InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB issues 2019 fair lending report to Congress
On April 30, the CFPB issued its annual fair lending report to Congress, which outlines the Bureau’s efforts in 2019 to fulfill its fair lending mandate. According to the report, in 2019 the Bureau continued to focus on promoting fair, equitable, and nondiscriminatory access to credit, highlighting several fair lending priorities that continued from years past such as mortgage lending, student loans, and small business lending. The Bureau also highlighted three policies released over the last year to promote innovation and to facilitate compliance: the No-Action Letter Policy, the Trial Disclosure Program Policy, and the Compliance Assistance Sandbox Policy (covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, the report discussed the Bureau’s efforts in encouraging consumer-friendly innovation to expand access to unbanked and underbanked consumers and communities. These include: (i) using alternative data in credit underwriting to expand credit access responsibly; (ii) issuing a request for information on the use of “Tech Sprints” (covered by InfoBytes here) to encourage regulatory innovation and stakeholder collaboration; (iii) continuing to enforce fair lending laws such as ECOA and HMDA, including reaching a settlement with one of the largest HDMA reporters nationwide to resolve HMDA reporting allegations; and (iv) engaging with stakeholders to discuss fair lending compliance, issues related to credit access, and policy decisions. The report also provides information related to supervision, enforcement, rulemaking, and education efforts.
CFPB issues FAQs on ECOA and PPP applications
On May 6, the CFPB issued three clarifying FAQs regarding ECOA and Regulation B loan denial and adverse action notice requirements as they relate to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The three FAQs provide the following clarifications of the requirements for notification of action:
- Notice of Action Taken. A PPP application is not determined to be a “completed application” under Regulation B for purposes of a notice of action taken until a creditor receives a loan number from the SBA or a response about the availability of funds. Once the creditor has received a loan number from the SBA or a response about the availability of funds, the creditor has 30 days to notify the applicant of the action taken on the application.
- Adverse Action Notice. If a creditor “refus[es] to grant” a PPP credit request without ever submitting the loan to the SBA, the creditor is still required under Regulation B to provide an adverse action notice within 30 days and provide the applicant with the specific reason for the denial.
- Denial for Incompleteness. If the creditor has received sufficient information from the applicant for a credit decision, but has not received a loan number from the SBA or a response about the availability of funds, under Regulation B, the creditor may not deny the application based on incompleteness. An application can only be denied for incompleteness if the application is missing information the applicant can provide—not the SBA.
4th Circuit: Disgorgement calculation lacks necessary casual connection between profits and violations
On April 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a district court’s disgorgement calculation for a banker found in contempt of a consent order rested on “an erroneous legal interpretation of the terms of the underlying consent order” and “lacked the necessary causal connection” between profits and a violation. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the banker settled RESPA and state law allegations with the CFPB and the Maryland Attorney General concerning his participation in a mortgage-kickback scheme. The 2015 final judgment order banned the defendant from participating in the mortgage industry for two years but did not prohibit him “from acting solely as a personnel or human-resources manager for a mortgage business operated by a FDIC-insured banking institution. . . .” In 2018, the banker was held in civil contempt for violating the final judgment order, and the district court ordered the disgorgement of over half-a-million dollars of his contemptuous earnings. The banker appealed the contempt finding and disgorgement.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit first held that the district court properly found the banker in violation of the consent order, determining among other things that, while the final judgment order did not broadly prohibit his participation in the mortgage industry, there was sufficient evidence that he “continued to communicate impermissibly with third-party businesses engaged in settlement services” and that he failed to follow various reporting requirements, such as uploading the consent order to a national registry and notifying regulators of a change in residence and business activity. However, the 4th Circuit found that the district court erred in its approach to calculating disgorgement because it assumed that “managing the business was improper and set out identifying [the banker’s] profits from his business because any such profit was contemptuous income.” (Emphasis in the original.) Holding that the district court’s view relied on an overbroad interpretation of the consent order and lacked the causal connection between the banker’s profits and a violation, the 4th Circuit vacated the disgorgement order and remanded the case to the district court to reassess the disgorgement calculation based on the banker’s more limited conduct that did not comply with the order.
CFPB partially grants confidentiality request and modifies CID’s notification of purpose
On April 13, the CFPB released a Supplemental Decision and Order partially granting a payment technology company’s request for confidential treatment of its petition that sought to set aside a 2019 CID seeking information related to, among other things, the company’s payment processing activities. The CFPB noted in its supplemental decision and order that while the company’s initial confidentiality arguments were rejected, it provided the company an opportunity to make an additional submission following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the standard for determining what information may be withheld under Exemption 4 of FOIA. The Bureau ultimately granted the company’s confidentiality request with respect to its payment processor information only.
The supplemental decision and order is related to the company’s now-published original petition to set aside the CID, in which it asserted that it is not a covered person under the Consumer Financial Protection Act because even though it sells various products and services, it does not provide payment processing services. The company also argued that it is not a service provider because it does not offer or provide consumer financial products or services, nor does it provide services to a covered person. Furthermore, because it is not a financial institution, the company claimed that the CFPB has no EFTA authority over it. The original petition requested that the CID be set aside because it exceeds the Bureau’s jurisdictional authority. The Bureau responded that the company’s arguments did not warrant setting aside the CID because the investigation was “not patently outside” its authority, but it partially modified the CID’s Notification of Purpose to provide greater detail about the conduct the Bureau was investigating. The Bureau also contended that the fact that the company is not a financial institution does not affect whether the Bureau can conduct an investigation into potential violations of section 1005.10(b) of Regulation E (EFTA), which “applies to any person.”
CFPB: Substantial decline in credit applications in March
On May 1, the CFPB released a report examining the early effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on credit applications in March, concluding there was a substantial decline compared to previous years. Specifically, the report compared “hard inquiry” volume from credit checks for auto loans, mortgages, and credit cards by lenders during the month of March with the same data from previous years. Among other things, the report notes that auto loan inquiries dropped by 52 percent, new mortgage inquiries dropped by 27 percent, and credit card inquiries declined by 40 percent, as compared to usual data patterns from previous years. The report noted variations based on credit score and geography. The drops in inquiries were more pronounced for consumers with higher credit scores, and in states in the Northeast and California. The report noted a strong correlation between states with a higher Covid-19 case rate and the significance of the drop in auto loan and new mortgage inquiries. A similar correlation was also found between states with a larger share of workers entering unemployment and a drop in the same credit inquires.
CFPB enhances Consumer Complaint Database
On April 27, the CFPB announced enhancements to its Consumer Complaint Database. With the addition of a geospatial view, consumers will now be able to view complaints by state using an interactive map. Additional new options will also allow users to view recent marketplace conditions and aggregate information concerning specific products and issues compiled from consumer complaints. In addition to being able to filter complaints by date, company name, and key words, users will now be able to apply word searches and filters to the interactive map.
CFPB issues TRID interpretive rule, ECOA FAQ
On April 29, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule (IR) “clarifying that consumers can exercise their rights to modify or waive certain required waiting periods” in order to allow borrowers impacted by Covid-19 to access mortgage credit faster. The IR states that if, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, a mortgage borrower determines that a mortgage transaction must be completed prior to the end of the waiting period for either the TRID Rule or the Regulation Z right of rescission rule, the borrower may waive the waiting period. Further, the IR asserts that the Covid-19 pandemic qualifies as a “changed circumstance” for purposes of certain TRID Rule provisions, permitting the use of revised estimates of settlement charges. In addition, the Bureau issued a frequently asked question that addresses the Equal Credit Opportunity Act Valuations Rule, which states that a first-lien loan borrower may also waive the requirement that a lender provide the borrower with appraisals and valuations at or before settlement of the loan.
CFPB eases filing deadlines for certain ILSA and Regulation J reports
On April 27, the CFPB released guidance in order to provide “flexibility and reduce administrative burden” for land developers that are subject to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA). The Bureau explains that in light of the impacts of Covid-19, it will not take supervisory or enforcement action against land developers for delays in filing financial statements and annual reports of activity, as long as the developers make good faith efforts to submit filings “within a reasonable time.” The guidance notes that all other ILSA and Regulation J requirements must be timely met.
CFPB asks FCC to allow financial institutions to make certain Covid-19-related calls
On April 27, the CFPB sent a letter to the FCC in support of a petition filed at the end of March by several financial trade associations, which seeks an expedited ruling to allow financial institutions to make certain automated calls concerning Covid-19 relief options without violating the TCPA. The CFPB specifically encouraged the FCC to allow a limited number of automated Covid-19-related calls from financial institutions that would alert customers of offers of forbearance, payment deferrals, fee waivers, extensions or relaxations of repayment terms, loan modifications, and other resources related to loans secured by homes or vehicles. “Allowing financial institutions to make automated calls is one more way to maximize the outreach to ensure consumers receive important and timely information,” CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger noted, cautioning, however, that financial institutions must still comply with other legal requirements with respect to their communications with customers, including the Bureau’s mortgage servicing rules and Dodd-Frank’s prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.
CFPB outlines lending discrimination warning signs for small businesses applying for PPP loans
On April 27, the CFPB posted a reminder that federal laws such as ECOA protect business owners from discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics when applying for loans under the CARES Act Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program or other loan programs. The Bureau’s blog post provides several examples of potential lending discrimination warning signs, including (i) being refused for an available loan or workout option even though the business meets the advertised requirements; (ii) being offered credit or workout options with higher rates or worse terms even though the business may be eligible for lower rates; (iii) being discouraged by a lender from applying due to a protected characteristic; (iv) being denied credit without being told why; and (v) receiving negative comments about race, national origin, sex, or other protected characteristics. Lending discrimination complaints may be submitted here, and the Bureau notes that it takes complaint information into account when conducting supervisory and enforcement work.