Tag Archives: CFPB

CFPB Complaints Vary by State, Unsurprisingly

Posted on by

The Baltimore Sun quoted me today in Marylanders Aren’t Shy About Complaining: New Federal Consumer Agency Finds State Residents Quick to Gripe About Mortgages, Credit Cards, Banks. The story opens,

Marylanders are big complainers.

At least when it comes to the financial services they receive.

Maryland ranked No. 2 in the nation in mortgage complaints per capita, second only to New Hampshire, for grievances lodged with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The state came in third for grousing about credit cards and placed fifth for gripes about banks and service.

The CFPB’s database, launched toward the end of 2011, catalogs thousands of gripes about banking, credit cards and mortgages that the newfound agency has received. The agency forwards complaints — ranging from disputes about billing and interest rates on credit cards to incorrect information on credit reports and problems with loan payments — to the businesses involved. Not all complaints are resolved.

Why are Marylanders more motivated to complain? Experts point to the state’s higher education levels, relative wealth and proximity to the do-gooders in Washington, D.C.

“Education level predicts complaint behavior, and this is a very well-educated area,” said Rebecca Ratner, a professor of marketing at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business.

The more educated consumers are the more likely they are to feel that they can affect outcomes and know what steps to take to complain, Ratner said.

Consumers here also are more aware of the new agency because of our proximity to Washington, the CFPB’s home, she said.

Indeed, Washingtonians also are big whiners, ranking No. 1 in complaints about bank accounts and credit cards and coming in third for mortgage grievances.

Consumers near the Beltway also may have more faith in the government to correct problems, given that they are likely to have friends and neighbors who work for Uncle Sam, said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School with an expertise in consumer finance.

“The federal government has a face when you live in Maryland and D.C.,” he said.

Maryland also has the highest median income in the country. Moneyed consumers, Reiss said, are more inclined to speak up when there’s a problem.

“Wealthier people are more likely to expect more from financial institutions,” he said.

They also know that financial institutions are regulated and can be held accountable, he said.

The rest of the story is here.

Why We Need The CFPB

Posted on by

Judge Illston (N.D. CA.) has preliminarily approved a settlement of a class action in Jordan et al. v. Paul Financial LLC et al., No. 3:07-cv-04496 (June 14, 2013). The class action arises from lender practices during the Subprime Boom of the early 2000s.  The class is composed of

All individuals who within the four-year period preceding the filing of Plaintiffs’ original complaint through the date that notice is mailed to the Class (the “Class Period”), obtained an Option ARM loan from Paul Financial, LLC that either (a) was secured by real property located in the State of California, or (b) was secured by real property located outside the State of California where the loan was approved in or disseminated from California, which loan had the following characteristics: (i) the yearly numerical interest rate listed on page one of the Note is 3.0% or less; (ii) in the section entitled “Interest,” the Promissory Note states that this rate “may” instead of “will” or “shall” change, (e.g., “The interest rate I will pay may change”); (iii) the yearly numerical interest rate listed on page one of the Note was only effective through the due date for the first monthly payment and then adjusted to a rate which is the sum of an “index” and “margin;” and (iv) the Note does not contain any statement that paying the amount listed as the “initial monthly payment(s),” will definitely result in negative amortization or deferred interest. (2)

Of the problems alleged by the lead plaintiffs and given credibility by the judge’s order, the most disturbing is that the lender described a rate that was fixed for only one month as a “yearly” one. It is hard to see how consumers can parse the language of a mortgage note on their own, especially in California where borrowers typically are not represented by counsel in a residential real estate transaction.

Many commentators claim that more disclosure and financial education are all that are necessary to ensure that consumers have access to credit on reasonable terms.  But residential finance transactions are too complex under the best of circumstances. And they  become just plain abusive when lenders describe an interest rate that adjusts after one month as “fixed.”  And they become too predatory when an interest rate that adjusts monthly is described as a “yearly” one.

This case, arising from lender behavior during the Boom, reminds us why we now have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, post-Bust.  When pundits inevitably claim that even reasonable consumer protection regulation initiatives are too paternalistic and too restrictive of credit, let’s remind them of this case and the many others like it.

Reiss on Mortgage Insurance Probe, Again

Posted on by

American Banker also ran a story on the settlement, Lenders Likely Next Target in CFPB Reinsurance Kickback Probe (paywall) that includes an interview with me:

WASHINGTON – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s enforcement actions against four large mortgage insurers are likely just the start of efforts against an alleged widespread mortgage insurance kickback scheme that involves several lenders.

pay day loans now

The agency ordered the firms to stop reinsurance deals with mortgage lenders that were purportedly made in return for getting a larger slice of the mortgage insurance pie. It also said the insurance companies must pay a total of $15.4 million in civil money penalties and undergo additional CFPB monitoring.

Yet the paltry size of the fines – combined with additional investigations and ongoing litigation involving borrowers, insurers and big banks alleged to have participated – suggest more enforcement activity is still on the way, including against lenders that were said to have received the reinsurance business. The scheme is estimated by some to have involved as much as $6 billion in kickbacks.

“In the context of the massive amount of mortgage fraud that occurred in this industry, a $15 million penalty seems pretty small,” said David Reiss, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. “But given that further enforcement against the large financial institutions that demanded the kickbacks is possibly still on the horizon, the jury is out on whether this will be an effective set of enforcement actions.”

Reiss on Mortgage Insurance Probe

Posted on by

Law360 interviewed me in Lenders Face Hefty Fines in CFPB Mortgage Insurance Probe (paywall) about the recent $15 million settlement with four mortgage insurers. It reads in part:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s $15.4 million settlement Thursday with four mortgage insurers is just the first to come out of a probe into an alleged scheme to pay kickbacks to banks in exchange for business, and lenders caught up in the agency’s net are likely to get hit even harder, experts say.

In announcing the settlement, the CFPB made clear that it was looking closely at lenders and their role in the alleged kickback scheme, which the bureau said began in the 1990s. Implied in the CFPB’s statements is that the lenders were at the center of the enterprise, and that could mean that both bank and nonbank lenders could face a far stiffer penalty than the mortgage insurance firms paid, said Brooklyn Law School professor David Reiss.

“In the context of the overall markets that we’re talking about, $15 million is not even a rounding error. If this is for real, it’s going to have to be a larger settlement with the financial institutions that demanded the bribe,” he said.

More on CFPB Ability-To-Pay Rule

Posted on by

Attorney Robert Barnett asks whether the CFPB’s new Ability-To-Pay Rule is too rigid.  He says that ‘the insistence on a solid 43 percent debt-to-income ratio will exclude many very solid applications from qualification as a Qualified Mortgage . . ..” (1)  He also argues that LTV and credit scores are more reliable predictors of default and that there is no reason to trump them with a firm debt-to-income limitation.  Barnett cites a study from the Housing Policy Council that indicates that loan volume would drop more than 18 percent when DTIs were reduced from a range of 44 to 46 percent to a range of 40 to 42 percent.  This drop in loan volume was accompanied by a relatively modest drop in the default rate from 1.59 percent to 1.43 percent.

I can’t speak to the merits on this, but it does raise an important question:  what mechanisms are in place at the CFPB to go back and test such rules to ensure that they are appropriately balancing consumer protection with consumer opportunity.

Levitin Gives Overview of CFPB

Posted on by

The extraordinarily prolific Adam Levitin has posted The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:  An Introduction.  He concludes that the

CFPB faces a constant challenge in terms of measuring and then balancing the consumer protection benefits from regulation with the costs of regulation and the potential impact of those costs on the availability and pricing of consumer financial products and services. What remains to be seen, however, is whether the CFPB will back away from more controversial rulemaking and enforcement activity because of the political threat it faces or whether the agency will pursue the policies it believes to be substantively right irrespective of the political situation. In other words, will the agency’s own interests affect guide its behavior? And are those interests best served by compromise and living to fight another day or by taking a principled stand and hoping to rally political support on that basis? The CFPB is a powerful new agency, but it is also one very much aware of its vulnerability.  (35)

The paper was posted just as the Bureau unleashed a series of major rules for the mortgage industry.  Levitin is right that the path that the Bureau will take in the long term is still unclear.  But the early reaction indicates that the Bureau has taken a middle ground that has not unleashed vicious attacks from consumer advocates nor from industry groups.  Indeed, it has garnered measured praise from both camps.  Congressional Republicans do appear, however, to be preparing for a long term fight to dismantle the Bureau (see here for instance).

 

CFPB Issues Rules on High-Cost Mortgages

Posted on by

The CFPB issued rules for high-cost mortgages (those with high interest rates and/or points and fees).  Importantly, the rules now apply to most mortgages, including purchase money mortgages; refis; home equity loans; and home equity lines of credit.

High-cost loans can no longer have prepayment penalties, balloon payments (except in special circumstances), big late fees and some other miscellaneous fees.

The high-cost mortgage rules have been criticized for not reaching many mortgages as they only kick in (in most cases) when the APR on a first mortgage is more than 6.5 percentage points higher than what people with good credit would pay or if the points and fees are more than five percent of the total loan amount.  The new rule will still cover only a small number of loans, so it is not clear if the new rule will have much impact on the market, as opposed to the new Qualified Mortgage rules.