Should US state nonbank mortgage servicers be subject to “safety and soundness” standards of the type imposed by federal law on insured depository institutions, even though the nonbanks do not solicit and hold customer funds in federally insured deposit accounts or pose a direct risk of a government bailout? Well, state mortgage banking regulators think

On October 28, 2020, the CFPB’s Private Education Loan Ombudsman published its annual report on student loans, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Despite an increased focus on student loans by many state legislatures and regulators and some members of Congress, the report reflects a significant decline in the number of consumer complaints about student loans over the past year. The report analyzes complaints submitted by consumers about student lenders and servicers between September 2019 and August 2020. Notably, the report covers a period during which many student loan borrowers have experienced financial hardships as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the federal government – as well as some state governments (in partnership with holders of private student loans) – has offered a myriad of loss mitigation options for eligible student loan borrowers.

Continue Reading 2020 CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman’s Report Shows Significant Trend of Declining Consumer Complaints

We recently received a response to several FOIA requests we had made  to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) regarding various enforcement statistics and processes. Because the CFPB does not make these materials generally available to the public, we share them here. The materials include the Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual and Consent Order template, and data regarding the number enforcement investigations, opened, closed and pending each fiscal year, and the number of matters referred from supervision to enforcement. 
Continue Reading CFPB: Enforcement Manual and Stats

News broke last week of a major reorganization at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), with headlines focusing on how the shakeup will hamper investigations and limit the Office of Enforcement’s autonomy. To better understand what happened, it’s helpful to have a little bit of perspective on the CFPB’s authorities and organization. While it’s too soon to know how the reorganization will impact the agency’s enforcement docket, it is not at all clear that it will have the limiting impact that some expect.

The CFPB was created as a somewhat unique regulator, combining the traditional tools of prudential regulators like the Federal Reserve or Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (supervision and examination) and those of law enforcement agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (investigation and litigation). While the prudential regulators also have enforcement authority, that authority is generally limited to entities over which the agency has supervisory authority (and related individuals and service providers). And that enforcement authority is exercised only after an examination by supervisory personnel; that is, it is the culmination of the supervisory process, not an independent process. By contrast, the CFPB’s enforcement jurisdiction is much broader than the defined set of covered persons over whom it has supervisory jurisdiction, extending to any company or individual that is subject to one of eighteen different statutes or who offers or provides a consumer financial product or service. While some CFPB enforcement actions arise out of examinations, the vast majority to date have been outgrowths of organic enforcement investigations that were not tied to examinations.

At bottom, these two tools—supervision and enforcement—are just different legal authorities by which the agency can gather information from institutions subject to its jurisdiction to determine if legal violations occurred. For a brand new agency, that raises a difficult question – which of these tools do you use in any given circumstance to determine if a particular institution is violating the law? Do you send in examiners or enforcement attorneys?

That question wasn’t answered immediately at the agency’s creation. Instead, the offices of Supervision and Enforcement each focused on hiring staff and building out processes for the exercise of their respective functions.
Continue Reading Unpacking the Enforcement Shakeup at the CFPB – A (Former) Insider’s View

On September 25, California Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 908, enacting the Debt Collection Licensing Act (the “DCLA”), placing California with the majority of states that require consumer debt collectors to be licensed. Subject to a few exemptions, persons engaging in the business of debt collection in California (including debt buyers) will be required to submit a license application before January 1, 2022. Senate Bill 908 is just one of a number of consumer protection bills enacted in California in recent days, including a bill creating the state’s “mini-CFPB.”

Continue Reading California Becomes the Latest State to License Debt Collectors

On May 20, 2020, the Office of the US Comptroller of the Currency announced its final rule overhauling the Community Reinvestment Act regulations. The CRA requires insured depository institutions to participate in investment, lending, and service activities that help meet the credit needs of their assessment areas, particularly low- and moderate-income  communities and small businesses

Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic stress it is imposing on residential mortgage borrowers, lenders and servicers, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently released a compliance bulletin and policy guidance regarding the handling of information and documents in mortgage servicing transfers. While not specifically motivated by the COVID-19 crisis, Bulletin 2020-02

On Friday, January 24, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Bureau” or “CFPB”) published a Policy Statement clarifying how it intends to exercise its authority to prevent abusive acts or practices under the Dodd-Frank Act. According to CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger, the purpose of the Policy Statement is to promote clarity, which in turn should encourage both compliance with the law and the development of beneficial financial products for consumers.  The Policy Statement describes how the Bureau will use and develop the abusiveness standard in its supervision and enforcement work, pursuant to a three-part, forward-looking framework. Under the framework, the Bureau will: (1) generally rely on the abusiveness standard to address conduct only where the harm to consumers outweighs the benefit, (2) avoid making abusiveness claims where the claims rely on the same facts that the Bureau alleges are unfair or deceptive, and (3) not seek certain types of monetary relief against a covered person who made a good-faith effort to comply with a reasonable interpretation of the abusiveness standard. The Policy Statement suggests that the Bureau will use its abusiveness authority even less frequently than it has in the past. While that may be welcome news to regulated parties, it is also likely to mean slower development of meaningful guideposts as to what constitutes abusive conduct.
Continue Reading CFPB Announces Policy Regarding Prohibition on Abusive Acts or Practices

Earlier this month, the Bureau released its Summer 2019 edition of Supervisory Highlights.  This is the second edition issued under Bureau Director Kathy Kraninger, who was confirmed to a five-year term in December 2018.  The report covers examinations that were generally completed between December 2018 and March 2019 and, as such, is the first edition of Supervisory Highlights to cover examination activities that occurred during Kraninger’s tenure as Director.  This edition is much the same as previous editions, but unlike many past versions, it does not address any mortgage servicing-related findings.  Instead the report focuses on, among other things, UDAAPs (including, notably, an abusiveness finding), furnishing of consumer report information, and technical regulatory violations.  The report also details supervision program developments.

Remarkably, there is no mention of any public enforcement action resulting from supervisory examination work.  It is standard practice for the Bureau to use these reports to tout both public and nonpublic remedial actions that stemmed from examinations—but here we don’t see that, and it is not clear whether that is because none of the enforcement actions the Bureau has taken as of late actually came out of supervisory exams or if they chose not to highlight remedial actions for some other reason. 
Continue Reading CFPB’s Latest Supervisory Highlights Focuses on UDAAPs, Furnishing, and Technical Regulatory Requirements

Earlier this week, the Bureau released the Winter 2019 edition of Supervisory Highlights.  This marks the first edition issued under the CFPB’s new Director, Kathy Kraninger, who was confirmed to a five-year term in December.  The report describes observations from examinations that were generally completed between June and November 2018 and summarizes recent publicly-released enforcement actions and guidance.

Like the sole edition of Supervisory Highlights issued under Acting Director Mick Mulvaney’s tenure, this edition emphasizes that “it is important to keep in mind that institutions are subject only to the requirements of relevant laws and regulations,” and that the purpose of disseminating Supervisory Highlights is to “help institutions better understand” how the Bureau examines them for compliance—statements that signal a shift in how the Bureau approaches its supervisory role.
Continue Reading First Supervisory Highlights Under Director Kraninger Reflects Focus on Corrective Action and Prevention of Harm