InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Releases Financial Literacy Annual Report for 2016
On October 31, the CFPB released its Financial Literacy Annual Report for 2016. The report describes what the Bureau is doing to “help consumers navigate the financial marketplace and build financial well-being” per its mandate under Dodd-Frank to improve the “financial literacy” of consumers in America. The 2016 edition of the report is broken down into three sections: (i) why there is a need for financial literacy amongst consumers; (ii) the Bureau’s approach to increasing financial literacy; and (iii) research initiatives designed to “understand consumers and the financial market place,” “effective financial education practices,” and “how best to prepare youth for financial capability in adulthood.”
CFPB Releases Supervisory Highlights Report for Fall 2016
On October 31, the CFPB released the 13th Edition of its Supervisory Highlights Report, covering the period May through August of this year. The report shares recent supervisory observations in the areas of automobile loan origination, automobile loan servicing, debt collection, mortgage origination, mortgage servicing, student loan servicing, and fair lending. The report found that the CFPB’s recent supervisory actions returned more than $11 million to approximately 225,000 consumers. The Bureau also set forth new examination procedures for reverse mortgage servicing, student loan servicing, and the Military Lending Act.
CFPB Clarifies "Flexibility" in Third-Party Risk Management
On November 1, the CFPB issued an update to its previous guidance on risk management for third-party service providers. The update is substantially similar to the Bureau’s previous guidance on third-party risk management, but clarifies that the depth and formality of an entity’s risk management program for service providers may vary depending upon (i) the service being performed, and (ii) the service provider’s compliance with federal consumer financial laws and regulations. With this update, the CFPB emphasized that supervised entities have flexibility to allow appropriate risk management of these relationships.
Department of Education Releases Final Regulations Creating Additional Protections for Student Borrowers and Establishing New Federal Standard for Borrower Defense to Repayment of Student Loans
On October 28, the Department of Education announced new Final Regulations (81 FR 75926) to protect student borrowers against misleading and predatory practices by postsecondary institutions and clarify a process for loan forgiveness in cases of institutional misconduct. The new regulations establish the conditions under and process through which a borrower may assert a defense to repayment, also referred to as a “borrower defense,” of a Federal Direct Loan. Specifically, a borrower may now be eligible for discharge of Federal loans whenever a postsecondary institution: (i) makes false and misleading statements about school or career outcomes, (ii) makes false and misleading statements about financing needed to pay for those programs; or (iii) the institution fails to fulfill specific contractual promises regarding program offerings or educational services. By contrast, the current standard allows borrowers to assert a borrower defense only where a cause of action would arise under applicable state law.
Under the new regulations, a school participating in the Direct Loan program is also prohibited from obtaining any form of pre-dispute arbitration agreement or waiver of a borrower’s right to initiate or participate in a class action lawsuit. Further, participating schools may no longer require that students engage in internal dispute processes before seeking relief under the new “borrower defense” provisions. The final regulations also impose certain notification and disclosure requirements on any school that is the subject of a lawsuit filed in court or that are voluntarily submitted to arbitration after a dispute has arisen. The new regulations are effective July 1, 2017.
The Ninth Circuit Holds that Enforcing a Security Interest is Not Necessarily Debt Collection
On October 19, the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kozinski, held that merely enforcing a security interest is not “debt collection” under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Ho v. ReconTrust Co., Case: 10-56884 (Oct. 20, 2016). In so holding, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with earlier decisions by the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, creating a split that might eventually be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. See e.g. Piper v. Portnoff Law Associates Ltd., 396 F.3d 227, 235-36 (3d Cir. 2005); Wilson v. Draper & Goldberg PLLC, 443 F.3d 373, 378-79 (4th Cir. 2006); Glazer v. Chase Home Finance LLC, 704 F.3d 453, 461 (6th Cir. 2013).
In Ho, a borrower sued several foreclosure firms after she defaulted on her mortgage loan, alleging that the defendant-companies had violated the FDCPA by sending her default notices stating the amounts owed. The district court dismissed that claim, finding the trustee was not a debt collector engaged in debt collection under the FDCPA. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Court observed that a notice of default and a notice of sale may state the amounts due, but they do not in fact demand payment. Moreover, in California, deficiency judgments are not permitted after a non-judicial foreclosure sale, so no money can be collected from the homeowner. Notably, the notices complained of in Ho are required by California law prior to exercising the right to non-judicial foreclosure.
CFPB Reissues Guidance on Service Providers
On October 26, the CFPB published Bulletin 2016-02 on service providers to amend previously issued guidance covered in Bulletin 2012-03. Bulletin 2016-02 seeks to clarify that supervised banks and nonbanks have flexibility in managing the risks of service provider relationships. Specifically, the CFPB advises that “the depth and formality of the risk management program for service providers may vary depending upon the service being performed —its size, scope, complexity, importance and potential for consumer harm—and the performance of the service provider in carrying out its activities in compliance with Federal consumer financial laws and regulations.” The CFPB plans to post Bulletin 2016-02 on its website on October 31, 2016.
CFPB Releases First-Ever Project Catalyst Innovation Highlights Report
On October 20, the CFPB released a new report titled “Project Catalyst report: Promoting consumer-friendly innovation-Innovation Insights.” The report provides an overview of Project Catalyst’s work to promote “consumer-friendly innovation and entrepreneurship,” and outlines the importance of ensuring that consumer protections are built into emerging products and services from the outset. The CFPB released the report in conjunction with remarks given by Director Cordray at Money 20/20, an industry conference focused on payments and financial services innovation.
The report emphasizes the CFPB’s “very sensitive” approach to new technologies, such as its “active role in the push for faster payments systems,” as well as its more general efforts “to identify innovative trends in the marketplace to inform our work.” Throughout the report, the CFPB highlights its efforts to establish “effective communication channels” with “innovators,” including the agency’s pilot program with a credit card company to evaluate the effectiveness of certain practices to encourage prepaid card users to develop regular saving behavior. In its last section, the report discusses various “marketplace developments that may hold the potential for consumer benefits.”
The report similarly summarizes ongoing efforts to coordinate with state, federal, and international regulators, cautioning that the agency “will take action as necessary to protect consumers from innovations that may be unfair, deceptive, abusive, or discriminatory.” In addressing industry members, both the report and Director Cordray at Money 20/20 discuss the CFPB’s authority to provide greater latitude for companies to test alternatives to standard disclosures over time – using as an example, the CFPB’s trial disclosure waiver policy and its no-action letter policy through which the Bureau “can reduce regulatory uncertainty for consumer-friendly innovations.” The report and Director Cordray call for industry participants to propose alternative means of disclosure to consumers.
CFPB Director Cordray Delivers Remarks at MBA Conference
On October 25, CFPB Director Richard Cordray delivered remarks to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). Cordray highlighted the CFPB's role in helping the housing economy to recover, including regulatory actions from 2014 to the present. Director Cordray also advised industry participants that they should expect more regulation and oversight over the coming year, explaining that the cost of compliance, though burdensome, was "inevitable" in light of the "far-reaching" effects of the financial crisis that Congress was trying to fix.
Director Cordray revealed three priority areas for enforcement and supervision in the next year: (i) consumer complaints, explaining that the CFPB will now require underperforming servicers to document the technology and process changes used to implement the agency’s recently released servicing regulations, because, among other reasons, the Bureau considers monitoring and addressing the process through which complaints are handled part of "a basic component" of any compliance effort; (ii) redlining, noting that the Bureau has identified “redlining” as a target for its supervisory work in the coming year, and has teamed up with the DOJ to bring “major enforcement actions” against institutions found to be discriminatory in their lending practices; (iii) RESPA violations, announcing that the CFPB will continue to adhere to its 2015 bulletin regarding marketing servicing agreements despite the recent PHH ruling. He further noted that the PHH case "is not final at this point" and that the Bureau "respectfully disagrees" with the finding.
State AGs Urge the CFPB to Ensure that States Maintain the Right to Set Usury Caps on High Cost Loans
In October, New York AG Eric T. Schneiderman, along with seven other state AGs (Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont and the District of Columbia), submitted a letter to the CFPB in response to the agency’s proposed rule addressing payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain high-cost installment loans. While commending the CFPB for introducing additional consumer protections, the letter urges the CFPB to integrate the following language from the preamble of the proposed rule into the body of the final rule: “The protections imposed by this proposal would operate as a floor across the country, while leaving State and local jurisdictions to adopt additional regulatory requirements (whether a usury limit or another form of protection) above that floor as they judge appropriate to protect consumers in their respective jurisdictions.” The letter explains that because the CFPB does not have the authority to set interest rates – or usury caps – for loans, it is “crucial” that states maintain their right to do so.
Community Groups Submit Letter to OCC on Potential FinTech Charter
On October 25, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and community groups across the country sent a letter to the OCC explaining that they strongly oppose the consideration of a limited-purpose fintech charter by the bank regulator. The groups explained that they would consider supporting the limited-purpose chartering of a fintech firm "only if the OCC does not preempt strong state law and establishes vigorous supervision and regulation for the newly chartered institutions." Additionally, the groups want chartered fintech firms to be subject to "rigorous Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)-like obligations" and "stringent" safety and soundness reviews. The letter argues that “new charter and receivership authority for uninsured institutions, primarily financial technology companies (fintechs), has the potential to benefit consumers and communities,” but only if accompanied by CRA-like obligations, and supervision and examination to ensure compliance with both fair lending and consumer protection laws.