InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
House committee report urges large banks to release diversity data
On February 12, Maxine Waters, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Joyce Beatty, Chair of the Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion, released a majority staff report titled “Diversity and Inclusion: Holding America’s Large Banks Accountable,” which details diversity and inclusion data and policies collected from 44 of the nation’s largest banks. The information requested from the banks included, among other things, (i) “[e]mployee compensation by gender, race, and ethnicity”; (ii) demographic information about the banks’ boards; (iii) data regarding “staff and budget dedicated to diversity initiatives”; and (iv) “diversity policies and practices.” The committee staff found that boards of directors and senior employees at banks are not diverse, and that “[b]anks have limited spending and investments with diverse firms.” Additionally, it was found that “workforce diversity is more visible in entry level rather than executive and senior level positions.” The report recommended a number of avenues for banks to improve diversity and inclusion such as disclosing diversity data to the public and to regulators including bank board diversity. The report also suggested “[i]ncreased spending and investment with diverse” firms and vendors. According to the press release, Congressional legislative actions in these areas would “improve diversity and inclusion at America’s largest banks.”
House task force holds hearing on AI bias
On February 12, the House Financial Services Committee’s Task Force on Artificial Intelligence (AI) held a hearing entitled “Equitable Algorithms: Examining Ways to Reduce AI Bias in Financial Services.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Committee created the task force to determine how to use AI in the financial services industry and examine issues surrounding algorithms, digital identities, and combating fraud. According to the Committee’s memorandum regarding the hearing, AI’s key technology is machine learning (ML)—“a process that may rely on pre-set rules to solve problems (also known as algorithms) without” or with only limited involvement of humans. Witnesses largely from the fields of computer science and AI delved into AI and ML at the hearing, discussing how human biases can be perpetuated in algorithms using historical data as input and how to best ensure fairness and accuracy. It was agreed that fairness has many different definitions that must be considered when creating algorithms. Witnesses provided testimony that when striving for fairness for one protected class, there may necessarily be tradeoffs resulting in less fairness to another protected class. Among other things, committee members questioned whether it is possible to formulate an algorithm that guarantees fairness and were urged not to focus too much on algorithms, but to also consider the data—where it came from, its quality and appropriateness—as potentially flawed data that could likely result in flawed outputs.
Powell discusses CRA, LIBOR at House hearing
On February 11, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell provided testimony to the House Financial Services Committee during a hearing titled “Monetary Policy and the State of the Economy,” discussing regulatory issues concerning, among other things, proposed rulemaking related to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the transition away from reliance on LIBOR as an interest rate benchmark in financial products. During the hearing, Powell fielded a number of questions concerning the Fed’s plan to update CRA regulations. Reaffirming his support for Fed Governor Lael Brainard’s disapproval of how quickly the FDIC and OCC issued their notice of proposed rulemaking (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), Powell stated that he is “very comfortable with. . .the thinking” Brainard recently outlined in a speech describing alternative approaches to the CRA modernization process (covered by InfoBytes here). Powell emphasized, however, that the ideas in Brainard’s speech do not yet represent a formal framework, stating “[w]e want to be very, very sure. . .that what comes out of this is a proposal. . .from us that will leave all major participants in CRA better off. And so we think it’s important that each metric, each change that we make is grounded in data.”
Powell also discussed the upcoming transition from LIBOR to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), stating that federal regulators are working to ensure financial institutions are prepared for LIBOR’s possible cessation. When asked whether Congress should “simply give the Fed the right to prescribe backup rates when the debt instruments do not do so,” or explicitly adopt SOFR, Powell responded that he did not believe a federal law change is necessary at this time. Powell further responded that the Fed will inform Congress if a change in federal law is needed, emphasizing that the Fed’s “process is ongoing” and that it is “committed to having the banks ready by the end of next year to switch. . .away from LIBOR in case [the rate] is no longer published.” Powell noted that while SOFR will be the main substitute for LIBOR, the Fed is “working with regional [banks] and some of the larger banks, too, about the idea of also having a credit sensitive rate.”
Kraninger testifies at House hearing; final payday rule expected in April
On February 6, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger testified at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on the CFPB’s Semi-Annual Report to Congress. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The hearing covered the semi-annual report to Congress on the Bureau’s work from April 1, 2019, through September 30, 2019. In her opening remarks, Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters argued, among other things, that the Bureau’s recent policy statement on the “abusiveness” standard in supervision and enforcement matters “undercuts” Dodd-Frank’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Waters also challenged Kraninger on her support for the joint notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the OCC and FDIC to strengthen and modernize Community Reinvestment Act regulations (covered by a Buckley Special Alert), arguing that the proposal would lead to disinvestment in communities, while emphasizing that Kraninger’s actions have not demonstrated the Bureau’s responsibility to meaningfully protect consumers. However, in her opening statement and written testimony, Kraninger highlighted several actions recently taken by the Bureau to protect consumers, and emphasized the Bureau’s commitment to preventing harm by “building a culture of compliance throughout the financial system while supporting free and competitive markets that provide for informed consumer choice.”
Additional highlights of Kraninger’s testimony include:
- Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Education (Department). Kraninger discussed the recently announced information sharing agreement (covered by InfoBytes here) between the Bureau and the Department, intended to protect student borrowers by clarifying the roles and responsibilities for each agency and permitting the sharing of student loan complaint data analysis, recommendations, and data analytic tools. Kraninger stated that the MOU will give the Department the same near real-time access to the Bureau’s complaint database enjoyed by other government partners, and also told the Committee that the Bureau and Department are currently discussing a second supervisory MOU.
- Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans. Kraninger told the Committee that a rewrite of the payday lending rule—which will eliminate requirements for lenders to assess a borrower’s ability to repay loans—is expected in April. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Kraninger noted that the Bureau is currently reviewing an “extensive number of comments” and plans to address a petition on the rule’s payments provision. “[F]inancial institutions have argued that there were some products pulled into that that were, you know, unintended,” she stated. “[W]orking through all of that and. . .moving forward in a way that is transparent in. . .April is what I am planning to do.”
- Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgages (QM). Kraninger discussed the Bureau’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that would modify the QM Rule by moving away from the 43 percent debt to income ratio requirement and adopt an alternative such as a pricing threshold to ensure responsible, affordable mortgage credit is available to consumers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) She stated that the Bureau would welcome legislation from Congress in this area.
- Supervision and Enforcement. Kraninger repeatedly emphasized that supervision is an important tool for the Bureau, and stated in her written testimony that during the reporting period discussed, “the Bureau’s Fair Lending Supervision program initiated 16 supervisory events at financial services institutions under the Bureau’s jurisdiction to determine compliance with federal laws intended to ensure the fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit for both individuals and communities, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act [] and HMDA.” In addition to discussing recent enforcement actions, Kraninger also highlighted three innovation policies: the Trial Disclosure Program Policy, No-Action Letter Policy, and the Compliance Assistance Sandbox Policy. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
- Military Lending Act (MLA). Kraninger reiterated her position that she does not believe Dodd-Frank gives the Bureau the authority to supervise financial institutions for military lending compliance, and repeated her request for Congress to grant the Bureau clear authority to do so. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Congressman Barr (R-KY) noted that while he introduced H.R. 442 last month in response to Kraninger’s request, the majority has denied the mark up.
- UDAAP. Kraninger fielded a number of questions on the Bureau’s recent abusiveness policy statement. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Several Democrats told Kraninger the new policy will put unnecessary constraints on the Bureau’s enforcement powers, while some Republicans said the policy fails to define what constitutes an abusive act or practice. Kraninger informed the Committee that the policy statement is intended to “clarify abusiveness and separate it from deceptive and unfairness because Congress explicitly gave us those three authorities.” Kraninger reiterated that the Bureau will seek monetary relief only when the entity has failed to make a good faith effort to comply, and that “[r]estitution for consumers will be the priority in these cases.” She further emphasized that “in no way should that policy be read to say that we would not bring abusiveness claims.” Congresswoman Maloney (D-NY) argued, however, that a 2016 fine issued against a national bank for allegedly unfair and abusive conduct tied to the bank’s incentive compensation sales practices “would have been substantially lower if the [B]ureau hadn’t charged [the bank] with abus[ive] conduct also.” Kraninger replied that the Bureau could have gotten “the same amount of restitution and other penalties associated with unfairness alone.”
- Constitutionality Challenge. Kraninger reiterated that while she agrees with Seila Law on the Bureau’s single-director leadership structure, she differs on how the matter should be resolved. “Congress obviously provided a clear mission for this agency but there are some questions around. . .this and I want the uncertainty to be resolved,” Kraninger testified. “Congress will have the opportunity to make any changes or respond to that and I think that’s appropriate,” she continued. “I would very much like to see a resolution on this question because it has hampered the CFPB’s ability to carry out its mission, virtually since its inception.” (Continuing InfoBytes coverage on Seila Law LLC v. CFPB here.)
Representatives hold hearing on “rent-a-bank” schemes
On February 5, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing titled “Rent-A-Bank Schemes and New Debt Traps: Assessing Efforts to Evade State Consumer Protections and Interest Rate Caps” to discuss policies relating to state interest rate caps and permissible interest rates on small dollar loans such as payday and car-title loans. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in November, the OCC and the FDIC proposed rules meant to override the 2015 Madden v. Midland funding decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and reinforce that when a national bank or savings association, or state chartered bank, transfers a loan, the permissible interest rate after the transfer is the same as it was prior to the transfer. In January, however, a group of attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia submitted a comment letter to the OCC claiming the proposed rule would encourage predatory lending through “rent-a-bank schemes.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) During the hearing, Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), expressed concern that the two agency proposals would harm consumers by allowing non-banks to partner with banks and enable non-bank lenders to “peddle harmful short-term, triple-digit interest rate loans.” Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) echoed that concern when she suggested that “rent-a-bank” schemes allow non-banks to dodge state interest rate laws. Many Republicans had views differing from those expressed by Tlaib and Waters. North Carolina Representative Patrick McHenry remarked that the proposals from the OCC and the FDIC merely formalized the “valid when made” rule that had been in use for over a century. At the hearing, HR 5050, which would cap federal interest rates on certain small loans at 36 percent, was also discussed, with several Democrats stressing that the cap may negatively affect credit availability to some consumers.
Otting defends OCC’s CRA proposal
On January 29, OCC Comptroller Joseph Otting testified at a hearing held by the House Financial Services Committee to discuss the OCC’s Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) modernization proposal. (See Buckley Special Alert covering the joint notice of proposed rulemaking issued last December by the OCC and FDIC.) Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) expressed concerns with the NPR, arguing that the proposal “runs contrary to the purpose of the CRA and would lead to widespread bank disinvestment from low- and moderate-communities throughout the country.” Waters cited additional concerns with the NPR, including what she believes are efforts by the OCC “to deregulate megabanks” and “greenlight rent-a-bank schemes that allow lenders to skirt state usury caps.”
In his written testimony, Otting reiterated that the NPR is intended to strengthen and modernize CRA regulations and that the proposal does not permit redlining. “Nothing in this proposal changes the agencies’ authority to enforce fair lending laws to prevent discrimination and redlining. The regulations implementing the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibit discrimination and redlining,” Otting stressed in his oral statement. “These regulations are not changed in any way by this proposal.” (Emphasis in the original.) Otting also defended several of the proposed amendments that would, among other things, (i) remove uncertainty that discourages investments; (ii) focus on a bank’s sustained commitment to meeting a community’s credit needs and rewarding long-term investment; and (iii) accommodate banks of different sizes and business models by allowing small banks with less than $500 million in total assets to choose between the existing and the proposed revised framework for their evaluations. During the hearing, Otting also refuted the perception that the NPR employs the use of a single metric to determine a bank’s CRA rating, stating “there is no one ratio in this proposal. . .the average regional bank will have 502 measurement points so every community would be measured by units and dollars and at the top of the house it would be dollars.”
When Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) asked about the OCC’s recent request for bank-specific data to inform the NPR (previously covered by InfoBytes here) questioning why the agencies “want to adopt a rule on such a quick timetable when [they] still don’t have the information,” Otting responded that the additional information requested from the banks is meant to help validate the OCC’s analysis and conclusions. However, when the discussion turned to whether Congress could access the data and analysis used to create the NPR, Otting stated that he would be happy to discuss the data and analysis in person but that the information should not be publicly distributed. Waters stated Congress would subpoena the information if necessary. Otting also confirmed that the 60-day comment period of the NPR (which closes March 9) would not be extended, and that the goal would be to finalize the rule within 60 to 70 days after the comment period ends. With respect to the Federal Reserve’s decision not to join in the notice of proposed rulemaking, Otting said, “We have thousands of rules, regulations and guidance that differ amongst the agencies. So no…I do not see it as an impediment at all.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, earlier this month Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard discussed the Fed’s approach to the CRA modernization process and explained why the Fed chose not to join in the NPR.
Democratic Congressmen ask GAO to look at alternative data in mortgage lending
On January 16, Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) inquiring about the benefits and drawbacks of using alternative data in mortgage lending, as well as the federal government’s role in overseeing the use of alternative data credit reporting agencies (CRAs) and lenders. The letter notes that while alternative data can be useful in helping lenders identify creditworthy potential borrowers who cannot be scored by CRAs through traditional measures, questions remain about how the use of alternative data may affect compliance with fair lending laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act. “While some alternative data, such as rental payment history, may provide an objective measure of creditworthiness, others might enable discrimination on the basis of a protected class, or infringe upon consumer privacy,” the letter cautions. The letter asks GAO to study the use of alternative data in expanding access to credit, with a particular focus on mortgage credit, and poses the following questions:
- How have different entities used alternative data to expand access to mortgage credit? Specifically, can alternative data determine consumer creditworthiness and whether a consumer is able to repay a mortgage? Additionally, are there certain alternative data sources that are better at predicting creditworthiness or some that are more likely to raise concerns about correlations with discriminatory factors? Furthermore, what federal activity has there been in this space?
- What are the potential benefits and risks associated with using alternative data and financial technology for access to mortgage credit, and are there variations in these benefits and risks across different groups, including minorities and younger borrowers?
- What potential risks does alternative data pose to fair lending compliance, and are the regulatory and enforcement agencies that govern the credit-granting system equipped to manage and prepare for an increased use of alternative data in mortgage lending?
- How do the benefits and trade-offs of other options for expanding access to mortgage credit compare to the use of alternative data in credit scoring?
Democrats urge HUD to “immediately rescind” disparate impact proposal
On November 22, the Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee sent a letter to Secretary of HUD Ben Carson, opposing the agency’s proposed rule amending its interpretation of the Fair Housing Act’s (FHA) disparate impact standard (also known as the “2013 Disparate Impact Regulation”). The letter argues that the proposed rule would “make it harder for everyday Americans who find themselves victims of housing discrimination to get justice.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in August, HUD issued the proposed rule in order to bring the rule “into closer alignment with the analysis and guidance” provided in the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) and to codify HUD’s position that its rule is not intended to infringe on the states’ regulation of insurance. Specifically, the proposed rule codifies the burden-shifting framework outlined in Inclusive Communities, adding five elements that a plaintiff must plead to support allegations that a specific, identifiable policy or practice has a discriminatory effect. Moreover, the proposal provides methods for defendants to rebut a disparate impact claim.
The letter urges Secretary Carson to “immediately rescind” the proposed rule, calling the proposal a “huge departure from a standard and framework that has been expressly supported by HUD…[and] a deviation from decades of legal precedent, including a Supreme Court decision affirming the legitimacy of the disparate impact standard under the [FHA].” Moreover, the letter argues that “[i]n 2018, Black homeownership rates reached the lowest they had since before the [FHA] was passed,” and that HUD’s mission to build inclusive and sustainable communities will be “seriously compromised” with this proposed rule.
Waters and Brown urge regulators to reconsider Volcker Rule changes
On October 17, House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif) and Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) wrote to the heads of the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, OCC, SEC, and CFTC to oppose the federal financial regulators’ recent approval of changes to the Volcker Rule. (Previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to Waters and Brown, the final revisions—which are designed 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—“open the door to the very risky, speculative activities that Congress sought to prohibit.” Specifically, the letter addresses rollback concerns such as (i) narrowing the definition of a “trading account,” which would weaken the short-term intent prong; (ii) “eliminating metrics reporting”; (iii) “removing activity restrictions on non-U.S. banks”; and (iv) “expanding permitted activity related to covered funds.” Waters and Brown urged the regulators to reconsider their decision to adopt the revisions, and requested that they be provided with the data and metrics used by the regulators during their analysis, as well as the regulators’ justification for “eliminating or reducing the information and data reported by banking entities.”
Kraninger discusses semi-annual report at House and Senate hearings
On October 17, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger testified at a hearing held by the Senate Banking Committee on the CFPB’s Semi-Annual Report to Congress. (Previous InfoBytes coverage here.) Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the hearing covered the semi-annual report to Congress on the Bureau’s work from October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019. While Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) praised recent key initiatives undertaken by Kraninger pertaining to areas such as innovation, small dollar lending underwriting provisions, and proposed amendments to the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule, he stressed the importance of reconsidering the fundamental structure of the Bureau. Conversely, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) argued that Kraninger’s leadership has led to zero enforcement actions taken against companies for discriminatory lending practices, and that her initiatives have, among other things, failed to protect consumers. In her opening testimony, Kraninger reiterated her commitment to (i) providing clear guidance; (ii) fostering a “‘culture of compliance’” through the use of supervision to prevent violations; (iii) executing “vigorous enforcement”; and (iv) empowering consumers. Notable highlights include:
- Constitutionality challenges. The Bureau recently filed letters in pending litigation arguing that the for-cause restriction on the president’s authority to remove the Bureau’s single Director violates the Constitution’s separation of powers, and on October 18, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, to answer the question of whether an independent agency led by a single director violates Article II of the Constitution. (InfoBytes coverage here.) Senator Brown challenged, however, Kraninger’s “credibility as a public official,” arguing that she changed her original position about not speaking on constitutionality issues.
- Supervision of student loan servicers. Kraninger addressed several Senators’ concerns about the Department of Education reportedly blocking the Bureau from obtaining information about the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program for supervisory examinations, as well as and the need for a stronger response from the Bureau to obtain the requested information. Kraninger stressed that the CFPB will move forward with a statutorily required Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies, and emphasized that the Bureau continues to examine private education loans and is collaborating with the Department of Education to ensure consumer protection laws are followed.
- Proposed revisions to Payday Rule. Several Democratic Senators questioned the Bureau’s notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the Payday Rule’s ability-to-repay provisions. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) Specifically, one Senator argued that the Bureau has failed to “present any new research in defense of the change.” Kraninger replied that while she defends the Bureau’s proposal, “a final decision has not been made in this issue.” Kraninger also addressed questions as to why—if the Bureau does not believe there is a reason to delay the effective date of the Payday Rule’s payment provisions—the Bureau has not yet filed a motion to lift a stay and allow payment provision to be implemented. Kraninger indicated that the CFPB had not done so because the payday loan trade groups were also challenging the Bureau’s constitutionality (InfoBytes here).
- Clarity on abusive practices under UDAAP. Kraninger noted the Bureau intends to, “in the not too distant future,” provide an update as to whether more guidance is necessary in order to define what constitutes an abusive act or practice.
A day earlier, Kraninger also presented testimony at the House Financial Services Committee’s hearing to discuss the semi-annual report, in which committee members focused on, among other things, constitutionality questions and concerns regarding recent Bureau settlements. Similar to the Senate hearing, Democratic committee members questioned Kraninger’s change in position concerning the Bureau’s constitutionality, and argued that for her “to second-guess Congress’ judgment on [the] constitutionality of the CFPB and to argue against the CFPB structure in court is disrespectful to Congress.” With regard to recent Bureau enforcement actions, many of the committee members’ questions revolved around consumer restitution, as well as a recently released majority staff report, which detailed the results of the majority’s investigation into the CFPB’s handling of consumer monetary relief in enforcement actions since Richard Cordray stepped down as director in November 2017. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)