InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Seven largest U.S. banks answer committee questions on overdraft fees and P2P fraud
On September 22, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing entitled “Annual Oversight of the Nation’s Largest Banks” where chief executive officers from the seven largest U.S. retail banks testified on bank activities related to topics including peer-to-peer (P2P) payment networks; mortgage practices; overdraft fees; forced arbitration; and environmental, social, and governance agendas. Among other things, senators pushed the CEOs to take more aggressive action to eliminate overdraft fees and compensate P2P payment fraud victims.
- Overdraft fees. Democratic senators stressed that charges still fall too heavily on low-income and minority customers, with Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) saying that there is “no reasonable explanation to continue to charge overdraft fees on working families.” The CEOs discussed their respective efforts to relax overdraft policies to reduce fees, with one CEO noting that “there are a lot of occasions where if [overdraft protection] is not used, [customers] would be charged a higher fee on the other side.” These fees, he noted, “can often reduce the cost on the other side and stop them from going to payday lenders.” Another CEO added that he believes “giving people a choice and letting them opt in or out is the proper thing to do.” One bank CEO noted that his bank offers two accounts with no fees and provides customers the opportunity to choose in the moment if they want to return or pay for an item.
- P2P platforms. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) asked the CEOs if they would give customers their money back if they are defrauded on a certain P2P platform and complain to the bank. The CEOs emphasized that their banks currently reimburse customers for fraud and “unauthorized transactions” and are taking measures to reduce the incidence of fraud, including educating consumers on how to detect scams. “There’s a tremendous amount that we can do as owners of the network to drive down the ability for thieves to take advantage of the network,” one CEO said when asked if banks believe it is their responsibility to make a consumer whole again. “That is what we're working on. That’s what we have to do.” Another CEO pointed out that other P2P platforms have “15 times the number of disputes” coming into the bank than the highlighted platform. One CEO also stressed that banks need to work through partnerships with law enforcement and regulatory agencies “to actually catch the criminals who are perpetuating this fraud against our customers.”
The previous day, the same CEOs discussed similar topics during the House Financial Services Committee’s hearing entitled “Holding Megabanks Accountable: Oversight of America’s Largest Consumer Facing Banks.” Several proposed bills containing provisions that would impact the banks if enacted were also discussed, including those that would (i) improve dispute procedures and disclosures related to reinvestigations of consumer reports (see H.R. 4120); (ii) amend and modernize bank merger laws (see H.R. 5419); and (iii) amend Community Reinvestment Act provisions to improve the assessment process for financial institutions (see H.R. 8833).
During the hearing (see committee memorandum here), committee members questioned the CEOs on a broad range of topics related to consumer protection compliance, enforcement, diversity initiatives, capital standards, emerging technologies and cybersecurity, merchant category codes for firearm purchases, and banking deserts. The CEOs addressed ways their banks have engaged in “responsible growth” and spoke on measures they have taken to bolster customer relations, including modifying overdraft practices. They also noted they are working on improving data protection and cybersecurity. In discussing P2P digital payment services, one CEO emphasized that “scams are growing daily” and regulators and legislators need to respond. He added that “[i]t’s not enough that we apportion blame after the fact. We need to stop fraud and scams before they occur. Secure [P2P] networks, real-time payments, and potentially FedNow allow for direct authentication with a host bank. They also allow members of the network to identify [] and police against scam accounts. This is not the case with nonbank networks. These networks are not held to the same security standards as banks.” He stated that banks “have zero visibility into where the money went, zero capability to recover the money, and zero capability to close the bad account.”
Ranking House members seek information from the CFPB
On September 20, House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and House Oversight and Reform Committee Ranking Member James Comer (R-KY) sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra asking him to provide information to Congress regarding the authorities delegated to the Bureau that justify its current and upcoming regulatory actions. According to the letter, McHenry and Comer point to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia vs. EPA, which “invoked the ‘major questions doctrine’ to reject an attempt by the EPA to exceed its statutory authority.” The letter further explained that “[u]nder this doctrine, an agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization for the authority it claims.’” The EPA could not identify such an authorization, according to McHenry and Comer, and the court further rejected the EPA’s attempt to exceed its statutory authority. The letter stated that “clear delegation of authority contemplated by the Court is not limited to just rulemaking but extends to other agency actions.” McHenry and Comer proceeded to list director-driven “initiatives” that they claim, “circumvent not only Congressional intent, but the Administrative Procedure Act.” They further requested that the Bureau provide a list of all actions that CFPB intends to take during the remainder of 2022, and “[a] list of all expected actions, including but not limited to major rulemaking, staff guidance, advisory opinions, interpretive rules, and the specific Congressional authority for each rulemaking,” by September 30. McHenry and Comer concluded the letter by noting that both committees intend to exercise “robust investigative and legislative powers,” and seek to assert Congress’ Article I responsibilities to ensure that neither the director nor the Biden administration “continue to exceed Congressional authorizations.”
Republicans allege CFPB “collusion” with states
On July 28, House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and two other Republican members sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, expressing their concerns that the Bureau has been “colluding” with states to “intimidate companies by conspiring with state agencies to pursue duplicative enforcement actions” in the financial services industry. The letter recognizes that state AGs “may enforce the CFPA in cases where the CFPB has not,” but argues that “the statute does not allow for a state attorney general to become a party to an existing CFPB enforcement action.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued an interpretive rule in May addressing states’ authority to bring enforcement actions for violations of federal consumer financial protection laws, including the CFPA. The representatives argue that although the CFPB has a duty to enforce the CFPA and protect consumers from predatory and discriminatory practices, the Bureau’s interpretive rule is “akin to deputizing state attorneys general to enforce the CFPA on behalf of the CFPB – something Congress did not authorize.” The letter concludes with a request for documents and information from the Bureau by August 12, including (i) the legal authority that allows the CFPB to “recruit state attorneys general to join existing CFPB actions"; (ii) any “safeguards” the CFPB has in place to avoid “redundant and duplicative state actions”; and (iii) “all documents and communications between offices of state attorneys general and the CFPB since October 12, 2021” and “all information regarding complaints filed in a judicial court received by the CFPB pursuant to 12 USC § 5552.”
Brainard discusses central bank digital currency at House hearing
On May 25, Fed Governor Lael Brainard spoke before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee in a virtual hearing titled “Digital Assets and the Future of Finance: Examining the Benefits and Risks of a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency.” According to the Committee’s memorandum regarding the hearing, the Fed defines a central bank digital currency (CBDC) as a “digital liability of a central bank that is widely available to the general public,” and though definitions vary, “understanding what distinguishes cryptocurrency from fiat government-issued currency is fundamental.” The memorandum also discussed the Fed’s publication of a discussion paper in January, Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation, which calls for public comments on questions related to the possibility of a U.S. CBDC (covered by InfoBytes here). In Brainard’s prepared statement, she noted that the “rapid ongoing evolution” of digital assets “should lead us to frame the question not as to whether there is a need for a central bank-issued digital dollar today, but rather whether there may be conditions in the future that may give rise to such a need.” Brainard also stated that “there are risks of not acting, just as there are risks of acting.” While there has not been a decision on creating a U.S. CBDC, Brainard stated that “it is important to undertake the necessary work to inform any such decision and to be ready to move forward should the need arise.” Additionally, Brainard pointed to recent pressure on two widely used stablecoins and resulting market turmoil that “underscore the need for clear regulatory guardrails to provide consumer and investor protection, protect financial stability, and ensure a level playing field for competition and innovation across the financial system.” Brainard further stated that a U.S. CBDC could be a potential “way to ensure that people around the world who use the dollar can continue to rely on the strength and safety of the U.S. currency to transact and conduct business in the digital financial system.”
House Republicans concerned about CFPB UDAAP manual and administrative adjudications
On May 19, nineteen Financial Services Committee Republicans sent a letter to CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressing concerns about the agency’s new UDAAP supervisory policy and the recent changes to CFPB administrative adjudication procedures. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the Bureau revised its UDAAP exam manual to highlight the CFPB’s view that its broad authority under UDAAP allows it to address discriminatory conduct in the offering of any financial product or service. With the March announcement, the Bureau made clear its view that any type of discrimination in connection with a consumer financial product or service could be an “unfair” practice — and, therefore, the CFPB can bring discrimination claims related to non-credit financial products. According to the letter, “the CFPB’s new [UDAAP] supervisory policy and the recent changes to CFPB administrative adjudication procedures deviate significantly from past practices.” The letter further argued that “Congress enacted the fair lending laws and delegated their enforcement to the CFPB, clearly defining the limits of CFPB’s jurisdiction.” Additionally, the letter noted that “[e]xtending ECOA’s disparate treatment and disparate impact analysis to non-credit financial products and services ignores these clear limits.” The legislators also contended that “[i]n addition to radically reinterpreting UDAAP, changes to the way the CFPB will supervise for UDAAP will impose significant new responsibilities on supervised entities.”
The letter also expressed concerns regarding changes recently made to the rules governing CFPB administrative adjudications. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February the Bureau published a procedural rule and request for public comment in the Federal Register to update its Rules of Practice for Adjudication Proceedings. The Bureau indicated that the amendments would provide greater procedural flexibility, providing parties earlier access to relevant information, expanding deposition opportunities, and making various changes related to “timing and deadlines, the content of answers, the scheduling conference, bifurcation of proceedings, the process for deciding dispositive motions, and requirements for issue exhaustion, as well as other technical changes.” According to the letter, this represents a “disturbing” action that is “contrary to [Chopra’s] comments about intending to establish durable jurisprudence made during testimony before the House Financial Services Committee in October 2021,” and “does not abide by typical notice and comment procedures.” The nineteen House Republicans on the Committee stated their view that “it is appropriate for the CFPB to immediately revert back to the previous Rules of Practice and conduct notice and comment rulemaking before [] any new procedures become effective.”
OCC discusses use of AI
On May 13, OCC Deputy Comptroller for Operational Risk Policy Kevin Greenfield testified before the House Financial Services Committee Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) discussing banks' use of AI and innovation in technology services. Among other things, Greenfield addressed the OCC’s approach to innovation and supervisory expectations, as well as the agency’s ongoing efforts to update its technological framework to support its bank supervision mandate. According to Greenfield’s written testimony, the OCC “recognizes the paramount importance of protecting sensitive data and consumer privacy, particularly given the use of consumer data and expanded data sets in some AI applications.” He noted that many banks use AI technologies and are investing in AI research and applications to automate, augment, or replicate human analysis and decision-making tasks. Therefore, the agency “is continuing to update supervisory guidance, examination programs and examiner skills to respond to AI’s growing use.” Greenfield also pointed out that the agency follows a risk-based supervision model focused on safe, sound, and fair banking practices, as well as compliance with laws and regulations, including fair lending and other consumer protection requirements. This risk-based approach includes developing supervisory strategies based upon an individual bank’s risk profile and examiners’ review of new, modified, or expanded products and services. Greenfield further noted that “the OCC is focused on educating examiners on a wide range of AI uses and risks including risks associates with third parties, information security and resilience, compliance, BSA, credit underwriting, and fair lending and data governance, as part of training courses and other educational resources.” According to Greenfield’s oral statement, “banks need effective risk management and controls for model validation and explainability, data management, privacy, and security regardless of whether a bank develops AI tools internally or purchases through a third party.”
Chopra testifies at congressional hearings
On April 26, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra testified at a hearing held by the Senate Banking Committee on the CFPB’s most recent semi-annual report to Congress (covered by InfoBytes here). Chopra’s opening remarks focused on key efforts the agency is taking to meet objectives established by Congress, including (i) shifting enforcement resources away from investigating small firms and focusing instead on repeat offenders and large players engaged in large-scale harm; (ii) increasing transparency through the issuance of guidance documents, such as advisory opinions, compliance bulletins, policy statements, and other publications to help entities comply with federal consumer financial laws; (iii) rethinking its approach to regulations, including its work to develop several rules authorized in the CFPA, and placing “a higher premium on simplicity and ‘bright lines’ whenever possible”; (iv) engaging with the business community and meeting with state-based associations to speak directly with community banks and credit unions and engaging with a broad range of other businesses and associations that may be affected by the laws the Bureau administers; (v) promoting greater competition by “lowering barriers to entry and increasing the pool of firms competing for customers based on quality, price, and service”; and (vi) researching issues related to big tech’s influence on consumer payments.
In his opening statement, Senate Banking Committee Chair Sherrod Brown (D-OH) praised Chopra’s recent efforts related to “junk fees” such as overdraft fees and non-sufficient fund fees, discrimination and bias in the appraisal process, reporting of medical collection debt by the credit reporting agencies, examination authority over non-banks and fintech companies, and crack-down on repeat offenders. However, Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA) criticized Chopra’s actions and alleged “overreach.” Among other things, Toomey characterized the Bureau’s attempts “to supervise for disparate impact not only in lending, but in all consumer financial services and products” as “unauthorized stealth rulemaking” that “will create tremendous uncertainty among regulated entities.” Toomey also took issue with recent changes to the Bureau’s rules of adjudication, claiming it will “make it easier to engage in regulation by enforcement.”
During the hearing, committee members discussed topics related to collecting small business lending data, rural banking access, student loan servicing, and whether the Bureau should be subject to the congressional appropriations process. Republican committee members raised concerns over several issues, including significant revisions recently made to the Bureau’s unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) examination manual that state that any type of discrimination in connection with a consumer financial product or service could be an “unfair” practice (i.e., the CFPB can now bring “unfair” discrimination claims related to non-credit financial products). (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) characterized the new policy as a “wholesale rewrite” of the examination manual that will improperly expand the reach of disparate impact liability and challenged the lack of notice-and-comment for the changes to the UDAAP manual.
Conversely, Democratic committee members praised Chopra’s actions and encouraged him to continue pressuring banks to cut excessive overdraft fees and other “junk fees,” as well as strengthen enforcement against repeat offenders. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stressed that imposing fines that are less than the profits made from the misconduct will not be enough to persuade large banks to follow the law and asked Chopra to think about other steps regulators might consider to hold large repeat offenders accountable. She referenced her bill, the Corporate Executive Accountability Act, which is designed to hold big bank executives personally liable for the bank’s repeat violations of the law.
Chopra reiterated the Bureau’s priorities in his April 27 testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. At the hearing, House committee members questioned Chopra on the Bureau’s plans to collect data on small business loans pursuant to Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, crack down on “junk fees,” and address fair lending concerns with automated valuation models and fraud in payment networks. During the hearing, Chopra told committee members that the Bureau plans to revisit and update older regulations such as the CARD Act to lower credit card fees. “We want to make sure that credit cards are a competitive market . . . [so] I am asking the staff to look at whether we should reopen the Card Act rules that were promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board over 10 years ago . . . to be able to look at some of these older rules we inherited, to determine whether there needs to be any changes,” Chopra said, adding that “late fees are an area that I expect to be one of the questions we solicit input on.”
House subcommittee discusses eliminating overdraft fees
On March 31, the House Financial Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions held a hearing titled, The End of Overdraft Fees? Examining the Movement to Eliminate the Fees Costing Consumers Billions, to discuss efforts to reduce or eliminate overdraft fees. Subcommittee Chair Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) opened the hearing by noting that “consumers in the United States pay around $10 to $12 billion in overdraft fees and nonsufficient fund fees,” with just 9 percent of consumers representing up to 80 percent of these fees. He also noted that these “types of fees impact people of color at a disproportionate rate,” and that “[s]tudies have found banks with branches in predominantly black neighborhoods charge more for overdraft on average, and black customers are overrepresented in those who report paying more than $100 in fees in the past year.” Some subcommittee Democrats appeared supportive of measures to address the alleged growing reliance by banks and credit unions on revenues from overdraft fees to make up for interest lost in the current low-rate environment. In contrast, certain subcommittee Republicans appeared skeptical of government efforts to limit financial institutions’ ability to provide overdraft services, questioning the impact such efforts would have on smaller financial institutions like community banks and credit unions. The committee memorandum and hearing focused on the evolving trends related to overdraft programs and fees and their impact on consumers, including the following:
- Overdraft and Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) Fee Data and Trends. The subcommittee quoted a study that found that “federal regulators have required banks and credit unions with more than $1 billion in assets to report revenue collected specifically from overdraft and NSF fees, totaling between $11 billion and $12 billion annually,” since 2015. According to the subcommittee, “the true fee total is likely higher since smaller depository institutions are exempt from the reporting requirement.”
- Impact on Consumers. The subcommittee quoted a report that said “consumers face challenges with unclear or confusing overdraft policies or are charged fees simply because of a delay in when their paycheck deposits are made available or when other transactions are settled in their account.” According to the report, consumers “incur overdraft fees despite carefully attempting to avoid them and often believing they have. One practice, in particular, has garnered increased attention recently: charging overdraft fees on debit card transactions that were authorized when the consumer had sufficient funds in the account but then settled, often a few days later, when the account no longer had sufficient funds.”
- Proposals and Challenges to Improving Consumer Protections when Consumers Overdraft. The subcommittee pointed out that initiatives to improve overdraft fees and NSF fees would “focus on enhancing disclosures and information about overdraft provided to consumers; capping the number of fees a consumer may be charged in a defined period of time; reducing the cost of each fee, or encouraging or incentivizing financial institutions to offer small-dollar loans with streamlined underwriting and affordable interest rates or repayment plans to provide an alternative for consumers who typically rely on overdraft.” The subcommittee also said another possible improvement in the market would result from adopting a faster payments network, such as the FedNow Service. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed announced in August 2020 its intention to implement the FedNow Service—a “round-the-clock real-time payment and settlement service”—through a phased approach with a target launch date sometime in 2023 or 2024.
One witness, a senior policy analyst from a Latino civil rights and advocacy organization, expressed his support for reducing or eliminating overdraft fees, stating that “[o]verdraft fees, by their nature, impact consumers when they can least afford an additional [c]ost.” The witness quoted a study that found “[l]ow- to moderate-income households are nearly twice as likely as higher-income households to overdraw an account.” Calling overdrafts “a penalty for being poor or financially insecure,” another witness, a consumer policy counsel at a civil rights nonprofit, expressed that “overdraft fees are a penalty for being poor or financially insecure.” Quoting a study finding that approximately “80 percent of overdraft fee revenue to banks comes from 9 percent of accounts,” the witness stated that the “median account balance of this group is less than $350.” In contrast, another witness, a law professor at George Mason University, stated in the hearing that “exasperation is not a substitute for sound economic analysis," He stressed that “this is an area in which unintended consequences of bans on overdraft protection, substantive limits, price controls and the like could have some serious unintended consequences.” He further warned of possible negative consequences should policymakers eliminate overdraft programs, cautioning that new restrictions on overdrafts may have many negative implications for consumers, including “higher bank fees, higher minimum monthly deposits . . . and a loss of access to free checking.”
Additionally, some House Republicans were critical of recent efforts taken by the CFPB in this space and the elimination of overdrafts by several banks. During the hearing, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) criticized the CFPB’s inquiry into junk fees (covered by InfoBytes here), arguing that, “t[h]ere is no legal authority for the CFPB to define the term ‘junk fee’ . . . and even less authority for the CFPB to act as a price setter in the consumer financial market.” Luetkemeyer added that “the CFPB is manufacturing a crisis about hidden fees for financial products and services when they are the very people that made up the disclosure regime,” and called the effort “another attempt by the CFPB to denigrate legally operating businesses by any means possible.”
Waters sends letter to HUD and others regarding appraisal bias
On February 22, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee Maxine Waters (D-CA) sent a letter to HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge, the Appraisal Subcommittee, the Appraisal Foundation, and the Appraisal Institute regarding appraisal bias and discrimination. The letter, among other things, urged federal regulators and the Appraisal Institute to investigate appraiser misconduct and the possibility of illegal discrimination and highlighted “longstanding racial inequities plaguing America’s home valuation system, particularly in Black-majority communities and other communities of color,” according to the press release. In the letter, Waters noted that during her time with the House Financial Services Committee, the committee has “paid special attention to the racial inequities that continue to plague America’s home valuation system, including through home appraisals, despite the passage of anti-discrimination laws.” She further pointed to “qualitative research” from the National Fair Housing Alliance to shed light on “the ways in which individual appraisers and the appraisal profession help perpetuate systemic and overt racism, highlighting statements made by appraisers as well as policies and practices that continue to be upheld by an appraisal profession that is 97% White.” The letter also provided excerpts from an appraiser’s email as an example of discriminatory practices, in which Waters asserted, “shines a spotlight on the racist stereotypes and harmful lines of thinking prevalent in an industry which systematically devalues the homes of Black people and other people of color.” Waters noted that she will be drafting legislation “to address systemic appraisal discrimination,” recommended that the recipients of her letter conduct pertinent investigations, and urged them to respond to her letter accordingly. Waters also disclosed that the House Financial Services Committee “will convene hearings, advance legislation, and continue working with stakeholders to end housing discrimination and hold the appraisal industry fully accountable.”
Treasury stresses importance of regulating stablecoins
On February 8, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Nellie Liang testified before the House Financial Services Committee that more must be done to clearly and consistently regulate stablecoins. Stablecoins’ “exponential growth” heightens “the urgency of ensuring that an appropriate regulatory framework is in place,” Liang stressed, adding that the value of stablecoins has grown over the last two years from roughly $5 billion in 2020 to approximately $175 billion today.
Liang encouraged lawmakers to consider two additional issues as they create policy: (i) regulations for “intermediaries” in the digital asset markets, including traditional financial actors such as banks and investment companies, as well as stablecoin issuers, custodial wallet providers, and digital asset exchanges; and (ii) potential systemic risk that may result from the build-up of leverage against digital assets, which “can play a key role in catalyzing and accelerating financial instability.” Liang compared the second issue to the 2007-2008 financial crisis. To address this risk, Liang stated that the Biden Administration is examining the role that leverage plays in the digital asset market, as well as the implications that leverage may have on the rest of the financial system. She also reiterated concerns raised in the President’s Working Group (PWG) on Financial Markets’ report on stablecoins (covered by InfoBytes here), which emphasized that stablecoins may be more widely used in the future as a means of payment and could increase “risks to users and the broader system.” Liang stressed that “[w]hile Treasury and the PWG fully support efforts by state and federal agencies to use existing authorities in support of their statutory mandates, we do not believe existing authorities provide a sufficient basis for comprehensive and consistent oversight of stablecoins.”