On August 22, the CFPB announced that it is amending Regulation E in order to extend a temporary exception that allows federally insured institutions to provide estimates rather than exact amounts when disclosing third-party fees and exchange rates that apply to remittance transfers sent abroad by U.S. consumers. The original rule went into effect on October 28, 2013 and the exception was set to expire on July 21, 2015. In amending Regulation E, the CFPB deferred the expiration date until July 21, 2020. The CFPB believes the extension will give financial institutions the additional time necessary to develop reasonable methods to provide consumers sending money abroad with exact fees and exchange rates, even in cases where the institution does not have control over all of the participants in the remittance transfer. The amendment also clarifies certain provisions related to error resolution procedures and disclosure delivery methods, as well as the application of the rule to U.S. military bases in foreign countries and non-consumer accounts. Simultaneously, the CFPB amended its official interpretation to Regulation E and released a revised version of its industry compliance guide that reflects modifications made by the final rule.
On August 28, the CFPB announced several new hires, as well as the appointments of new consumer finance experts to its Advisory Board, Community Bank Advisory Council, and Credit Union Advisory Council. Director Cordray indicated that the new personnel “provide valuable input to help [the CFPB] better understand the consumer financial marketplace.” The positions announced include Patricia McClung as Assistant Director for Mortgage Markets, Janneke Ratcliffe as Assistant Director for Financial Education, and Will Wade-Gery as Assistant Director for Card and Payments Markets. Persons named to the Advisory Board, Community Bank Advisory Council and the Credit Union Advisory Council are “experts in consumer protection, financial services, community development, fair lending, civil rights, and consumer financial products or services.”
Recently, the CFPB signed a memorandum of understanding with the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense and Education to improve outreach and transparency to veterans and servicemembers by providing meaningful information to help them make informed decisions when selecting an institution of higher learning, including access to financial cost and performance outcome information. These improvements for military educational benefit recipients are designed to prevent deceptive recruiting practices and ensure that educational institutions provide high-quality academic and support services to veterans and servicemembers. Specifically, the agreement requires the CFPB to (i) designate the Assistant Director for Servicemember Affairs, Holly Petraeus, as the point of contact for information sharing processes among the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense and Education; (ii) alert agencies to patterns of noncompliance; and (iii) provide complaint data to the FTC. On August 26, the CFPB issued a press release describing this agreement as a means to better protect veterans, servicemembers, and their family members attending college by carrying out “a comprehensive strategy to strengthen enforcement and compliance work.” The agreement is effective July 18, 2014.
On August 22, the CFPB and the federal banking agencies (Fed, OCC, FDIC and NCUA) issued interagency guidance regarding unfair or deceptive credit practices (UDAPs). The guidance clarifies that “the repeal of the credit practices rules applicable to banks, savings associations, and federal credit unions is not a determination that the prohibited practices contained in those rules are permissible.” Notwithstanding the repeal of these rules, the agencies preserve supervisory and enforcement authority regarding UDAPs. Consequently, the guidance cautions that “depending on the facts and circumstances, if banks, savings associations and Federal credit unions engage in the unfair or deceptive practices described in the former credit practices rules, such conduct may violate the prohibition against unfair or deceptive practices in Section 5 of the FTC Act and Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Agencies may determine that statutory violations exist even in the absence of a specific regulation governing the conduct.” The guidance also explains that the FTC Rule remains in effect for creditors within the FTC’s jurisdiction, and can be enforced by the CFPB against creditors that fall under the CFPB’s enforcement authority.
On August 26, HUD issued its final rule prohibiting mortgagees from charging post-payment interest under FHA’s single family mortgage insurance program. The final rule is responsive to the CFPB’s ATR/QM rule, under which post-payment interest charges will be considered a prepayment penalty in connection with FHA loans closed on or after January 21, 2015. Because prepayment penalties are prohibited on higher-priced FHA loans, the new definition of “prepayment penalty” under the ATR/QM rule would have effectively prohibited the making of higher-priced FHA mortgage loans. Also effective January 21, 2015, HUD’s final rule ensures consistency among FHA single-family mortgage products and provides the same protections for all borrowers. Under the final rule, monthly interest on the debt must be calculated on the actual unpaid principal balance as of the date prepayment is received.
On August 26, HUD issued its final rule to amend FHA’s single family adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) program regulations to align with the interest rate adjustment and notification periods required for ARMs under the CFPB’s new TILA mortgage servicing rules. The final rule is effective January 10, 2015 and adopted the proposed rule issued on May 8 without change. Under the final rule, interest rate adjustments resulting in a corresponding change to the mortgagor’s monthly payment for an ARM must be based on the most recent index value available 45 days before the date of the rate adjustment. FHA’s previous regulations provided for a 30-day look-back period. Further, the final rule mandates that mortgagees of FHA-insured ARMs comply with the disclosure and notification requirements of the CFPB’s TILA servicing rules, which require at least 60-days, but no more than 120-days advance notice of an adjustment to a mortgagor’s monthly payment. Previously, the regulations provided for only 25 days advance notice.
On August 21, the CFPB announced the companies that have been selected to participate in its residential mortgage eClosing pilot program. The program is intended to explore how the increased use of technology during the mortgage closing process may affect consumer understanding and engagement and save time and money for consumers, lenders, and other market participants. Specifically, the program seeks to aid the CFPB in better understanding the role that eClosings can play in addressing consumers’ “pain points” in the closing process, as identified by the CFPB in an April 2014 report. The three-month pilot program will begin later this year, and the participants include both technology vendors that provide eClosing solutions and creditors that have contracted to close loans using those solutions.
On August 19, 2014, the CFPB issued Bulletin 2014-01 to address “potential risks to consumers that may arise in connection with transfers of residential mortgage servicing rights.” The bulletin, which is the latest in a series of CFPB regulations, statements, and guidance on this subject, replaces the Bureau’s February 2013 bulletin on mortgage servicing transfers and states that “the Bureau’s concern in this area remains heightened due to the continuing high volume of servicing transfers.” It further states that “the CFPB will be carefully reviewing servicers’ compliance with Federal consumer financial laws applicable to servicing transfers” and “may engage in further rulemaking in this area.”
The bulletin contains the following information, which is summarized in great detail below:
- Examples of policies and procedures that CFPB examiners may consider in evaluating whether the servicers on both ends of a transfer have complied with the CFPB’s new regulations requiring, among other things, policies and procedures reasonably designed to facilitate the transfer of information during servicing transfers and to properly evaluate loss mitigation applications.
- Guidance regarding the application of other aspects of the new servicing requirements to transfers.
- Descriptions of other Federal consumer financial laws that apply to servicing transfers, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices (“UDAAPs”).
- A statement that “[s]ervicers engaged in significant servicing transfers should expect that the CFPB will, in appropriate cases, require them to prepare and submit informational plans describing how they will be managing the related risks to consumers.” This largely reiterates the Bureau’s statements in its February 2013 bulletin.
In a press release accompanying the bulletin, CFPB Director Richard Cordray stated that: “At every step of the process to transfer the servicing of mortgage loans, the two companies involved must put in appropriate efforts to ensure no harm to consumers. This means ahead of the transfer, during the transfer, and after the transfer. We will not tolerate consumers getting the runaround when mortgage servicers transfer loans.
On August 20, the CFPB announced a consent order with a Texas-based auto finance company to address alleged deficiencies in the finance company’s credit reporting practices. The company offers both direct and indirect financing of consumer auto purchases, and, according to the CFPB, specializes in lending to consumers with impaired credit profiles. In general, the CFPB took issue with the finance company’s alleged failure to implement policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of information furnished to consumer credit reporting agencies (CRAs) and alleged deceptive acts in the finance company’s representations regarding the accuracy of furnished information.
The CFPB’s action specifically alleged that the finance company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by providing inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies regarding how its borrowers were performing on their accounts, including by: (i) reporting inaccurate information about how much consumers were paying toward their debts; (ii) reporting inaccurate “dates of first delinquency,” which is the date on which a consumer first became late in paying back the loan; (iii) substantially inflating the number of delinquencies for some borrowers when it reported borrowers’ last 24 months of consecutive payment activity; (iv) informing CRAs that some of its borrowers had their vehicles repossessed, when in fact those individuals had voluntarily surrendered their vehicles back to the lienholder. The CFPB claims this activity took place over a three-year period, even after the company was made aware of the issue. The CFPB believes the company furnished incorrect information to the CRAs on as many as 118,855 accounts.
The consent order requires the company to pay a $2.75 million penalty to the CFPB. In addition, the finance company must: (i) review all previously reported accounts for inaccuracies and correct those accounts or delete the tradeline; (ii) arrange for consumers to obtain a free credit report; and (iii) inform all affected consumers of the inaccuracies, their right to a free consumer report, and how consumers may dispute inaccuracies. The order also directs the company to sufficiently provide the staffing, facilities, systems, and information necessary to timely and completely respond to consumer disputes in compliance with the FCRA.
Unofficial Transcripts of the ABA Briefing/Webcast “Mortgage Q&A with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”
To address outstanding questions regarding the new mortgage rules that took effect in January 2014, CFPB staff provided non-binding, informal guidance in a webinar hosted by the American Bankers Association (ABA). Specifically, CFPB staff answered questions regarding the mortgage origination rules and the mortgage servicing rules on April 22, 2014.
With the ABA’s consent, BuckleySandler has prepared a transcript of the webinar that incorporates the ABA’s slides. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinions, interpretations, or advice by BuckleySandler. The transcript was prepared from the audio recording arranged by the ABA and may have minor inaccuracies due to sound quality. In addition, the transcripts have not been reviewed by the CFPB or the ABA for accuracy or completeness.
Questions regarding the matters discussed in the webinar or the rules themselves may be directed to any of our lawyers listed below, or to any other BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have consulted in the past.
- Jeffrey P. Naimon, (202) 349-8030
- Clinton R. Rockwell, (310) 424-3901
- Joseph J. Reilly, (202) 349-7965
- John P. Kromer, (202) 349-8040
- Joseph M. Kolar, (202) 349-8020
- Jeremiah S. Buckley, (202) 349-8010
- Benjamin K. Olson, (202) 349-7924
- Shara M. Chang, (202) 349-8096
- Sherry-Maria Safchuk, (310) 424-3917
On August 14, the CFPB issued a final rule to re-calculate certain threshold amounts under Regulation Z. With respect to certain amounts under the CARD Act, effective January 1, 2015, the minimum interest charge disclosure thresholds will remain unchanged, while the permissible penalty fees safe harbor will increase to $27 for a first late payment and $38 for each subsequent violation in the following six months. With respect to HOEPA loans, effective January 1, 2015, the adjusted total loan amount threshold will be $20,391, and the adjusted statutory fee trigger will be $1,020. Also effective January 1, 2015, for the purpose of a creditor’s determination of a consumer’s ability to repay a transaction secured by a dwelling, a covered transaction will not be a qualified mortgage unless the transaction’s total points and fees do not exceed: (i) 3% of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $101,953; (ii) $3,059 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $61,172 but less than $101,953; (iii) 5% of the total loan amount for a loan greater than or equal to $20,391 but less than $61,172; (iv) $1,020 for a loan amount greater than or equal to $12,744 but less than $20,391; and (v) 8% of the total loan amount for a loan amount less than $12,744.
On August 12, the CFPB announced a consent order with a nonbank mortgage lender, its affiliated appraisal management company (AMC), and the individual owner of both companies to resolve allegations that the lender deceptively advertised mortgage rates to consumers, improperly charged fees before providing consumers with Good Faith Estimates (GFE), and failed to disclose its affiliation with the AMC while allowing the AMC to charge inflated fees.
As explained in the consent order, the lender primarily conducts business online through its own website, and also advertises its mortgages through display ads on independent websites and the website of an unaffiliated third-party rate publisher. The CFPB asserts that, over a roughly two-year period, a “systemic problem” caused the lender to list on the rate publisher’s website lower rates for certain mortgages than the lender was willing to honor, and that the lender supplied other rates to the rate publisher that were unlikely to be locked for the majority of the lender’s borrowers. The CFPB claims that the lender failed to perform systematic due diligence or quality control to ensure the accuracy of listed rates, even though the lender was made aware through consumer complaints that certain rates were inaccurate. Read more…
On August 11, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the CFPB or Bureau) issued a “consumer advisory” concerning virtual currency and also announced that it would begin accepting consumer complaints about virtual currency or virtual currency companies. These actions are the consumer agency’s first foray into virtual currencies, and they follow a recent GAO report that recommended the CFPB play a larger role in the development of federal virtual currency policy. Read more…
On August 6, the CFPB’s Student Loan Ombudsman, Rohit Chopra, published a blog post addressing the financial arrangements between financial institutions and institutions of higher education that market financial products to students. Last year, the CFPB urged banks to disclose any agreements with colleges and universities to market debit, prepaid, and other products to students and warned that “[t]he CFPB prioritizes its supervisory examinations based on the risks posed to consumers” and “[failing to make] college financial product arrangements transparent to students and their families . . . increase[s] such risks.” In this latest review, the CFPB assessed the Big Ten schools and found that at least 11 have established banking partners to market financial products to students. Of those 11, the CFPB found only four contracts on the bank websites, and it characterized three of those four contracts as “partial”—i.e. in the CFPB’s view, the disclosed agreements “did not contain important information, such as how much they pay schools to gain access to students in order to market and sell them financial products and services.” Concurrent with the blog post, the CFPB sent letters to schools asserting that “their bank partner has not yet committed to transparency when it comes to student financial products.”
On July 29, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID) sent a letter to CFPB Director Richard Cordray questioning the CFPB’s authority to take certain actions during the period of Mr. Cordray’s recess appointment—January 4, 2012 through July 16, 2013—which was made in the same manner and on the same day as other appointments that were subsequently invalidated by the Supreme Court. Citing the Dodd-Frank Act, the letter asserts that new CFPB authorities created by the Act—as opposed to those transferred from another agency—could only be exercised by a Senate-confirmed director. The lawmakers state that as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision on recess appointments, two primary legal questions now exist regarding the CFPB’s authority during the relevant time: (i) whether the Director had authority to exercise CFPB powers as a recess appointee; and (ii) whether the Director’s ratification of actions taken during his recess appointment is valid. The letter asks the CFPB to produce by September 1, 2014: (i) “a full accounting of all CFPB actions taken” during the recess appointment period that were not derived from transferred authorities; (ii) all documents related to the validity or standing of CFPB actions taken during the recess appointment period that were not derivative of the transferred powers; (iii) all documents justifying the CFPB’s authority and the Director’s standing to ratify past actions; and (iv) all documents related to the impact of the Supreme Court’s recess appointment decision. The requests include internal documents and those involving outside counsel.