standard that the agency will apply when deciding what information is appropriate for public release, in whole or in part. The Bureau explained that information falling within Freedom of Information Act Exemptions 4 and 6 (which protect confidential commercial information and personal privacy) will not be published. Additionally, the Bureau said it may also choose to withhold information if the director determines there is other good cause to do so. The final rule also extends the deadline from seven to ten business days for nonbanks to submit input about what information should be released. The final rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
Notably, the Bureau emphasized that the “amended procedures only relate to the initial decision to extend supervision to a nonbank entity” and “do not affect the confidentiality of any ensuing supervisory examination or any other aspect of the supervisory process.”
Fed releases Supervision and Regulation Report
Recently, the Federal Reserve Board released its Supervision and Regulation Report, which summarizes banking system conditions and the Fed’s supervisory and regulatory activities. The current report noted that even though the “vast majority of firms maintained capital above regulatory minimums,” and loan delinquencies were historically low with liquidity levels generally remaining high, increasing economic uncertainty “may create new risks for firms to manage.” In response, firms increased credit loss provisions during the first half of 2022 and started taking measures to prepare for weaker economic conditions. The report also revealed that while the financial condition of large banks generally remains sound, firms should take steps to ensure their stress analyses, liquidity, and capital positions are able to adjust to developing market conditions. The report also highlighted recent regulatory actions, including supervisory guidance issued in August for banks seeking to engage in crypto-asset-related activities (covered by InfoBytes here). The Fed commented that it will continue to work with the OCC and FDIC on crypto-asset-related policy initiatives. The report also discussed operational risks related to the transition from LIBOR to an alternative interest rate benchmark and measures to address climate change implications for banks.
OCC to establish Office of Financial Technology
On October 27, the OCC announced it intends to establish an Office of Financial Technology early next year that will build on and incorporate the agency’s Office of Innovation (established in 2016 and covered by InfoBytes here). Intended to strengthen the OCC’s expertise and ability to adapt to a rapidly evolving banking landscape, the Office of Financial Technology will provide strategic leadership, vision, and perspective for the agency’s financial technology activities and related supervision. The new office will be led by a chief financial technology officer who will be a deputy comptroller reporting to the senior deputy comptroller for bank supervision policy. “Financial technology is changing rapidly and bank-fintech partnerships are likely to continue growing in number and complexity. To ensure that the federal banking system is safe, sound, and fair today and well into the future, we need to have a deep understanding of financial technology and the financial technology landscape,” acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu said. “The establishment of this office will enable us to be more agile and to promote responsible innovation, consistent with our mission.”
FDIC proposes amendments to its guide on supervisory appeals process
On October 18, the FDIC Board of Directors announced it is soliciting further public comments on proposed amendments to its Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations. The notice follows an action taken by the Board earlier in May, which restored the Supervision Appeals Review Committee (SARC) as the final level of review in the agency’s supervisory appeals process (covered by InfoBytes here). While the revised guidelines took effect immediately, the FDIC solicited comments on the changes. In response to comments received, the proposed amendments would add the agency’s ombudsman to the SARC as a non-voting member, and the ombudsman would be responsible for monitoring the supervision process after a financial institution submits an appeal. The proposed amendments would also require that materials considered by the SARC be shared with both parties to the appeal (subject to applicable legal limitations on disclosure), and allow financial institutions to request a stay of material supervisory determination while an appeal is pending. Additionally, the division director would be given the discretion to grant a stay or grant a stay subject to certain conditions. Comments on the proposed amendments are due within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register.
Fed vice chair discusses regulating financial innovation
On October 12, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr delivered remarks at D.C. Fintech Week in a speech titled Managing the Promise and Risk of Financial Innovation. Barr’s remarks focused on financial innovation supported by new technologies, or fintech. Among other things, Barr discussed supporting innovation with appropriate regulation, striking the right balance for crypto-asset activity, regulating stablecoins, recognizing the risks of tokenizing bank liabilities, advancing customer autonomy, and providing public sector support for payment innovation. Barr noted that cryptoassets’ rapid growth, in market capitalization and activity outside and inside supervised banks requires oversight, including safeguards to ensure that crypto service providers are subject to similar regulations as other financial services providers. Barr stated that “[t]he same type of activity should be regulated in the same way,” and this remains the case “even when the activity may look different from the typical activities we regulate, or when it involves an exciting new technology or a new way to provide traditional financial services.” He also disclosed that there are additional types of crypto asset-related activities where the Fed may need to provide guidance to the banking sector in the future. Barr noted that since “crypto assets have proved to be so volatile, they are unlikely to grow into money substitutes and become a viable means to pay for transactions.” He also warned banks seeking to experiment with these new technologies that they should only do so "in a controlled and limited manner.” Regarding the risks of tokenizing bank liabilities, Barr expressed concerns, stating that banks’ crypto-asset-related activities pose “novel risks,” and said that stablecoins could eventually pose a risk to financial stability and that regulators need to put in guardrails before their adoption is more widespread. Barr also acknowledged that not all tokenization arrangements are the same. He stated that potential designs “range from issuance of tokens on private, controlled networks to facilitate payments within or among banks, to proposals that explore issuance of freely circulating tokens on open, permissionless networks.”
OCC releases bank supervision operating plan for FY 2023
On October 6, the OCC’s Committee on Bank Supervision released its bank supervision operating plan for fiscal year 2023. The plan outlines the agency’s supervision priorities and highlights several supervisory focus areas including: (i) strategic and operational planning; (ii) operational resiliency; (iii) third-party oversight and risk management; (iv) credit risk management with a focus on new products, areas of highest growth, and portfolios representing concentrations; (v) allowances for credit losses (ACL), including instances where ACL processes use third-party modeling techniques; (vi) interest rate risk; (vii) liquidity risk management; (viii) consumer compliance management systems with a focus on how programs are disclosed in relation to UDAP and UDAAP statutes; (ix) Bank Secrecy Act/AML compliance; (x) fair lending risks; (xi) Community Reinvestment Act strategies and the potential for modernization rulemaking; (xii) new products and services in areas such as payments, fintech, and digital assets; and (xiii) climate-change risk management. The plan will be used by OCC staff to guide the development of supervisory strategies for individual national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, and certain identified third-party service providers subject to OCC examination.
The OCC will provide updates about these priorities in its Semiannual Risk Perspective, as InfoBytes has previously covered here.
CFPB updates education loan servicing examination procedures
On September 28, the CFPB updated the education loan examination procedures in its Supervision and Examination Manual. According to the Bureau, the update to the education loan servicing examination procedures clarifies that when determining its authority to supervise a private student lender, the Bureau “look[s] only to the definition of private education loan in the Truth in Lending Act and not also to Regulation Z.” The Bureau noted that depending on the scope of an examination, “and in conjunction with the compliance management system and consumer complaint response review procedures,” an examination will cover at least one of the following modules: (i) advertising, marketing, and lead generation; (ii) customer application, qualification, loan origination, and disbursement; (iii) student loan servicing; (vi) borrower inquiries and complaints; (v) collections, accounts in default, and credit reporting; (vi) information sharing and privacy; and (vii) examination conclusion and wrap-up.
Trade groups object to CFPB’s revised UDAAP exam manual
On September 28, seven banking industry groups sued the CFPB and Director Rohit Chopra claiming the agency exceeded its statutory authority when it released significant revisions to the UDAAP exam manual in March, which included making clear its view that any type of discrimination in connection with a consumer financial product or service could be an “unfair” practice. (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) At the time of issuance, the Bureau emphasized that its broad authority under UDAAP allows it to address discriminatory conduct in the offering of any financial product or service.
Plaintiff trade groups argued in their complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that the Bureau violated its authority outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act by claiming it can examine entities for alleged discriminatory conduct under its UDAAP authority. They contended that “the CFPB cannot regulate discrimination under its UDAAP authority at all because Congress declined to give the CFPB authority to enforce anti-discrimination principles except in specific circumstances,” and that, moreover, the Bureau’s “statutory authorities consistently treat ‘unfairness’ and ‘discrimination’ as distinct concepts.” While the trade groups said they “fully support the fair enforcement of nondiscrimination laws,” they emphasized that they “cannot stand by while a federal agency exceeds its statutory authority, creates regulatory uncertainty, and imposes costly burdens on the business community.”
The trade groups' suit also claimed that the Bureau violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to go through the proper notice-and-comment process when amending the Supervision and Examination Manual. Calling the manual updates “arbitrary” and “capricious,” the trade groups claimed the changes failed to consider the Bureau’s prior position on UDAAP authority and “did not grapple with Congress’s decision to narrowly define the FTC’s unfairness authority to screen out the same kind of power that the CFPB is now claiming for itself.” The complaint also called into question the Bureau’s funding structure, arguing that because the structure violates the Appropriations Clause it should be declared unconstitutional and the exam manual updates set aside.
A statement released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the trade group plaintiffs bringing the law suit, says the Bureau “is operating beyond its statutory authority and in the process creating legal uncertainty that will result in fewer financial products available to consumers.” U.S. Chamber Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley added that the “CFPB is pursuing an ideological agenda that goes well beyond what is authorized by law and the Chamber will not hesitate to hold them accountable.”
CFPB’s Supervisory Highlights targets student loan servicers
On September 29, the CFPB released a special edition of its Supervisory Highlights focusing on recent examination findings related to practices by student loan servicers and schools that directly lend to students. Highlights of the supervisory findings include:
- Transcript withholding. The Bureau found several instances where in-house lenders (i.e., where the schools themselves are the lender) are withholding transcripts as a debt collection practice. According to the Bureau, many post-secondary institutions choose to withhold official transcripts from borrowers as an attempt to collect education-related debts. The Supervisory Highlights states the position that the blanket withholding of transcripts to coerce borrowers into making payments is an “abusive” practice under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.
- Supervision of federal student loan transfers. The Bureau identified certain consumer risks linked to the transfer of nine million borrower account records to different servicers after two student loan servicers ended their contracts with the Department of Education (DOE). The review, which was handled in partnership with the DOE and other state regulators, identified several concerns, such as (i) the information received during the transfer was insufficient to accurately service the loan; (ii) transferee and transferor servicers reported different numbers of total payments that count toward income-driven repayment forgiveness for some borrowers; (iii) information inaccurately stated the borrower’s next due date; (iv) certain accounts were placed into transfer-related forbearances following the transfer, instead of in more advantageous CARES Act forbearances; and (v) multiple servicers experienced significant operational challenges.
- Payment relief programs. The Bureau found occurrences where federal student loan servicers allegedly engaged in unfair acts or practices when they improperly denied a borrower’s application for loan cancellation through Teacher Loan Forgiveness or Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The Bureau claimed that many servicers “illegally misrepresented borrowers’ eligibility dates and the number of payments the borrower needed to make to qualify for relief,” and “provided misinformation about borrowers’ entitlement to progress toward loan forgiveness during the pandemic payment suspension.” The Bureau said it will continue to monitor servicers’ practices to ensure borrowers receive the relief for which they are entitled, and directed servicers to address consumer harm caused by these actions.
The Bureau issued a reminder that it will continue to supervise student loan servicers and lenders within its supervisory jurisdiction regardless of institution type. Student loan servicers, originators, and loan holders are advised to review the supervisory findings and take any necessary measures to ensure their operations address these risks.
Republicans take issue with CFPB agenda
On September 12, several Republican senators sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressing concerns that the Bureau is again pursuing “a radical and highly-politicized agenda unbounded by statutory limits.” In particular, the letter took issue with recent Bureau reports on the use of overdraft fees (covered by InfoBytes here and here), calling the agency’s actions a “relentless smear campaign” against banks. “Charging fees that customers chose to pay should not be disturbing or illegal, and yet, the CFPB appears to have developed a particular disdain for banks charging their customers for services, pejoratively calling overdraft protection ‘junk fees,’” the letter stated. Additionally, the letter claimed that the Bureau is changing its rules in order to publish previously confidential information about financial institutions to make it easier to threaten them with reputational harm (covered by InfoBytes here), without affording the financial institution the similar ability to, for example, disclose the existence of a CFPB examination. Among other things, the new procedural rule establishes a disclosure mechanism intended to increase transparency of the Bureau’s risk-determination process that will exempt final decisions and orders by the CFPB director from being considered confidential supervisory information, allowing the Bureau to publish the decisions on their website. According to the senators, the rule requires nonbanks to keep confidential information relating to a decision issued by the Bureau, including facts that could question the decision or raise procedural concerns. “The one-sided nature of the CFPB’s rule change gives the agency the ability to publicly tarnish an institution’s name without affording the firm the power to defend itself,” the letter said. The letter also decries a recent change to the agency’s rules of adjudication to make it more difficult for companies to defend themselves against novel enforcement theories by bypassing an administrative law judge and permitting the director to rule directly on the validity of the legal basis for the enforcement action.