Alston & Bird Consumer Finance Blog

Banking Regulatory Agencies

OCC Issues Guidance on “Buy Now, Pay Later” Lending

By

A&B Abstract:

On December 6, 2023, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a bulletin aimed at providing guidance to national banks and federal savings associations (“Financial Institutions”) involved in “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) lending. The advisory emphasizes the need for these Financial Institutions to carefully manage risks associated with BNPL, focusing on aspects such as underwriting, repayment terms, pricing, and safeguards to protect customers. Additionally, the OCC stresses the importance of clear and prominent marketing materials and disclosures.

The Bulletin

While BNPL products may vary, the bulletin focuses on BNPL loans which involve four or fewer installments without finance charges, and that are commonly offered at the point of sale. Such BNPL products are distinguished from more traditional installment loans with payment terms greater than four installments or that charge interest or carry other finance charges. These loans have become increasingly popular, especially among younger individuals and those with limited credit history.

The OCC identifies various risks related to BNPL loans for both lenders and consumers, including credit, compliance, operational, strategic, and reputational risks. Specific concerns include potential borrower overextension, limited applicant credit history, unclear disclosure language, challenges with merchandise returns and merchant disputes, operational and compliance risks related to third-party relationships, and increased operational risk due to the highly automated nature of BNPL lending.

Further details on risks include the potential for elevated first payment default risk, additional fees for borrowers due to overextension, and the possibility that credit reporting agencies may lack visibility into BNPL activity.

The OCC’s guidance advises Financial Institutions engaged in BNPL lending to establish robust risk management systems, including prudent lending policies for risk identification, measurement, monitoring, and control. Regarding credit risk, the bulletin emphasizes the importance of sound charge-off practices, allowances for credit losses, and timely reporting of comprehensive information to credit bureaus under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The guidance also provides recommendations for operational risk management. It encourages Financial Institutions to assess and mitigate fraud risks, subject BNPL lending process models to sound model risk management and integrate BNPL lending into broader compliance management systems. Additionally, it highlights the need for Financial Institutions engaging third parties in BNPL lending to incorporate such relationships into their third-party risk management protocols.

Takeaway:

Given the OCC’s focus on the risks associated with BNPL products, now is a good time for Financial Institutions engaged in BNPL Lending to ensure that their compliance management programs are robust enough to ensure compliance with the OCC’s guidance.

FSOC Approves Analytic Framework for Financial Stability Risks and Guidance on Nonbank Financial Company Designations

By , ,

A&B Abstract:

On November 3, 2023 the Financial Stability Oversight Council (hereinafter “FSOC” or “Council”) unanimously approved final versions of: (1) the new Analytic Framework for Financial Stability Risk Identification, Assessment, and Response (“Analytic Framework”); and (2) the updated Guidance for Nonbank Financial Company Determinations (“Nonbank Designations Guidance”). The Analytic Framework was published today in the Federal Register and is effective immediately, and the Nonbank Designations Guidance will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Given the recent bank failures, it should come as no surprise that federal regulators are focusing on financial risks to U.S. stability across various sectors, including nonbank mortgage lenders and servicers.

Background

Following the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act created FSOC, an interagency panel of top U.S. financial regulators, to monitor excessive risks to U.S. financial stability and facilitate intergovernmental cooperation to effectively address those risks. Chaired by the Treasury Secretary and consisting of 10 voting members (comprised of the U.S. prudential regulators including, among others, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”)) and 5 nonvoting members, one of the Council’s statutory purposes is to specifically oversee large, interconnected bank holding companies or nonbank financial companies that pose potential risks to U.S. financial stability and, given the broad statutory mandate, the Council’s monitoring may cover an expansive range of asset classes, institutions, and activities, such as:

  • Markets for debt, loans, and other institutional and consumer financial products and services;
  • Central counterparties and payment, clearing, and settlement activities;
  • Financial entities, including banking organizations, broker-dealers, mortgage originators and services;
  • New or evolving financial products and practices; and
  • Developments affecting the resiliency of the financial system, such as cybersecurity and climate-related financial risks.

The Dodd-Frank Act empowers the Council to designate a nonbank financial company subject to certain prudential standards and supervision by the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. The Dodd-Frank Act lists 10 factors that Council must consider before making such designation.  To date, the Council has used this authority sparingly.  According to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the Council’s updated Nonbank Designations Guidance will make it easier to use its nonbank designation authority, eliminating “several prerequisites to designation … that were not contemplated by the Dodd-Frank Act and that are based on a flawed view of how financial risks develop and spread” that exist under the previous guidance issued in 2019.

As the country experienced a regional bank crisis earlier this year, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the Council may use its authorities less sparingly than in the past. The Council’s annual reports specifically address the potential risks of nonbank companies, support the updated requirements issued by the Federal Housing Finance Authority, Ginnie Mae and the CSBS Model State Regulatory Prudential Standards for Nonbank Mortgage Servicers, and recommend that relevant federal and state regulators continue to enhance or establish information sharing in responding to distress at a mortgage servicer.  Indeed, in June 2022, FSOC restarted its Nonbank Mortgage Servicing Task Force, an interagency group to facilitate coordination and additional market monitoring of nonbank servicers.

The Finalized Analytic Framework

The finalized Analytic Framework, which is not a formal rule, broadly describes the approach FSOC expects to take in “identifying, assessing, and responding to certain potential risks to U.S. financial stability,” and interprets “financial stability” to mean the “financial system being resilient to events or conditions that could impair its ability to support economic activity, such as by intermediating financial transactions, facilitating payments, allocating resources, and managing risks.”  The Council’s statutory mandate includes the duty to monitor a wide class of assets, such as new or evolving financial products and practices, and nonbank financial companies, such as mortgage originators and servicers, at several key pressure points.

Following consideration of public comments on the proposed Analytic Framework, which we previously discussed, the finalized Analytic Framework reflects several key changes from the proposed Analytic Framework, which include:

  • A description of the term “threat to financial stability” that builds on the proposed interpretation, specifically, to mean events or conditions that could “substantially impair” the financial system’s ability to support economic activity;
  • Additional examples of the types of quantitative metrics FSOC will consider to assess vulnerabilities that contribute to risks to financial stability;
  • Clarification on the relationship between the vulnerabilities and the four transmission channels (discussed below) by highlighting vulnerabilities that may be particularly relevant to a channel; and
  • An emphasis on the importance of FSOC’s engagement with state and federal financial regulatory agencies as it assesses potential risks and the extent to which existing regulation may mitigate those risks.

Under the finalized Analytic Framework, a non-exhaustive list of potential risk factors and the indicators that FSOC intends to monitor includes:

  • Leverage, assessed by levels of debt and other off-balance sheet obligations that may create instability in the face of sudden liquidity restraints.
  • Liquidity Risks & Maturity Mismatches, measured by the ratios of short-term debt to unencumbered liquid assets and the amount of additional funding available to meet unexpected reductions in available short-term funds.
  • Interconnections, measured by the extent of exposure to certain derivatives, potential requirements to post margin or collateral, and overall health of the balance sheet.
  • Operational Risks, measured by the failure to implement proper controls related to financial market infrastructures and the vulnerability of cybersecurity incidents.
  • Complexity or Opacity, such as the extent to which transactions occur outside of regulated sectors, in a grey area of overlapping or indefinite jurisdiction, or are structured in such a way that cannot be readily observed due to complexity or lack of disclosure.
  • Inadequate Risk Management, such as the failure to maintain adequate controls and policies or the absence of existing regulatory oversight.
  • Concentration, measured by the market share for the provision of important services within segments of applicable financial markets and the risk associated with high concentration in a small number of firms.
  • Destabilizing Activities, such as trading practices that substantially increase volatility in a particular market, especially when a moral hazard is present.

Just as FSOC will consider all the factors listed above as sources of potential financial risk contagion, it will also assess the transmission of those risks to broader market sectors and other specific entities based on certain metrics. This non-exhaustive list of transmission risk factors includes:

  • Exposures: The level of direct and indirect exposure of creditors, investors, counterparties, and others to particular instruments or asset classes.
  • Asset liquidation: Rapid asset liquidation and the snowball effect of a widespread asset sell off across sectors.
  • Critical function or service: The potential consequences of interruption to critical functions or services that are relied upon by market participants for which there is no substitute.
  • Contagion: The potential for financial contagion arising from public perceptions of vulnerability and loss of confidence in widely held financial instruments.

Despite receiving comments recommending that the Analytic Framework specifically address climate-related risk, FSOC declined to do so, explaining that it believes potential risks related to climate change may be assessed under other factors such as through the “interconnections” vulnerability factor and the “exposures” transmission channel.  Similarly, FSOC declined to specifically discuss risks to the financial needs of underserved families and communities because it expects that such risks would be considered under the “critical function or service” transmission channel.

Once a financial risk has been identified, FSOC may use various tools to mitigate such risk depending on the circumstances.  For instance, FSOC may work with the relevant federal or state regulator to seek to address the risk. Where a regulator can sufficiently address such risk in a timely manner, FSOC will encourage regulators to do so.  Through formal channels, the Council can make a public recommendation to Congress or regulatory agencies to apply new standards or heightened scrutiny to a known risk within their jurisdiction. Where no clear-cut regulatory oversight exists, the Council may make legislative recommendations to Congress to address the risk. These formal recommendations to agencies or Congress, made pursuant to section 120 of the Dodd-Frank Act, are also subject public notice and comment.

In addition to making nonbinding recommendations for action to the appropriate financial regulatory authorities, FSOC is empowered to make a “nonbank financial company determination,” by a two-thirds vote, that a specific company shall be supervised by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and subject to enhanced prudential standards. This designation can be made upon FSOC’s finding that:

  • Material financial distress at the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States; or
  • The nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability in the United States.

Nonbank Financial Company Designation Final Interpretative Guidance

The finalized Nonbank Designations Guidance is procedural in nature relating to nonbank financial company designation.  It defines a two-stage process FSOC will use to make a firm-specific “nonbank financial company determination” discussed in FSOC’s Analytic Framework. In the proposed interpretive guidance issued for public comment in April 2023, the Council recognized that in the past, it “has used this authority sparingly, but to mitigate the risks of future financial crises, the Council must be able to use each of its statutory authorities as appropriate to address potential threats to U.S. financial stability.”  The Nonbank Designations Guidance will change the 2019 guidance in the following three ways:

  • First, under the current guidance, FSOC is committed to relying on federal and state regulators to address problematic nonbank financial company activity before considering whether a designation is appropriate. The new guidance removes this prioritization and allows FSOC to consider an entity for a designation proactively, without first relying on regulators to act before FSOC begins deliberating.
  • Second, FSOC has finalized the Analytic Framework discussed above to revise its process for monitoring risks to U.S. financial stability. This comprehensive new framework replaces that found in Section III of the 2019 interpretive guidance. Because the new guidance is focused on the procedural process for making nonbank financial company designations, the substantive analytic factors applied by FSOC in its assessments will be contained in the separate Analytic Framework document.
  • Third, FSOC has reversed course and is eliminating its current practice of conducting a cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of the likelihood of material financial distress prior to making its determination. FSOC has concluded that these processes are not required by Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act. FSOC defines “material financial distress” as a nonbank financial company “being in imminent danger of insolvency or defaulting on its financial obligations.” In eliminating the “likelihood” assessment required by the 2019 guidance, the Council will now presuppose a company’s material financial distress and then evaluate what consequences could follow for U.S. financial stability.

With respect to the formal process for nonbank financial company determinations, the finalized Nonbank Designations Guidance describes a two-stage process that FSOC will use once they decide to review a company for a potential designation.

Stage One:  FSOC will conduct a preliminary analysis of a company that has been identified for review based on quantitative and qualitative information available publicly and regulatory sources. FSOC will notify the company no later than 60 days before a vote is held to evaluate the company for Stage Two.  A company under review may submit information for FSOC’s review and may request to meet with FSOC staff and members agencies responsible for the analysis.  When evaluating a company in Stage One, the Council’s Nonbank Designations Committee may decide whether to analyze the risk profile of the company as a whole or to consider the risk posed by its subsidiaries as separate entities, depending on which entity the Council believes poses a threat to financial stability. At Stage One, FSOC is statutorily obligated to collect information from any relevant, existing regulators that oversee the company’s activities concerning the specific risks the Council has identified.

Stage Two: Any nonbank financial company selected for additional review will receive notice that the company is being considered for supervision by the Federal Reserve and enhanced prudential standards. The Nonbank Designations Guidance says that “[t]he review will focus on whether material financial distress at the nonbank financial company, or the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the company, could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability.” At this point, if a company is under consideration for a Proposed Determination it will receive a formal Notice of Consideration from the Council.

The Council will begin its Stage Two review by consulting with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research (OFR) and relevant financial regulators to ascertain the risk profile of the company. This information would remain confidential throughout the process, and, once interagency coordination has produced all available information, the company will be invited to submit any relevant information to the Council. These submissions may include “details regarding the company’s financial activities, legal structure, liabilities, counterparty exposures, resolvability, and existing regulatory oversight. . . . Information relevant to the Council’s analysis may include confidential business information such as detailed information regarding financial assets, terms of funding arrangements, counterparty exposure or position data, strategic plans, and interaffiliate transactions.” Council staff from the FSOC Deputies Committee will be available to meet with representatives of the company and will disclose the specific focus of the Council’s analysis, although the areas of analytic focus may change based on the ongoing analysis.

Finally, if FSOC preliminarily designates the company for supervision by the Federal Reserve and subjects it to enhanced prudential standards, the company will be able to request a nonpublic hearing after which FSOC may vote to make a final designation. FSOC will conduct an annual review for any company designated by the Council to determine whether continued Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards are still appropriate. This annual review period will afford the company the opportunity to meet with Council representatives and present information or make a written submission to the Council about its efforts to mitigate risk. If the Council decides to sustain the designation, it will present the company with a written explanation for its decision.

Takeaway

Given the 2023 regional banking crisis, it is no surprise that federal regulators are focusing on potential risks to financial stability.  In FSOC’s 2021 and 2022 annual reports, nonbank mortgage companies have been identified as a potential risk.  The Federal Housing Finance Agency and Ginnie Mae have both updated their minimum financial eligibility requirements for seller/servicers and issuers with such requirements taking effect with varying effective dates later in 2023 and 2024.  States also have started to adopt prudential regulatory standards for nonbank mortgage servicers.  By voting through the Analytic Framework and Nonbank Designations Guidance, the Council signals that it remains vigilant to weaknesses in the financial system and will utilize a variety of tools and approaches to strengthen its supervision over companies if existing protections do not adequately mitigate financial stability risks.  Indeed, CFPB Director and voting member of the Council, Rohit Chopra, has expressed strong support for the actions taken and points out that the Council currently has “a total of zero shadow banks” designated as systemically important and that could pose a threat to financial stability which, according to Director Chopra, will most likely change once the Council implements the new guidance and conducts evaluations to identify shadow banks that meet the statutory threshold for enhanced oversight.

FSOC Issues Proposed Update to Interpretative Guidance on Nonbank Financial Company Designations

By

A&B Abstract:

On April 21, 2023 the Financial Stability Oversight Council (hereinafter “FSOC” or “Council”) issued for public comment (1) a proposed analytic framework setting forth FSOC’s approach to identifying, evaluating, and addressing potential risks to financial stability (“Proposed Analytic Framework”), and (2) proposed revisions to FSOC’s existing 2019 interpretive guidance that FSOC would use when deciding whether to designate a nonbank financial company for enhanced prudential standards and Federal Reserve supervision (“Proposed Interpretive Guidance”). Comments concerning the new proposed framework are due by June 27, 2023. Given the recent bank failures, it should come as no surprise that federal regulators are focusing on financial risks to U.S. stability across various sectors, including nonbank mortgage lenders and servicers.

Background

Following the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act created FSOC, an interagency panel of top U.S. financial regulators, to monitor excessive risks to U.S. financial stability and facilitate intergovernmental cooperation to effectively address those risks. The Dodd-Frank Act empowers the Council to designate a nonbank financial company subject to certain prudential standards and supervision by the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. The Dodd-Frank Act lists 10 factors that Council must consider before making such designation.  To date, the Council has used this authority sparingly.  According to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the Council’s revisions will make it easier to use its nonbank designation authority, eliminating “inappropriate hurdles as part of the designation process” that exist under the current guidance issued in 2019.

As the country is in the midst of a regional bank crisis, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the Council may use its authorities less sparingly than in the past. The Council’s annual reports specifically address the potential risks of nonbank companies, supports the updated requirements issued by the Federal Housing Finance Authority, Ginnie Mae and the CSBS Model State Regulatory Prudential Standards for Nonbank Mortgage Servicers, and recommends that relevant federal and state regulators continue to enhance or establish information sharing in responding to distress at a mortgage servicer.  Indeed, in June 2022, FSOC restarted its Nonbank Mortgage Servicing Task Force, an interagency group to facilitate coordination and additional market monitoring of nonbank servicers.

The Proposed Analytic Framework

The Proposed Analytical Framework, which is not a formal rule, broadly describes how FSOC “identifies, evaluates, and responds to potential risks to U.S. financial stability, whether they come from activities, individual firms, or otherwise.”  The Council’s statutory mandate includes the duty to monitor a wide class of assets, such as new or evolving financial products and practices, and nonbank financial companies, such as mortgage originators and servicers, at several key pressure points. A non-exhaustive list of these potential risk factors and the indicators that FSOC intends to monitor includes:

  • Leverage, assessed by levels of debt and other off-balance sheet obligations that may create instability in the face of sudden liquidity restraints.
  • Liquidity Risks & Maturity Mismatches, measured by the ratios of short-term debt to unencumbered liquid assets and the amount of additional funding available to meet unexpected reductions in available short-term funds.
  • Interconnections, measured by the extent of exposure to certain derivatives, potential requirements to post margin or collateral, and overall health of the balance sheet.
  • Operational Risks, measured by the failure to implement proper controls related to financial market infrastructures and the vulnerability of cybersecurity incidents.
  • Complexity & Opacity, such as the extent to which transactions occur outside of regulated sectors, in a grey area of overlapping or indefinite jurisdiction, or are structured in such a way that cannot be readily observed due to complexity or lack of disclosure.
  • Inadequate Risk Management, such as the failure to maintain adequate controls and policies or the absence of existing regulatory oversight.
  • Concentration, measured by the market share for the provision of important services within segments of applicable financial markets and the risk associated with high concentration in a small number of firms.
  • Destabilizing Activities, such as trading practices that substantially increase volatility in a particular market, especially when a moral hazard is present.

Just as FSOC will consider all the factors listed above as sources of potential financial risk contagion, it will also assess the transmission of those risks to broader market sectors and other specific entities based on certain metrics. This non-exhaustive list of transmission risk factors includes:

  • The level of direct and indirect exposure of creditors, investors, counterparties, and others to particular instruments or asset classes.
  • Rapid asset liquidation and the snowball effect of a widespread asset sell off across sectors.
  • The potential consequences of interruption to critical functions or services that are relied upon by market participants for which there is no substitute.
  • The potential for financial contagion arising from public perceptions of vulnerability and loss of confidence in widely held financial instruments.

Once a financial risk has been identified, FSOC may use various tools to mitigate such risk depending on the circumstances.  For instance, FSOC may work with the relevant federal or state regulator to seek to address the risk. Where a regulator can sufficiently address such risk in a timely manner, FSOC will encourage regulators to do so.  Through formal channels, the Council can make a public recommendation to Congress or regulatory agencies to apply new standards or heightened scrutiny to a known risk within their jurisdiction. Where no clear-cut regulatory oversight exists, the Council may make legislative recommendations to Congress to address the risk. These formal recommendations to agencies or Congress, made pursuant to section 120 of the Dodd-Frank Act, are also subject public notice and comment.

In addition to nonbinding recommendations for action to the appropriate financial regulatory authorities, FSOC is empowered to make a “nonbank financial company determination,” by a two-thirds vote, that a specific company shall be supervised by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and subject to enhanced prudential standards. This designation can be made upon FSOC’s finding that:

  • Material financial distress at the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States; or
  • The nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to financial stability in the United States.

Nonbank Financial Company Designation Interpretative Guidance

The Proposed Interpretive Guidance is procedural in nature relating to nonbank financial company designation.  It would define a two-stage process FSOC will use to make a firm-specific “nonbank financial company determination” discussed in FSOC’s Proposed Analytic Framework. The Council recognized that in the past, it “has used this authority sparingly, but to mitigate the risks of future financial crises, the Council must be able to use each of its statutory authorities as appropriate to address potential threats to U.S. financial stability.”  The Proposed Interpretive Guidance, if adopted, would change the 2019 guidance in the following three ways:

  • First, under the current guidance, FSOC is committed to relying on federal and state regulators to address problematic nonbank financial company activity before considering whether a designation is appropriate. The new guidance removes this prioritization and allows FSOC to consider an entity for a designation proactively, without first relying on regulators to act before FSOC begins deliberating.
  • Second, FSOC has issued the Proposed Analytic Framework discussed above to revise its process for monitoring risks to U.S. financial stability. This comprehensive new framework replaces that found in Section III of the 2019 interpretive guidance.
  • Third, FSOC has reversed course and is eliminating its current practice of conducting a cost-benefit analysis and an assessment of the likelihood of material financial distress prior to making its determination. FSOC has concluded that these processes are not required by Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act. FSOC defines “material financial distress” as a nonbank financial company “being in imminent danger of insolvency or defaulting on its financial obligations.” In eliminating the “likelihood” assessment required by the 2019 guidance, the Council would now presuppose a company’s material financial distress and then evaluate what consequences could follow for U.S. financial stability.

With respect to the formal process for nonbank financial company determinations, the Proposed Interpretive Guidance contemplates a two-stage process that FSOC would use once they decide to review a company for a potential designation.

Stage One:  FSOC would conduct preliminary analysis of a company that has been identified for review based on quantitative and qualitative information available publicly and regulatory sources. FSOC would notify the company no later than 60 days before a vote is held to evaluate the company for Stage Two.  A company under review may submit information for FSOC’s review and may request to meet with FSOC staff and members agencies responsible for the analysis.  When evaluating a company in Stage One, the Council’s Nonbank Designations Committee may decide whether to analyze the risk profile of the company as a whole or to consider the risk posed by its subsidiaries as separate entities, depending on which entity the Council believes poses a threat to financial stability. At Stage One, FSOC is statutorily obligated to collect information from any relevant, existing regulators that oversee the company’s activities concerning the specific risks the Council has identified.

Stage Two: Any nonbank financial company selected for additional review would receive notice that the company is being considered for supervision by the Federal Reserve and enhanced prudential standards. The Proposed Interpretive Guidance says that “[t]he review will focus on whether material financial distress at the nonbank financial company, or the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the company, could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability.” At this point, if a company is under consideration for a Proposed Determination it would receive a formal Notice of Consideration from the Council.

The Council would begin its Stage Two review by consulting with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research (OFR) and relevant financial regulators to ascertain the risk profile of the company. This information would remain confidential throughout the process, and, once interagency coordination has produced all available information, the company would be invited to submit any relevant information to the Council. These submissions “may include details regarding the company’s financial activities, legal structure, liabilities, counterparty exposures, resolvability, and existing regulatory oversight. . . . Information relevant to the Council’s analysis may include confidential business information such as detailed information regarding financial assets, terms of funding arrangements, counterparty exposure or position data, strategic plans, and interaffiliate transactions.” Council staff from the FSOC Deputies Committee would be available to meet with representatives of the company and would disclose the specific focus of the Council’s analysis.

Finally, if FSOC preliminarily designates the company for supervision by the Federal Reserve and subjects it to enhanced prudential standards, the company would be able to request a nonpublic hearing after which FSOC may vote to make a final designation. FSOC would conduct an annual review for any company designated by the Council to determine whether continued Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards are still appropriate. This annual review period would afford the company the opportunity to meet with Council representatives and present information or make a written submission to the Council about its efforts to mitigate risk. If the Council decides to sustain the designation, it would present the company with a written explanation for its decision.

Takeaway

Given the current 2023 regional banking crisis, it is no surprise that federal regulators are focusing on potential risks to financial stability.  In FSOC’s 2021 and 2022 annual reports, nonbank mortgage companies have been identified as a potential risk.  The Federal Housing Finance Agency and Ginnie Mae have both updated their minimum financial eligibility requirements for seller/servicers and issuers with such requirements taking effect with varying effective dates later in 2023 and 2024.  States also have started to adopt prudential regulatory standards for nonbank mortgage servicers.  The Council appears to be signaling that additional supervision could occur if existing protections do not adequately mitigate risks.

*We would like to thank Summer Associate, Noah LeGrand, for their contribution to this blog post.

Is the DOJ (De Facto) Enforcing the Community Reinvestment Act?

By

A&B Abstract:

Furthering the Justice Department’s Combating Redlining Initiative, the Department of Justice has announced another redlining settlement.  But this settlement is different – this one involves a bank that has received top marks by its prudential regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for its compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a statute enacted to reduce redlining, for the same years that the DOJ alleged the bank engaged in redlining.

The DOJ’s Allegations

Lakeland Bank is a northern New Jersey-based, state chartered bank with more than $10 billion in assets.  The DOJ alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)/Regulation B, and specifically “that Lakeland engaged in illegal redlining by avoiding providing home loans and other mortgage services, and engaged in discrimination and conduct that would discourage mortgage applications from prospective applicants who are residents of or seeking credit in majority Black and Hispanic census tracts” located in its northern New Jersey assessment area.  In entering the more than $13 million settlement, the Bank did not admit to any of the DOJ’s allegations.  It agreed to various requirements to strengthen its fair lending compliance program, including investing in a loan subsidy fund, opening additional branches, and expanding its CRA assessment area.

The FDIC’s Findings

What is curious, however, is that in its latest CRA performance evaluation, the FDIC determined that Lakeland “exhibits a good record of serving the credit needs of the most economically disadvantaged areas of its assessment area, low-income individuals, and/or very small businesses, consistent with safe and sound banking practices.”  It determined that there is in fact strong competition for lending in the area, but that the bank nonetheless showed good penetration to borrowers of low- and moderate-income levels and in low- and moderate-income areas.  Further, the FDIC determined that the bank “makes extensive use of innovative and/or flexible lending practices in order to serve assessment area credit needs,” noting that the bank’s programs provide lower down payments, lower interest rates, down payment assistance, first-time homebuyer programs, and unsecured small dollar loan programs, for lower-income individuals and small businesses.  The FDIC also called Lakeland “a leader in making community development loans.”  In fact, Lakeland received a rating of “Outstanding,” the highest rating which only a small number of banks achieve, in each of its CRA exams for more than a decade.

CRA versus Fair Lending Laws

The rub is that the CRA is not a fair lending statute, as it focuses on income disparity and not racial disparity, though it often goes hand in glove with the fair lending laws.  For example, a failure to comply with fair lending laws (e.g., the Fair Housing Act, ECOA/Regulation B) can result in a downgrade of a bank’s CRA rating, despite its satisfactory or better performance in its CRA evaluation.  The CRA is enforced by the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve Board.  The fair lending laws are typically enforced by the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, CFPB, NCUA, FTC, and HUD (along with state regulators).  The threshold for an agency’s referral to DOJ for enforcement proceedings is low, requiring reason to believe there is a pattern or practice of discrimination.

Takeaway

In practice, the Lakeland settlement shows how a bank can be susceptible to fair lending risk with respect to redlining, and yet still pass its (anti-redlining) CRA examination with flying colors.  Maybe that is a reason to revise the CRA regulations (spoiler alert: that’s already in the works).  Or maybe it is a reminder to banks to mind the forest and the trees.  Focusing on CRA is necessary but not sufficient, and a bank needs to ensure it is regularly monitoring its lending activity for potential redlining.

Modern-Day Redlining Enforcement: A New Baseline

By , ,

On October 22, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced an aggressive new initiative, in collaboration with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices throughout the country, to combat the practice of redlining. Three days prior, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was said to be hiring up to 30 new enforcement attorneys to focus on redlining and other fair lending enforcement. While these developments are not surprising for an Administration that has emphasized the importance of promoting racial equity, particularly in homeownership, this swift and purposeful action by federal regulators signals that these agencies mean business. Indeed, as evidence of this new priority, federal regulatory agencies have issued two multimillion–dollar redlining settlements against financial institutions just in the past two months.

Since the early 1990s, federal regulatory agencies have recognized redlining as a type of illegal “disparate treatment” (i.e., intentional) discrimination that violates federal fair lending laws such as the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). For example, in 2009, the agencies defined the term “redlining” as a form of disparate treatment discrimination where a lender provides unequal access to credit, or unequal terms of credit, because of the race, color, national origin, or other protected characteristic of the residents of the area where the credit seeker resides or will reside or where the residential property to be mortgaged is located. As recently as 2019, the DOJ continued to use the term “redlining” to refer to a practice whereby “lenders intentionally avoid providing services to individuals living in predominantly minority neighborhoods because of the race of the residents in those neighborhoods.”

To that end, the earliest redlining enforcement actions were brought against banks whose alleged intent to discriminate could be the only explanation for the bank’s geographic distribution of loans around, but not in, minority communities. As proof of a bank’s intent to discriminate, the DOJ produced brightly colored maps to support its position that a bank had unnaturally drawn its service area boundaries to circumvent minority neighborhoods from its mortgage lending and then painstakingly adhered to this “red line” to avoid serving these neighborhoods. In Atlanta, one bank allegedly drew a red line down the railroad tracks that divided the city’s white and black neighborhoods, while in the District of Columbia, another bank allegedly drew its own line down the 16th Street corridor. Years later, in Detroit and Minneapolis-St. Paul, still other banks were alleged to have served a virtual “horseshoe” encompassing white neighborhoods while carving out minority neighborhoods. And again, in Indianapolis, a bank allegedly drew an “Indy Donut” that encircled and excluded the minority areas in the center of the city. In these cases, given that the banks were required by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to define the areas they intended to serve, the DOJ pointed to the banks’ use of different, and in some cases, oddly shaped, service area boundaries (as opposed to existing legal borders or contiguous political subdivisions) as evidence of intent to discriminate.

Today, the majority of mortgage loans in the United States are made by nonbank mortgage lenders that, while not subject to the CRA’s requirements, remain bound by the antidiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act and ECOA. In lieu of maps and service area boundaries, federal regulators now look to the loan application and origination data reported by the lender under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) as the starting point for a redlining investigation. If the HMDA data suggests that a mortgage lender’s generation of mortgage loan applications or originations in majority-minority census tracts might not be as strong as that of its “peers” (e.g., similarly sized competitors), a federal regulator may initiate an investigation to determine whether the lender has violated fair lending laws. Of course, because data about “racial imbalance” has been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be insufficient for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, a federal regulator must supplement the data with evidence that the lender’s arguably weaker performance in minority neighborhoods may have resulted from an intent to discriminate by excluding or otherwise treating those areas differently.

Recently, however, the evidence cited by federal regulators to establish redlining has evolved and expanded significantly. Specifically, regulators appear to be relying on a “discouragement” theory of redlining that looks at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a reasonable person would have been discouraged from applying for a loan product or service – perhaps regardless of whether the lender intended to discriminate. It is worth noting that this theory derives from ECOA’s implementing regulation, Regulation B, which extends the statute’s protections to “potential” applicants, and is not found in the language of ECOA itself.[1] While a lender is prohibited by Regulation B from making discouraging oral or written statements to an applicant on the basis of race or other protected characteristic, long-standing federal agency guidance indicates that a finding of discouragement necessarily requires some evidence of differential treatment on a prohibited basis. Traditional examples of discouragement have included the use of phrases such as “no children” or “no wheelchairs” or “Hispanic residence,” or a statement that an applicant “should not bother to apply.” In contrast, recent redlining enforcement suggests that federal regulators may be interested in the multitude of factors that could have contributed to a lender’s observed failure to reach minority neighborhoods, which, when taken together, may prove the lender’s intent to discriminate.

For example, federal regulators appear to be scrutinizing a lender’s marketing efforts and strategies to determine whether the lender has sufficiently prioritized minority areas. Prior to 2020, redlining cases highlighted the lender’s alleged failure to market in minority areas by intentionally treating these areas differently, either by allegedly excluding such areas from any marketing campaigns or using different marketing materials, such as solicitations or offers, for white versus minority areas.[2] The most recent redlining cases, however, suggest that lenders’ marketing strategies might need to go beyond treating white and minority neighborhoods consistently. Specifically, in its summer 2021 Supervisory Highlights, the CFPB called out a lender that had engaged in redlining by marketing via “direct mail marketing campaigns that featured models, all of whom appeared to be non-Hispanic white” and using only “headshots of its mortgage professionals in its open house marketing materials … who appeared to be non-Hispanic white.” Notably, the CFPB did not indicate that the lender had marketed to, and conducted open houses in, white neighborhoods while excluding minority neighborhoods, nor that the lender had used different marketing materials for white versus minority neighborhoods. Rather, the CFPB’s claim effectively acknowledges that residents of minority neighborhoods would have received the same marketing materials as any other neighborhood. Yet the CFPB’s position appears to be that the use of white models and white employees in these otherwise neutral marketing materials would have discouraged a prospective applicant in a minority area, regardless of whether the lender intended to discourage anyone or not.

Indeed, recent redlining enforcement suggests that not only will regulators allege it insufficient to treat all applicants and neighborhoods the same, but a lender must undertake affirmative action to specifically target minority neighborhoods. This approach attempts to impose unprecedented, CRA-like obligations on nonbank mortgage lenders to proactively meet the needs of specific neighborhoods or communities and ensure a strong HMDA data showing – or else be subject to redlining enforcement. For example, the July 2020 complaint filed by the CFPB against Townstone Financial Inc. claimed that the lender had “not specifically targeted any marketing toward African-Americans.” Along the same vein, the August 2021 settlement between the DOJ, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and a bank in the Southeast resolved allegations that the lender had failed to “direct” or “train” its loan officers “to increase their sources of referrals from majority-Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.” Of course, lenders understand that “specifically targeting” prospective customers or neighborhoods on the basis of race or other protected characteristic is not required by, and may present its own risk under, fair lending laws. Indeed, the CFPB has suggested that the industry might benefit from “clarity” of how to use “affirmative advertising” in a compliant manner. Similarly, the CFPB’s allegation that Townstone had “not employ[ed] an African-American loan officer during the relevant period, even though it was aware that hiring a loan officer from a particular racial or ethnic group could increase the number of applications from members of that racial or ethnic group” was not only irrelevant since the lender’s main source of marketing was mass market radio advertisements but also presumptive and problematic from an employment-law perspective.

Setting aside the legal questions raised by this expanded approach to redlining, mortgage lenders will also face practical considerations when assessing potential fair lending risk. Given the mortgage industry’s extensive use of social media, lead generation, artificial intelligence, and other technologies to carry out marketing strategies and disseminate marketing material, an inquiry by a federal regulator into potential discouragement of certain applicant groups or areas could be endless. Could every statement or omission made by an employee on any form of media be relevant to a redlining investigation? How many statements or omissions would it take for a federal regulator to conclude that a lender has engaged in intentional, differential treatment based on race or other protected characteristic? To that end, could personal communications between employees, which are not seen by the public, and thus could not have the effect of discouraging anyone from applying for a loan, nevertheless be sought by a federal regulator to further a case of intentional discrimination? The language of recent redlining cases suggests that a regulator may find these communications relevant to a redlining investigation even if they do not concern prospective applicants.

Ultimately, both federal regulators and mortgage industry participants must work together to promote homeownership opportunities in minority areas. But along the way, a likely point of contention will be whether enforcement should be imposed on a lender’s alleged failure to develop and implement targeted marketing strategies to increase business from minority areas, such as expanding the lender’s physical presence to minority areas not within reasonable proximity to the lender’s existing offices, conducting marketing campaigns directed exclusively at minority areas, and recruiting minority loan officers for the specific purpose of increasing business in minority areas. Such an approach might overstate the meaningfulness of physical presence and face-to-face interaction in the digital age, when lenders rely heavily on their online presence.

Of course, there may be legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons for a lender’s chosen approach to its operations and expansion. It remains to be seen whether those reasons will be sufficient to assure a federal regulator that the lender’s arguably weak performance in a minority area was not the result of redlining. However, given that nearly all precedent regarding redlining has been set by consent orders and has yet to be tested in the courts, the outcome of any particular investigation will greatly depend on the lender’s willingness to delve into these issues.

[1] See 12 CFR § 1002.4(b), Comment 4(b)-1: “the regulation’s protections apply only to persons who have requested or received an extension of credit,” but extending these protections to prospective applicants is “in keeping with the purpose of the Act – to promote the availability of credit on a nondiscriminatory basis.”

[2] For example, the Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures identify the following as “indicators of potential disparate treatment”: advertising only in media serving nonminority areas, using marketing programs or procedures for residential loan products that exclude one or more regions or geographies that have significantly higher percentages of minority group residents than does the remainder of the assessment or marketing area, and using mailing or other distribution lists or other marketing techniques for prescreened or other offerings of residential loan products that explicitly exclude groups of prospective borrowers or exclude geographies that have significantly higher percentages of minority group residents than does the remainder of the marketing area.