Tag Archives: CFPB

Reiss on Predatory Online Lending

Posted on by

E-Commerce Times quoted me in CFPB Suit Targets Predatory Online Lending Practices. It reads in part:

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau this week put online finance companies on notice that it will not overlook them merely because they operate in cyberspace. Specifically, the bureau sued CashCall for collecting money consumers allegedly did not owe.  In its suit, the bureau charged that CashCall and its affiliates engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices, including illegally debiting consumer checking accounts for loans that were void.

CashCall and the associated companies are reportedly owned by J. Paul Reddam, a race-horse owner and philosophy professor-turned-businessman.

The Background

Beginning in late 2009, CashCall and its subsidiary, WS Funding, entered into an arrangement with online lender Western Sky Financial, according to the CFPB. Western Sky Financial has asserted that the laws in the state in which it is based — South Dakota — did not apply to it because it was based on an Indian reservation and owned by a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

The CFPB maintains Western Sky still must comply with state laws when it makes loans over the Internet to people in other states.

The loans ranged from US$850 to $10,000 and came with upfront fees, lengthy repayment terms and annual interest rates from nearly 90 percent to 343 percent, the CFPB said. Many of the loan agreements allowed payments to be debited directly from the borrower’s bank account.

By September 2013, Western Sky had become the subject of several states’ investigations and court actions, and it began to shut down its business. CashCall and its collection agency, Delbert Services, continued to take monthly installment payments from consumers’ bank accounts or otherwise sought to collect money from borrowers.

After its own investigation, the bureau concluded that the high-cost loans violated either licensing requirements or interest-rate caps, or both, in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and North Carolina, meaning the consumers did not owe that money that was being collected.

As part of its suit, the CFPB is seeking monetary relief, damages, and civil penalties.

The CFPB did not respond to our request for further details.

*     *     *

‘Particularly Weak’

 

While there might not be much controversy over the CFPB’s suit against an online lender, CashCall is certainly defending itself using other arguments.

Clearly, the action falls within the CFPB’s broad mission of protecting consumers from predatory behaviors in the financial services industry, asserted David Reiss, a professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School.

However, CashCall’s attorneys, Neil Barofsky and Katya Jestin, have said that the CFPB does not have a mandate to impose rate caps.

“Of all of CashCall’s arguments, this one seems particularly weak,” Reiss concluded, “as the CFPB is just seeking to enforce existing state laws that have been allegedly violated across the country.”

Non-QM Mortgages Risks and Best Practices

Posted on by

Moody’s issued a report, Non-QM US RMBS Face Higher Risk of Losses Than QM, but Impact on Transactions Will Vary, that discusses the risk that

US RMBS backed by non-qualified mortgages (those that do not meet a variety of underwriting criteria under new guidelines) will incur higher loss severities on defaulted loans than those backed by qualified mortgages. The key driver of the loss severities will be the higher legal costs and penalties for non-QM securitizations. In non-QM transactions, a defaulted borrower can more easily sue a securitization trust on the grounds that the loan violated the Ability-to-Repay (ATR) rule under the Dodd-Frank Act. . . . The extent of the risks for RMBS will vary, however, depending on the mortgage originators’ practices and documentation, the strength of the transactions’ representations and warranties, and whether the transactions include indemnifications that shield them from borrower lawsuits. (1)

The higher costs for non-QM investors may include longer foreclosure timelines and the resulting wear on the collateral.

If Moody’s analysis is right, however, the Dodd-Frank regime will be working as intended. It should incentivize mortgage originators to strengthen their compliance practices such as those relating to documentation, recordkeeping and third party due diligence. It should also incentivize securitizers to demand strong reps and warranties, put back and indemnification provisions. Sounds like a reasonable trade off to  me.

Measuring Progress at the CFPB

Posted on by

The Bipartisan Policy Center issued a white paper, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Measuring the Progress of a New Agency:

This paper measures the agency’s actions against its mandate.  It analyzes the start-up and operational challenges the Bureau has faced and the critical choices it has made. Throughout this process, the Task Force met with leading consumer advocates, federal and state bank regulators and their staffs, and regulated industry participants in the bank and nonbank space. (5)

I was particularly intrigued by the external metrics that the Bipartisan Policy Center recommends for the CFPB:

  • Are there quality, safe products available in both the bank and nonbank space?
  •  Is the CFPB identifying and responding promptly to problems in both the bank and nonbank space?
  • Does the Bureau engage consumers in a meaningful way? For example, specific metrics should track its regulatory and outreach efforts to growing minority populations.
  • Is the CFPB collaborating effectively with other regulators in both the bank and nonbank space, to ensure a high level of consumer protection?
  • Is there a healthy amount of quality product innovation in the financial services marketplace the Bureau regulates? (10)

These are all reasonable metrics, but most importantly, the white paper “recommends that the CFPB measure success as it relates to consumer behavior by finding demonstrable evidence of improved consumer decision-making with regard to consumer products.” (10) I think that this is perhaps the most important of the metrics and one that the CFPB has made the least progress in measuring. It will be interesting to see how the CFPB makes progress in this regard.

The rest of their findings are organized as follows:

  • Guidance vs. Rule-Making
  • Supervisory and Examination Process
  • Data Requests and Collection
  • Consumer Complaint Portal
  • Civil Penalty Fund
  • CFPB Consultation with Other Agencies
  • CFPB’s Authority to Cover Lending Activities of Auto-Dealers
  • CFPB Funding and Accountability
  • Performance Metrics
  • [External Metrics]
  • Internal Metrics

Qualified Mortgage Fair Lending Concerns Quashed

Posted on by

Federal regulators (the FRB, CFPB, FDIC, NCUA and OCC) announced that “a creditor’s decision to offer only Qualified Mortgages would, absent other factors, elevate a supervised institution’s fair lending risk.” This announcement was intended to address lenders’ concerns that they could be stuck between a rock (QM regulations) and a hard place (fair lending requirements pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act). For instance, a lender might want to limit its risk of lawsuits relating to the mortgages it issues that could arise under a variety of state and federal consumer protection statutes by only issuing QMs only to find itself the defendant in a Fair Housing Act lawsuit that alleges that its lending practices had a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected class.

The five agencies issued an Interagency Statement on Fair Lending Compliance and the Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards Rule that gives some context for this guidance:

the Agencies recognize that some creditors’ existing business models are such that all of the loans they originate will already satisfy the requirements for Qualified Mortgages. For instance, a creditor that has decided to restrict its mortgage lending only to loans that are purchasable on the secondary market might find that — in the current market — its loans are Qualified Mortgages under the transition provision that gives Qualified Mortgage status to most loans that are eligible for purchase, guarantee, or insurance by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or certain federal agency programs.

With respect to any fair lending risk, the situation here is not substantially different from what creditors have historically faced in developing product offerings or responding to regulatory or market changes. The decisions creditors will make about their product offerings in response to the Ability-to-Repay Rule are similar to the decisions that creditors have made in the past with regard to other significant regulatory changes affecting particular types of loans. Some creditors, for example, decided not to offer “higher-priced mortgage loans” after July 2008, following the adoption of various rules regulating these loans or previously decided not to offer loans subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act after regulations to implement that statute were first adopted in 1995. We are unaware of any ECOA or Regulation B challenges to those decisions. Creditors should continue to evaluate fair lending risk as they would for other types of product selections, including by carefully monitoring their policies and practices and implementing effective compliance management systems. As with any other compliance matter, individual cases will be evaluated on their own merits. (2-3)

 Lenders and their representatives have raised this issue as a significant obstacle to a vibrant residential mortgage market. This interagency statement should put this concern to rest.

Private Capital and the Mortgage Markets

Posted on by

The American Securitization Forum recently wrote to the Federal Housing Finance Agency to argue for at least a small reduction in the size of the loans that Fannie and Freddie can guaranty. While this makes sense to me, it is pretty controversial.  The ASF argues that “incremental reductions are appropriate for the following reasons:”

(i) as a means to begin scaling back the outsized role the GSEs currently play in the U.S. housing finance system and encourage the return of private capital;

(ii) FHFA has the legal authority in its role as conservator to act according to its dual mandate; and

(iii) the timing of any Congressional action on wide-ranging housing finance reform remains uncertain. (1)

Various groups like the Realtors and some members of Congress argue that any restriction of credit is unwarranted while the housing recovery is so tentative. The ASF notes, however, that the federal government is insuring roughly 90% of new residential mortgages. Virtually no one supports such a level of government support for the mortgage market, so the only question is one of timing. Do we start cutting back now or do we wait for better market conditions?

Others argue that there is not enough private capital to replace the government guaranteed capital in the market. But scaling back the Fannie/Freddie loan limit is a great way to work private capital back into the market gradually. The long term health of the American mortgage market is best assured by having private capital assume as much of the credit risk as it can responsibly handle. This private capital should also be subject to consumer protection regulation to ensure that it is not put to predatory uses. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has rules in place to provide that consumer protection. The FHFA should complement that regulatory action with its own. It should reduce the Fannie and Freddie loan limits starting in 2014.

Making Sense of Finance Charges

Posted on by

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has a very helpful Finance Charge Chart (page 13) in its Truth In Lending Act examination procedure manual.  The manual is “intended for use by CFPB examiners in examining the mortgage companies and other financial institutions subject to the new regulations.”

Figuring out the finance charge for the purposes of calculating the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) can be very difficult. The manual states that the finance charge

initially includes any charge that is, or will be, connected with a specific loan. Charges imposed by third parties are finance charges if the creditor requires use of the third party. Charges imposed on the consumer by a settlement agent are finance charges only if the creditor requires the particular services for which the settlement agent is charging the borrower and the charge is not otherwise excluded from the finance charge. (14)

The chart makes clear which charges are always included, which are included unless certain conditions are met, which are typically not included and which are never included.

The guide also has a useful history of TILA and overview of Regulation Z (which implements TILA).  It also includes (on page 9) a flowchart that explains what kind of credit is covered by Regulation Z.

 

$2.7 Million Punitive Damages for Wrongful Foreclosure Action

Posted on by

Many argue (see here, for instance) that wrongful foreclosures aren’t such a big deal. A recent case, Dollens v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 2011-05295 (N.M. 2d Jud. Dist. Aug. 27, 2013)  highlights just how bad it can be for the homeowner who has to defend against one.

Dollens, the borrower, died in a workplace accident but had purchased a mortgage accidental death insurance policy through Wells Fargo, the lender (although the policy was actually underwritten by Minnesota Life Insurance Company). Notwithstanding the existence of the policy, Wells Fargo kept trying to foreclose, even five months after the insurance proceeds paid off the mortgage.  Some lowlights:

  • “Apparently, ignoring its ability to to make a death benefit claim is typical of how Wells Fargo deals with such situations. . . . This is a systemic failure on the part of Wells Fargo.” (4)
  • “There is no doubt that Wells Fargo’s conduct was intended to take advantage of a lack  of knowledge, ability, experience or capacity of decedent’s family members, and tended to or did deceive.” (5)
  • “Wells Fargo charged the Estate for lawn care of the property” even though the “property did not have a lawn.” (6)

The court found that the”evidence of Wells Fargo’s misconduct is staggering.” (6) The court also found that “Wells Fargo used its computer-driven systems as an excuse for its ‘mistakes.’ However, the evidence established that this misconduct was systematic and not the result of an isolated error.. . . The evidence in this case established that the type of conduct exhibited by Wells Fargo in this case has happened repeatedly across the country.” (7) As a result of these findings, the Court awarded over $2.7 million in punitive damages.

Mary McCarthy famously said that “[b]ureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.” We generally think of this in terms of government actors, but it applies just as well to large financial institutions that implement “computer-driven systems” that seemingly cannot be overwritten by a human being who might exercise common sense and common decency.

Given that this type of problem seems to affect all of the major loan servicers, I must reiterate, thank goodness for the CFPB.

 

[HT April Charney]