This month The Trump administration, through acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney, announced sizeable restrictions to CFPB’s enforcement and day-to-day oversight of the financial industry’s fair lending practices. The move comes shortly after Mulvaney was installed as Acting Director following the departure of Richard Cordray. Speculation of the CFPB’s impending dismantlement under the Trump Administration has been swirling since the election and this is just one of the latest in a series of moves pertaining to the CFPB that lends some credence to that speculation. The decision will restrict the role of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity – the fair lending enforcement arm of the CFPB – to one strictly focused on education and advocacy. The Office was also moved under the direct oversight of the Director’s Office, placing even more first-hand control with the Director. Additionally under Mulvaney’s direction, the bureau has dropped several payday loan cases and has announced plans to review current restrictions on payday lenders recently put in place by the CFPB under the Obama Administration. You may be more familiar with payday loans as a cash advance or paycheck loan. They are short term loans given at significantly higher interest rates. They are typically requested for immediate funds available in advance of a payroll check, with the principle and interest being paid shortly (typically after a paycheck is received).

What’s the CFPB’s role in fair lending enforcement?

Critics of the CFPB have long claimed that the bureau over-extends itself in terms of regulation and oversight. A prominent component of its oversight responsibilities focus on fair lending enforcement; ensuring that consumers are not discriminated against by lenders. This means, that you cannot be denied credit based on superficial terms such as race, sex, or religion. Have you ever heard the term “redlining”? It is a term used by the financial industry to describe lenders refusing credit based on residential demographics. Essentially, if you live in an area that the lender deems high-risk, they may reject your loan application. Of course this is completely illegal, but it hasn’t stopped lenders from trying. And this, along with other forms of discrimination, are exactly what the CFPB has been tasked with monitoring.

Looking for redlining and other lending discrimination

There are the few things that the CFPB looks at when a bank or lender is suspected of engaging in discriminating practices:

• Comparisons with other loan applications and originations in a minority area
• Where physical branches and offices are located
• Marketing scope and practices
• Current lending policies

Curbing predatory payday loans

In addition to ensuring that consumers have fair, equitable access to credit options, the CFPB has also played a considerable role in protecting consumers from being victimized by predatory loan practices. Most specifically, as they relate to payday loan or cash advance loan programs. The CFPB has aggressively gone after payday lenders in the past, including bringing lawsuits against those that the bureau alleged engaged in deceitful and predatory practices.

Why the changes to fair lending enforcement?

Since the bureau’s inception as part of Dodd-Frank, the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity has pursued lending discrimination, bringing several high-profile cases against lenders. Not only did it aggressively pursue discriminatory mortgage lenders, but other institutions as well, including automotive lenders. Herein lies the issue with most opponents of the bureau: Why, as measure created out of housing lending crisis and created to address oversight and enforcement for mortgage lending, intervening in auto lending enforcement? Well Dodd-Frank grants broad access for the CFPB, through the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, to oversee and enforce fair lending practices. Under the Act, the Office of Fair Lending is tasked with:

• Providing fair lending enforcement under federal guidelines, including oversight for:
  • Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)
  • Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
• Coordinating fair lending enforcement efforts with federal and state regulators
• Working with private sector fair lending advocates

Essentially, this means that the CFPB has had a say (one with the authority to force compliance) in any form of consumer credit offering… but moves under the current administration are setting the stage for a drastically different CFPB.

What roll-backs at the CFPB mean for consumers

So how does the changing role of the CFPB affect you and other credit consumers? First, this does not mean the end of fair lending enforcement and consumer credit protection. The CFPB’s fair lending oversight responsibilities were concurrent with the regulation and oversight duties of other organizations. However, the relative autonomy in exercising its enforcement policies made the CFPB an aggressive and effective regulator in the financial lending industry. Critics of the announcement worry that the move will greatly reduce the CFPB’s efficiency in addressing lending discrimination.

There are also concerns raised over the pull-back by Mulvaney on the CFPB’s efforts to try payday lending discrimination cases. Under the Acting Director, the bureau has dropped several payday lending lawsuits, including one lawsuit file just a year ago, involving four different lending firms. Additionally, Mulvaney has announced plans for a review (and potential roll-back) on legislation the CFPB put in place this past October regarding payday lending regulation. The new regulations, which were set to take effect in January, would address lenders properly vetting loan applicants as well as set restrictions on certain lending practices. Unfortunately, this puts even more oneness on you as a credit consumer to be diligent when consider loans or other financing options. It’s now even more important to make sure that you completely understand all details of a potential loan, including repayment structure and fees and penalties. While there are other agencies tasked with reviewing and regulating fair lending enforcement, the recent announcement most likely means a decrease in efficiency and effectiveness in addressing discrimination cases as they will now be encompassing roles and responsibilities previously occupied by the CFPB.

Resources

Do you have questions about current loan programs in which you are enrolled or would like further information on how the CFPB’s decision will affect future credit applications, contact our team to discuss. You can also get more info on lending and investment information from our blog page.

What exactly is the CFPB?

You’ve probably heard of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but you may not be entirely sure what it actually does. For those of you who aren’t aware, the CFPB is governmental oversight and regulating body that monitors the financial industry and protects consumers from predatory or unethical behavior. The bureau was formed as a measure under the Dodd-Frank Act, the legislation that provided much of the framework for our financial regulation post-recession. Its strict oversight and regulation has definitely come as a benefit to consumers, but businesses and banks have railed against it for its perceived overreach and autonomy. Along with regulatory oversight, the CFPB also provides a platform to empower consumers. In addition to providing educational resources to consumers, the bureau has made complaint filing much more accessible improving transparency between consumers and the banking industry.

Uncertain future the bureau

Many Republican lawmakers have expressed criticism over the CFPB. Additionally, it has long been the subject of attack from the Trump Administration. Many experts believe that, with Cordray’s departure the bureau will almost certainly be placed in the cross-hairs as the administration considers a major financial regulation review.

On Thursday, it was announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the nation’s top finance and securities regulator, had experienced a critical cyber security breach. The breach, which occurred in 2016, allowed hackers access to the SEC’s EDGAR system, a database which houses corporate filings and announcements for a multitude of Wall Street firms. The SEC hack has shaken investors and lawmakers as it poses serious questions regarding the SEC’s security measures and protocol. It is also possible that hackers may have profited on the insider info by trading on it. According to a Reuters report, the database contained sensitive, “market-moving information”. The announcement came as a shock to everyone and with concerns arising over the SEC’s ability to maintain and protect its security systems, you may be wondering what this means for your investments. For it’s part the SEC has taken steps to assure that the security breach has been addressed, however the SEC hack comes at a period of heightened concern over cyber security. This breach follows close on the heels of the massive Equifax scandal, in which hackers gained access to millions of customer records.

Security Protocol in Question

The SEC hack has raised questions in Washington among policymakers concerning what steps are being taken by regulators to prevent critical breaches like this one from occurring. SEC Chairman Jay Clayton will be on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, appearing before the Senate Banking Committee. The chairman is expected to come under fire from policymakers, who will demand a clear account of the exact nature and extent of the SEC hack. Ahead of this hearing, other financial and securities regulators have come forward with their cyber security measures.

Investor Resources

If you’d like to find out more about the SEC hack, read the full Reuters article here. For more regulatory news and investing tips, check out our blog.

Last week, President Trump ordered a review of major banking regulations put in place following the 2008 financial crisis, largely comprising Dodd-Frank regulations. President Trump has made clear that rollbacks are a main objective for these reviews. Though the executive order only calls for a review, the Trump administration aims to make major cuts to banking regulations, largely affecting Dodd-Frank’s enforcement measures: Volcker Rule and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Here is an overview of the two main components of the Dodd-Frank banking regulations and what it means if they are cut:

The Volcker Rule

A big part of Dodd-Frank, the Volcker Rule raises capital requirements for banks and limits trading abilities. Banks are restricted from certain investment activities using their own accounts and also from retaining control over covered funds. The Volcker Rule acts to prevent speculative trading. If cut, big banks could be free to make unstable investment decisions.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Another major component of Dodd-Frank, the CFPB was established by congress as a means of hands-on banking regulation and enforcement. The CFPB acts to protect consumers from aggressive and predatory investment banking and trading practices. In addition to taking legal action against unfair and deceptive practices, the CFPB also serves as an educational resources for consumers and investors. If cut, banking regulation could once again become largely decentralized and unable to accurately oversee banking practices.

Effects

Bankers and lenders laud President Trump’s decision to review current financial regulation under Dodd-Frank. Wall Street saw a noticeable bump in banking stock prices following Friday’s announcement. Despite lender and broker-dealer optimism, many consumers and regulators worry that loosened regulations will lead to a financial relapse and market crash.

Educational Resources

• See this report from Reuters for more info on President Trumps order for regulatory review
• Find out more about the CFPB by visiting their website
• Get more consumer news and tips by checking out our past blogs

This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicated that it would be calling on a need for more oversight from its financial regulation partner, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). The decision to shift responsibility comes with an SEC initiative to devote more energies towards the rise of independent financial advisers. New business models offering greater independence and variety of investment services have led to an increase in the registration of investment advisers. Since this increase, the SEC has been criticized for lack of oversight, managing to examine only 10 percent of new investment adviser registrations per year. The SEC is increasing their investment adviser oversight an extra 20 percent to meet the growing number of independent advisement services. As the SEC’s new focus will take examiners away from the Wall Street sector, it says it will need FINRA to step up their efforts to brokerage oversight. While the SEC won’t be entirely removed from brokerage oversight, FINRA seems to be handling the shift well. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that FINRA had fined Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch $2.8 million for record-keeping and trade reporting violations. FINRA is an independent, financial regulatory organization. It is a privately-funded organization but it seems committed to it’s self-regulatory purpose. In regards to the Merrill Lynch fine, FINRA head of market regulation reiterated that accuracy of information reported by broker-dealers was critical for market integrity, according to the Reuters report. Regardless, the SEC wants to ensure that brokerage oversight will remain a priority. They will be keeping regulators focused on brokerage oversight in New York and Chicago, two of the largest brokerage sectors. They will also be overseeing FINRA’s efforts. Reuters reports that a group named FINRA and Securities Industry Oversight will monitor FINRA’s brokerage oversight examiners from offices in various major U.S. market sectors.

Some of the nation’s top banks are facing another bad week, legally and financially as they are subjected to increased scrutiny and demand for reparations from federal regulators. Wells Fargo faces a continued inquest into the extent of its accounts fraud scandal as regional and municipal governments, including Hillsborough County, look further into their interests with the banking giant. A top financial regulator in Massachusetts is now charging Morgan Stanley with unethical conduct following a claim of a sales contest among Morgan Stanley brokers pushing securities-backed loans onto clients. Additionally, German banking giant Deutsche Bank is facing slipping stocks and credibility as it struggles to reach a conclusion with U.S. courts over an up to $14 billion fine for mis-selling mortgage-backed securities, according to a report from Reuters. The report states that Deutsche Bank’s U.S. stock-holdings fell about 2.8 percent.

Déja Vu with Morgan Stanley?

Though Morgan Stanley vehemently denies the charges put forth by William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth, that the company is guilty of unethical conduct, it does not deny the existence of the sales contest. The contest involved cross-selling banking products, mostly securties-based loans, to Morgan Stanley’s brokerage clients. Glavin’s claim asserts that this cultivated a “high pressure” environment to meet contest goals that was against Morgan Stanley’s corporate policy. Morgan Stanley did suspend the contest after the contest was discovered to be inconsistent with corporate policies, but maintain that no accounts were opened without customer understanding and consent.

Tensions Running High

Public opinion and federal regulators are taking a vigorous and critical look at big banking tactics following the Wells Fargo scandal. With the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis still looming in the economy’s rear-view, regulators and banking customers raise concerns over fundamental flaws in ethical banking procedures and continue to examine banks’ financial interests.

Big banks on Wall Street had been left unchecked for too long and the introduction of sub-prime lending tactics sealed the fate of U.S. financial stability. A culture of smoke-and-mirrors misleading consumers, coupled with a dire lack of regulatory oversight allowed big banks to run rampant. Years of bad banking tactics caught up with the U.S. economy in 2008, resulting in the worst economic recession seen in the country since the “Great Depression” of the 1930s. The effects were devastating.

The Effect

The fall-out left the country reeling. As Wall Street’s house-of-cards collapsed, consumers and legislatures were left scrambling to figure out what happened. Businesses folded, people lost jobs and housing, investments were liquidated and stocks bottomed out. As the dust began to settle and the economy eventually showed signs of re-righting itself, legislators gave the accountable parties a stern talking to and, for their part, big banks promised to change. And it seemed that way for a while…

Business as Usual for Big Banks

The recent scandal involving Wells Fargo’s accounts fraud has demanded a refreshed scrutiny of big banking ethics and practices and what we are finding is troubling. It seems that no lesson has been learned at all and big banks continue to be a breeding ground for greed and deceit. Wells Fargo is just the latest of the nation’s largest banks cultivating a pervasive, toxic culture. A report in Reuters shows that recently, in addition to illegal financial practices, banks also use coercion and bribery as regular means of business.

Broken Promises

Clearly, big banks have not learned the harsh lessons of the 2008 financial crisis. They continue to take advantage of consumers by taking money out of people’s pockets to line their own. Don’t be intimidated or mislead by big banks. If you believe that you have been victimized by big banking tactics or have suffered a financial loss at the hands of investment banks, contact Savage Villoch, PLLC today and get the tools to fight back.