InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC, CFPB examine discriminatory background screenings
On February 28, the FTC and CFPB issued a request for information (RFI) on background screening issues affecting consumers seeking rental housing in the U.S., including ways criminal and eviction records and algorithms may lead to discriminatory screening outcomes. (See also CFPB blog post here.) According to the agencies, information used and collected in rental-screening checks may “unfairly prevent consumers from obtaining and retaining housing.” The announcement comes as part of an effort to identify practices that unfairly prevent applicants and tenants from accessing or staying in housing. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Biden administration announced in January new actions for enhancing tenant protections and furthering fair housing principles. This marks the first time the FTC has issued an RFI that explores unfair practices in the rental market. Collected data will be used to inform enforcement and policy actions under each agency’s jurisdiction, the agencies said, adding that the FCRA (which both agencies enforce) also imposes requirements on several aspects of the tenant screening process.
Seeking feedback from current and prospective tenants, advocacy groups, landlords, and others who use or are subject to rental-screening checks, the RFI requests information covering a wide array of issues, including: (i) how housing decisions are impacted when criminal and eviction records (which may contain potential inaccuracies) are used; (ii) whether consumers are made aware of the criteria used in the screening process or notified about the reasons leading to a rejection; (iii) how application and screening fees are set; (iv) how the screening process uses algorithms, automated decision-making, artificial intelligence, or similar technology; and (v) ways the current screening process can be improved. Comments on the RFI are due May 30.
CFPB asks for comments on alternative disclosures for construction loans
On February 27, the CFPB announced it is in the final stages of reviewing an application for alternative mortgage disclosures for construction loans submitted by a trade group representing small U.S. banks. The applicant maintains that it is not uncommon for first-time homebuyers in rural communities to build their home instead of purchasing an existing home due to the scarcity of “existing affordable ‘starter’ homes.” The applicant seeks to adjust existing mortgage disclosures to facilitate the offering of loans that finance both the construction phase and the permanent purchase of a home. According to the applicant, a consumer’s understanding of construction loans would be improved if disclosures are more specifically tailored to these types of transactions. The Bureau stated that should it approve this “template” application, individual lenders will be able to apply for enrollment in an in-market testing pilot. However, the Bureau noted that, as indicated in its Policy to Encourage Trial Disclosure Programs (covered by InfoBytes here), the mere approval of a template neither permits a lender to unilaterally conduct a trial disclosure program without further approval by the CFPB, nor does it “bind the CFPB to grant individual applications.”
The disclosure of the application comes as a result of efforts undertaken by the Bureau to be more open and transparent when adjusting regulations for new business models. The Bureau stated that in addition to publicly releasing the application, it is seeking input from stakeholders who have experience with construction loans. Comments will be accepted through March 29.
CFPB shutters mortgage lender, alleging deceptive advertising
On February 27, the CFPB entered a consent order against a California-based mortgage lender (respondent) for alleged repeat violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, TILA (Regulation Z), and the Mortgage Acts and Practices Advertising Rule (Regulation N), in relation to a 2015 consent order. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2015, the Bureau claimed the respondent (which is licensed in at least 30 states and Puerto Rico and originates consumer mortgages guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs and mortgages insured by the FHA) allegedly led consumers to believe it was affiliated with the U.S. government. Specifically, respondent allegedly used the names and logos of the VA and FHA in its advertisements, described loan products as part of a “distinctive program offered by the U.S. government,” and instructed consumers to call the “VA Interest Rate Reduction Department” at a phone number belonging to the mortgage lender, thus implying that the mailings were sent by government agencies. The 2015 consent order required the respondent to abide by several prohibitions and imposed a $250,000 civil money penalty.
The Bureau contends, however, that after the 2015 consent order went into effect, the respondent continued to send millions of mortgage advertisements that allegedly made deceptive representations or contained inadequate or impermissible disclosures, including that the respondent was affiliated with the VA or the FHA. Additionally, the Bureau alleges that the respondent misrepresented interest rates, key terms, and the amount of monthly payments, and falsely represented that benefits available to qualifying borrowers were time limited. Many of these alleged misrepresentations, the Bureau claims, were expressly prohibited by the 2015 consent order.
The 2023 consent order permanently bans the respondent from engaging in any mortgage lending activities, or from “otherwise participating in or receiving remuneration from mortgage lending, or assisting others in doing so.” The respondent, which neither admits nor denies the allegations, is also required pay a $1 million civil money penalty.
FDIC issues January enforcement actions
On February 24, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in January. The FDIC made public 11 orders, including “four combined orders of prohibition and orders to pay civil money penalties, one 8(b) consent order, one order to pay civil money penalty, three orders of prohibition, one order terminating a Section 19 order, and one order terminating consent order.”
The actions include a civil money order against a Pennsylvania-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA). The FDIC determined that the bank had engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the FDPA by failing to provide required notices of lender-placed flood insurance to borrowers in 16 instances.
Additionally, the FDIC issued a consent order against an Iowa-based bank alleging the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices and violations of law or regulations” relating to, among other things, its process for testing a proposed debit/prepaid card program. The FDIC stipulated that before starting the testing phase of any new debit card program or similar program, the bank “must develop, adopt, and implement an effective program addressing anti-money laundering (AML) / combating the financing of terrorism (CFT) controls” for the new program and conduct an independent assessment. The bank is also ordered to revise its AML/CFT policy and conduct a review of its information security program to ensure it reflects current risks.
FTC says fraud cost consumers $8.8 billion in 2022
On February 23, the FTC released data showing 2.4 million consumers reported losing a total of nearly $8.8 billion to fraud in 2022—a more than 30 percent increase from the prior year. Investment scam losses totaled more than $3.8 billion (the most of any category in 2022 and double the amount of investment scam losses reported in 2021). Imposter scam losses came in at $2.6 billion, up from $2.4 billion in 2021. The FTC reported receiving more than 5.1 million reports directly from consumers, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, the Better Business Bureau, industry members, and non-profit organizations. In addition to fraud reports, the FTC received identity theft reports and complaints related to issues concerning problems with credit bureaus, banks, and lenders. Reports received through the FTC’s database serve as the starting point for many of the FTC’s enforcement investigations, the agency said, adding that reports are also shared with federal, state, local, and international law enforcement professionals. Full coverage of the reports received in 2022 can be accessed here.
CFPB asks large auto lenders for origination and servicing data
On February 23, the CFPB sent market-monitoring orders to nine large auto lenders representing a cross-section of the auto finance market asking for information on their lending portfolios. Data collected from the responses on auto loans originated or serviced from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022, will be used in the Bureau’s new data set for monitoring the auto loan market. The Bureau announced its intention to create the data set last November (covered by InfoBytes here), explaining that while available data permits market participants to identify and measure certain trends, it is insufficiently granular to fully explore the causes of those trends. Since November, the Bureau has held multiple discussions with stakeholders and has gathered public input into areas in need of greater transparency, including lending channel differences; data granularity, consistency and quality; and loan performance trends. Stakeholders told the Bureau they want insights into the types of technology used during repossession, as well as “access to high-quality, consistent, and regularly published auto lending data.” The Bureau explained that the data set will provide insights into lending channels, loan performance, and inform possible future data collection efforts. The data will not include consumers’ personally identifiable information.
FHFA proposes changes to GSE regulatory capital framework
On February 23, FHFA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework (ERCF) that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (See also FHFA fact sheet here.) Changes include modifications to the capital requirements for commingled securities, the introduction of a 0.6 risk multiplier for calculating multifamily mortgage exposures backed by properties with certain government subsidies, the introduction of a standardized approach for calculating counterparty credit risk for derivatives and cleared transactions, and modifications for how representative credit scores for single-family loans are determined. Fannie and Freddie would also be required to “assign an original credit score of 680 to single-family mortgage exposure without a permissible credit score at origination” instead of 600. The NPRM also modifies “guarantee assets, mortgage servicing assets, time-based calls for [credit risk transfer] exposures, interest-only [mortgage-backed securities], the single-family countercyclical adjustment, the stability capital buffer, and the compliance date for the advanced approaches.” Comments on the NPRM are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
CFPB finalizes updates to Rules of Practice for Adjudication Procedures
On February 24, the CFPB finalized updates to the agency’s Rules of Practice for Adjudication Procedures (Rules of Practice). Under Section 1053(e) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Bureau is required to establish procedures for administrative adjudications. Last February, the Bureau issued a request for comments on proposed amendments to the Rules of Practice, which are intended to provide greater procedural flexibility, provide parties earlier access to relevant information, expand deposition opportunities, and make various other changes (covered by InfoBytes here). After considering comments received, the Bureau said it will retain the proposed updates in the final procedural rule. According to the Bureau, the updated Rules of Practice expand opportunities for parties in adjudication proceedings to conduct depositions of potential witnesses to allow hearings to “proceed more efficiently and focus more on issues central to the proceeding.” The final rule also makes several amendments 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.” The final rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register. The Bureau noted in its announcement that while it “still plans to bring the vast majority of its matters in district court,” it will continue to conduct administrative adjudications in certain circumstances.
Agencies warn banks of crypto-asset liquidity risks
On February 23, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and OCC released a joint statement addressing bank liquidity risks tied to crypto-assets. The agencies warned that using sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities may expose banks to elevated liquidity risks “due to the unpredictability of the scale and timing of deposit inflows and outflows.” The agencies addressed concerns related to deposits placed by crypto-asset-related entities for the benefit of end customers where the deposits may be influenced by the customer’s behavior or crypto-asset sector vulnerabilities, rather than the crypto-asset-related entity itself, which is the bank’s direct counterparty. The agencies warned that the “uncertainty and resulting deposit volatility can be exacerbated by end customer confusion related to inaccurate or misleading representations of deposit insurance by a crypto-asset-related entity.” The agencies also addressed issues concerning deposits that constitute stablecoin-related reserves, explaining that the stability of these types of deposits may be dependent on several factors, including the “demand for stablecoins, the confidence of stablecoin holders in the stablecoin arrangement, and the stablecoin issuer’s reserve management practices,” and as such, may “be susceptible to large and rapid outflows stemming from, for example, unanticipated stablecoin redemptions or dislocations in crypto-asset markets.”
The agencies’ statement reminded banking organizations to apply effective risk management controls when handling crypto-related deposits, commensurate with the associated liquidity risk of those deposits. The statement suggested certain effective risk management practices, which include: (i) understanding the direct and indirect drivers of potential deposit behavior to ascertain which deposits are susceptible to volatility; (ii) assessing concentrations or interconnectedness across crypto deposits, as well as the associated liquidity risks; (iii) incorporating liquidity risks or funding volatility into contingency funding planning; and (iv) performing robust due diligence and ongoing monitoring of crypto-asset-related entities that establish deposit accounts to ensure representations about these types of deposit accounts are accurate. The agencies further emphasized that banks are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including brokered deposit rules, as applicable, and Call Report filing requirements. The joint statement also reminded banks that they “are neither prohibited nor discouraged from providing banking services to customers of any specific class or type, as permitted by law or regulation.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the agencies issued a statement in January highlighting key risks banks should consider when choosing to engage in cryptocurrency-related services.
CFPB orders nonbank title lender to pay $15 million for numerous violations
On February 23, the CFPB entered a consent order against a Georgia-based nonbank auto title lender (respondent) for alleged violations of the Military Lending Act (MLA), the Truth in Lending Act, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. According to the Bureau, the respondent allegedly charged nearly three times the MLA’s 36 percent annual interest rate cap on auto title loans made to military families. The respondent also allegedly changed military borrowers’ personal information in an attempt to hide their protected status, included mandatory arbitration clauses and unreasonable notice provisions in its loans, and charged fees for an insurance product that provided no benefit to the borrower. The Bureau noted that the respondent has been under a consent order since 2016 for allegedly engaging in unfair and abusive acts related to its lending and debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here). While neither admitting nor denying any of the allegations, the respondent has agreed to pay $5.05 million in consumer redress and a $10 million penalty. The respondent must also implement robust measures to prevent future violations.