InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB raises HMDA reporting thresholds
On April 16, the CFPB issued a final rule permanently raising coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under HMDA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, these changes were first proposed by the Bureau last May. The final rule, which amends Regulation C, increases the permanent threshold from 25 to 100 loans starting July 1, 2020 and is applicable to both depository and nondepository institutions. The Bureau states in an executive summary that newly excluded institutions can stop collecting HMDA data on their closed-end mortgage loans beginning July 1, 2020; however, these institutions may still be obligated to collect home loan activity information required by other regulations. Under the final rule, newly excluded institutions are still required to record closed-end data for the first quarter of 2020; however because these institutions would not otherwise report the data until early 2021, the final rule relieves newly excluded institutions of the March 1, 2021 reporting obligation on data collected in 2020 (including closed-end mortgage loan data collected in 2020 prior to July 1, 2020). The Bureau notes that newly excluded institutions “may voluntarily report HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans in 2021 as long as the institution reports data for the full calendar year 2020.”
The final rule also increases the permanent threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from 100 to 200, however this change will not take effect until January 1, 2022, when the current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit expires (covered by InfoBytes here). Beginning in 2022, both depository and nondepository institutions that meet this threshold must report data on open-end lines of credit by March 1 of the following calendar year.
Additional resources, including a timeline of key dates and institutional/transactional coverage charts are available here. “The Bureau recognizes the operational challenges confronted by institutions due to the current COVID-19 pandemic,” the CFPB states in its press release. “The Bureau anticipates that this final rule, once effective, will reduce regulatory burden on smaller institutions to help those institutions to focus on responding to consumers in need now and in the longer term.”
FDIC updates Covid-19 FAQs for financial institutions
On April 15, the FDIC released updates to its list of Covid-19 frequently asked questions (FAQs) for financial institutions. The FAQs were originally released on March 19, covering bank operational issues and urging banks to work with borrowers who are experiencing payment difficulties due to Covid-19, as reported by InfoBytes here. New FAQs discuss credit reporting of payment accommodations, reminding lenders to report borrower accounts as current, provided the borrowers continue to observe the terms of the accommodations. The guidance also points financial institutions to a recent CFPB statement (covered here) for guidance on the FCRA under the CARES Act. The FDIC also updated the Troubled Debt Restructurings (TDRs) guidance, emphasizing that financial institutions do not need to classify Covid-19 borrower payment accommodations as TDRs if certain criteria are met, and that examiners “will not criticize prudent efforts to modify the terms on existing loans to affected customers.” Other updates to the FAQs include, among other things: (i) obligations to obtain updated real estate valuation information for Covid-19 related loan modifications; (ii) the use of alternative signatures for Part 363 annual reports and other notices; (iii) real estate loans in excess of loan-to-value percentages for loans refinanced by borrowers impacted by Covid-19; (iv) risk-based capital rules regarding multi-family loan modifications; (v) eligible Community Reinvestment Act activities during the Covid-19 pandemic; and (vi) Bank Secrecy Act issues regarding filing requirements, raising compliance challenges with FinCEN, and whether loans under the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program are considered new accounts for customer due diligence purposes.
CFPB and FHFA announce Borrower Protection Program
On April 15, the CFPB and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced the launch of the joint Borrower Protection Program to address mortgage servicer performance during the Covid-19 emergency. The two regulators will share information about how responsive mortgage servicers are to requests for assistance from consumers who are not able to keep current on monthly mortgage payments. Under the program the CFPB will provide complaint and analytical tool information to the FHFA, which in turn will share loss mitigation data on mortgage servicers with the CFPB. Through the Borrower Protection Program, the CFPB and FHFA hope to combat confusing or misleading information from loan servicers to borrowers about their options, including forbearance, as prescribed in the CARES Act.
For more InfoBytes coverage on loan forbearance under the CARES Act, click here.
CFPB releases resources for servicemembers affected by Covid-19
On April 15, the CFPB issued a blog post providing resources for servicemembers, veterans, and military families impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Bureau discusses military aid societies where servicemembers and military families can apply for emergency grants and zero-interest loans, and hardship duty pay and other allowances afforded to military families affected by the Stop Movement Order that halted domestic travel by military personnel. The Bureau also provides information for managing mortgage payments and student loans, and reminds active-duty servicemembers, military spouses and National Guard personnel and reservists on active duty for more than 30 consecutive days of their rights under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and the Military Lending Act. These will include being able to terminate contracts under certain conditions and to receive protections for many types of consumer credit and loans. The blog post also highlights recent changes made to existing programs due to challenges presented by Covid-19, including the expansion of online access for veterans to file benefit claims and the continuation of GI Bill program funding.
Agencies defer real estate appraisals and evaluations affected by Covid-19
On April 14, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board (Fed), CFPB, NCUA, and OCC (agencies), in consultation with the CSBS, issued an interagency statement addressing challenges related to appraisals and evaluations for real estate financial transactions impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The statement outlines flexibilities for physical property inspections and appraisals of residential properties underwritten to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (covered by InfoBytes here). The agencies also remind financial institutions of existing exceptions outlined in appraisal regulations previously issued by the OCC, Fed, and FDIC. “The agencies encourage financial institutions to make use of these exceptions,” the statement stresses. “The use of an existing appraisal or evaluation for subsequent transactions may be particularly relevant during the COVID-19 emergency.”
The same day, the OCC, Fed, and FDIC also issued an interim final rule to amend and temporarily defer interagency regulations that require real estate appraisals for certain transactions. Specifically, regulated financial institutions will be allowed to defer completion of appraisals and evaluations for all residential and commercial real estate transactions, with the exception of those involving the acquisition, development, and construction of real estate. Financial institutions will be allowed up to 120 days from the closing date to obtain the required appraisal or evaluation in order to expedite the liquidity needs of borrowers during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the OCC, Fed, and FDIC expect financial institutions to “make best efforts to obtain a credible valuation of real property collateral before the loan closing, and otherwise underwrite loans consistent with the principles in the agencies’ Standards for Safety and Soundness and Real Estate Lending Standards.” The interim final rule takes effect upon publication in the Federal Register and will expire December 31, 2020.
States ask Treasury to exempt stimulus payments from garnishment and urge CFPB to “vigorously enforce” FCRA
On April 13, a coalition of state attorneys general and the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection (states) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, calling for immediate action to ensure that stimulus checks issued under the CARES Act to consumers affected by the Covid-19 pandemic are not subject to garnishment by creditors and debt collectors. While the CARES Act does not “explicitly designate these emergency stimulus payments as exempt from garnishment,” the states claim that a “built-in mechanism” contained within a provision of the CARES Act can rectify the legislative oversight. Specifically, the states point to Section 2201(h), which “authoriz[es] Treasury to issue ‘regulations or other guidance as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section,’” and ask Treasury to immediately designate the stimulus checks as “‘benefit payments’ exempt from garnishment.”
The same day, another coalition of state attorneys general sent a letter to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger urging the Bureau to rescind an April 1 policy statement directed at consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and furnishers (covered by InfoBytes here) that stated the Bureau will take a “flexible supervisory and enforcement approach during this pandemic regarding compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [(FCRA)] and Regulation V.” According to the states, the policy statement suggests that the Bureau does not plan on enforcing the CARES Act amendment to the FCRA, which requires lenders to report as current any loans subject to Covid-19 forbearance or other accommodation. The Bureau’s decision, the states contend, may discourage consumers from taking advantage of offered forbearances and other accommodations. The states also argue that allowing CRAs to take longer than the FCRA-prescribed 30 days to investigate consumer disputes puts consumers at risk. The states stress that the recent increase in Covid-19 scams has heightened the need for the Bureau to vigorously enforce the FCRA, and that, moreover, the thousands of complaints received by the states, FBI, FTC, and DOJ concerning phishing and other scams designed to gather consumers’ financial information have highlighted identity theft risks. The states emphasize “that even if the CFPB refuses to act. . .we will not hesitate to enforce the FCRA’s deadlines against companies that fail to comply with the law.”
CFPB issues guidance allowing pandemic relief payment distribution with prepaid cards
On April 13, the CFPB issued an Interpretive Rule (IR) addressing the “Treatment of Pandemic Relief Payments Under Regulation E and Application of the Compulsory Use Prohibition.” Pursuant to the CARES Act, many consumers are entitled to pandemic relief payments, generally provided through direct deposit to the consumer’s bank account. When that information is unavailable, or when the consumer does not have a bank account, the IR allows government agencies to provide the economic impact payments via alternative means, including by issuing prepaid account cards. However, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and implementing Regulation E prohibit government agencies from requiring consumers to “establish accounts for receipt of electronic fund transfers with a particular financial institution as a condition of receipt of a government benefit. ” According to the IR, the “compulsory use prohibition” will not apply to prepaid cards and the Covid-19 relief payments will not be classified as government benefits, provided the cards fulfill certain requirements. In order to not be considered “government benefits” the payments must: (i) be to aid consumers impacted by Covid-19; (ii) not be “part of an already-established government benefit program”; (iii) be distributed “on a one-time or otherwise limited basis”; and (iv) not require consumers to apply for the funds.
CFPB announces regulatory flexibility after remittance transfer rule exception expires
On April 10, the CFPB announced the release of a policy statement “Supervisory and Enforcement Practices Regarding the Remittance Rule in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic” addressing the implementation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the Regulation E Remittance Rule (Rule). EFTA’s consumer protections, implemented by the Rule, require financial companies handling international money transfers, or remittance transfers, to disclose the exact exchange rate, fees, and amount delivered to the consumer making the transfer. However, it also provides a temporary exception, which allows institutions that provide remittance transfers to estimate these fees to consumers. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The temporary exception is set to expire on July 1, and section 919 of the EFTA does not authorize the Bureau to extend it past that date. Accordingly, “[i]n order to minimize the impact of the pandemic on the remittances market…the Bureau will neither cite supervisory violations nor initiate enforcement actions against certain remittance transfer providers” for disclosing estimated fees and exchange rates from July 1 until January 21, 2021.
CFPB updates Covid-19 student loan debt relief guidance for borrowers
On April 9, the CFPB released updated guidance for student loan borrowers during the Covid-19 pandemic. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau first released student loan borrower information on March 27, which covered debt relief provided by the CARES Act, including the automatic freeze on student loan payments until September 30 for those with federally held loans. Servicers will send required notices detailing the payment freeze to borrowers by the middle of April. The guidance notes that some federal student loans—including some Federal Family Education Loans—may be held by commercial lenders. These loans and other privately held loans do not qualify for automatic suspension of payments, and the Bureau encourages borrowers to contact their servicers for debt relief options such as deferment or forbearance if borrowers have difficulty making payments at this time. Borrowers with Perkins loans may also request loan forbearance from the borrowers’ institution for up to three months without submitting documentation.
CFPB publishes annual report on servicemember complaints
On April 3, the CFPB Office of Servicemember Affairs (OSA) released its annual report, which provides an overview of OSA’s activities in fulfilling its statutory responsibilities for fiscal year 2019 and covers the period between October 1, 2018 and September 30, 2019. OSA’s responsibilities include monitoring complaints from military consumers, and the report highlights issues facing military consumers based on approximately 34,600 complaints submitted by servicemembers, veterans, and their families (collectively “servicemembers”). Key takeaways from the report include the following:
- Education and empowerment. OSA examined financial issues that impact military consumers and provided various educational tools on topics including the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Military Lending Act, mortgage lending and foreclosure protections, and credit reporting and monitoring. These tools include in-person outreach and digital education and engagement resources.
- Consumer complaints. Thirty-six percent of servicemember complaints focused on credit or consumer reporting. Complaints related to debt collection were the second most frequent issue, with most complaints alleging that debt collectors were attempting to collect debt that the servicemember did not owe. In particular, OSA expressed concern about complaints where “the debt collector ‘took or threatened to take negative or legal action.’” With respect to mortgage debt, many servicemembers reported challenges in the payment process, as well as difficulties in being able to afford mortgage payments. With respect to credit cards, the greatest concentration of complaints focused on problems with purchases on statements. Checking or savings account complaints centered on issues related to account management, and more than two-thirds of student lending complaints related to challenges dealing with lenders or servicers. With respect to auto lending, complaints focused on managing the loan or lease. Other complaint categories included money transfers/services and virtual currency, personal loans, prepaid cards, credit repair, and title loans.
- Agency coordination. During the reporting period, OSA coordinated several consumer protection activities with federal and state government agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs (VA), Education, and Treasury, as well as the FTC, SEC, and state attorneys general. OSA also noted its participation in interagency working groups focused on helping servicemembers.
- Military consumer research. Coordinated research efforts into the financial well-being of veterans and the increased use of home loans guaranteed by the VA are highlighted.