Wednesday, March 25, 2015

CFPB Director Cordray on Payday Lending - March 26, 2015 Richmond VA event (re-posted press release)


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:March 26, 2015
CONTACT:Office of CommunicationsTel: (202) 435-7170

Prepared Remarks of Richard Cordray
Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Field Hearing on Payday Lending
Richmond, Va.March 26, 2015
Thank you for joining us in Richmond for this field hearing.  When I was originally appointed to serve as the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we decided to hold our first field hearing in Birmingham, Alabama on the topic of payday lending – the same subject we are addressing here today.  That was in January of 2012.  These issues generated intense interest then, and they continue to generate intense interest today.  We have seen and heard and felt that same deep and passionate interest from a great many people in a wide range of settings all over the United States. 
Over the past three years, we have engaged in intensive analysis of the short-term and longer-term credit markets for personal loans.  We have considered the history of the demand for such loans and the conditions that create such demand.  We have also focused carefully on how people are affected by the kinds of credit products that have evolved to meet this demand.  As we first said in Alabama, and as we underscore again today, we believe that many people who live on the edge need access to credit that can help them manage their financial affairs.  But we have also emphasized that the market for such credit products must be marked by responsible lending that helps rather than harms consumers.  Extending credit to people in a way that sets them up to fail and ensnares considerable numbers of them in extended debt traps, is simply not responsible lending.  It harms rather than helps consumers.  It has deserved our close attention, and it now leads to a call for action. 
So after much study and analysis, we are taking an important step toward ending the debt traps that are so pervasive in both the short-term and longer-term credit markets.  Today we are outlining a proposal that would require lenders to take steps to make sure borrowers can repay their loans.  The rules we are considering would cover payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans.  We have released an outline of the proposals we are considering, and we invite feedback on our approach.  This is the first step in addressing much-needed change. 
*** 
Before I discuss more specifics, it seems important that we first take a step back to get more perspective. 
Consumer credit is a relatively modern phenomenon, which grew up with the rise of the money economy itself and developed initially as a means of enabling consumers to make a purchase.  At one time, that purchase might have been dry goods from the community’s general store; today, it could be a home or an automobile.  The advantage of consumer credit is that it lets people spread the cost of repayment over time.  Until recently, a bedrock principle of all consumer lending was that before a loan was made, the lender would first assess the borrower’s capacity to repay the loan.  In a healthy credit market, both the borrower and the lender succeed when the transaction succeeds – the borrower meets his or her need and the lender gets repaid. 
What we have observed is that in the markets we are discussing today, many lenders make loans based not on the consumer’s ability to repay but on the lender’s ability to collect.  The ability to collect is often fueled by modern technology that allows the lender to obtain electronic access to the consumer’s checking account or paycheck.  A lender that acquires such access can then move to the head of the line and obtain payment as soon as money reaches the account or, in the case of payroll access, even before the money gets to the account.  But collectability can also be achieved through less sophisticated means, such as by holding a postdated check or a vehicle title.  Our research and analysis indicates that when loans are made on ability to collect, consumers are put at serious risk. 
With payday loans, vehicle title loans, and many types of installment loans, the pattern is all too common.  A consumer facing difficult financial circumstances is offered quick cash with no questions asked and in return agrees to provide access to a checking account or paycheck or vehicle title in order to get the loan.  No attempt is made to determine whether the consumer will be able to afford the ensuing payments – only that the payments are likely to be collected.  Indeed, in many of these markets the lender’s business model often depends on many consumers being unable to repay the loan and needing to borrow again and again while incurring repeated fees. 
By providing the lender with an easy means of collection or, in the case of vehicle title loans, with power over the consumer’s means of getting about, the lender can trump the consumer’s own discretionary choices about budgeting and spending.  At that point, the consumer is left unable to choose, for example, between repaying the loan and paying rent or covering food or medicine or other pressing needs.  If the lender is able to exert a stranglehold over the consumer’s funds, the consumer may fall behind on her rent or utilities and fall deeper into debt.  Often, the only alternative that these lenders present to consumers is to pay a new set of fees to roll the loan over and defer the day of reckoning.  For many consumers, that choice repeats itself time after time, pushing the consumer further and further into a debt trap.  Some consumers may attempt to climb out of the debt trap by taking out additional loans at the same time, which only compounds their financial difficulty. 
In order to understand the nature and magnitude of the debt traps that can ensnare consumers, we need to gain a more complete understanding of the true costs of such loans to the borrower.  Certainly these loans can seem quite costly on their face, with high annual percentage rates and especially where they lead to repeated rollovers with cascading fees.  All of those costs are paid by the borrower to the lender over time. 
But when we evaluate the further trajectory of these loans, we can begin to comprehend many additional costs that can end up being paid to parties other than the lender.  Some consumers will not have enough money even to pay the fees to roll over the loan when it is due.  In some instances, the lender may nonetheless succeed in collecting repayment by overdrawing the consumer’s deposit account.  If so, the consumer will be charged at least one overdraft fee, and depending on the timing of other transactions the consumer might be charged repeated overdraft fees.  This is not uncommon.  
But even that is not the whole picture – other steps may add further costs along the way.  In certain instances, when the lender goes to collect on the unpaid loan against the consumer’s deposit account, the bank or other depository institution may reject the transaction.  When that happens, the consumer will incur “insufficient funds” fees.  And when the lender’s collection efforts are thwarted in this way, it may respond by making repeated, unsuccessful attempts to withdraw the funds, leading to multiple charges.  Some lenders even break up the total amount they are owed into smaller amounts and put them through the payment system in pieces that generate multiple fees to collect on what started out as a single unpaid loan. 
After a period of time, some consumers will end up facing the closure of their accounts due either to the overdrafts or the piling up of fees or both.  This exposes consumers to yet more fees as well as the costs (in time as well as money) of either having to establish another deposit account elsewhere or having to arrange for financial services outside the banking system altogether, which carries its own set of costs and risks.  These scenarios also will have negative effects on consumers’ credit reports, causing further damage to their financial lives.  
Of course, collection efforts do not end with attempts to debit the consumer’s bank account.  Even though no attempt was ever made at the outset to determine whether the consumer could afford to repay, the consumer is still expected to do so.  Consumers are thus exposed to standard – and, in some markets, non-standard – debt collection methods.  These range from repeated telephone calls to worksite visits to debt collection lawsuits that can lead to wage garnishment.  Debt collection efforts generate a further array of fees and charges, which can include the potential cost of having to defend against collection lawsuits.  These encounters also exact a personal toll on consumers that disrupts their lives.  The extent of that disruption can be hard to quantify, but consumers who experience it often find it to be quite substantial.  And finally, another significant cost of a defaulted loan that turns into a court judgment is the blemish on the consumer’s credit report, which may result in blocking the consumer from accessing affordable credit for an even longer period into the future.  
Each of these additional consequences can be significant, and together they may impose massive costs that go far beyond the amounts paid solely to the original lender.  So the true costs, taken in the aggregate, of a lending model that rests on the ability to collect, rather than the ability to repay, must be kept in mind as we assess the effects on consumers, especially those who were already experiencing financial difficulties when they took out the loan in the first place. 
We recognize that consumers have a legitimate need to access credit to meet their particular circumstances.  But consumers need credit that helps them, not harms them.  If the lender’s success depends on the borrower failing, market dynamics are not functioning properly.  In these cases, the proper balance between lenders and borrowers is knocked off course and the “win-win” dynamic of healthy credit markets is no longer achieved.  That is why we are holding this field hearing, so that we can begin to gain feedback on our approach to these issues. 
*** 
Today we are outlining a framework that would put in place strong federal rules for both short-term and longer-term credit products.  This framework is the product of extensive research, analysis, deliberation, and outreach.  We recognize that it is challenging to determine the best way to address consumer harm in these markets while still leaving room for affordable credit.  So we are releasing a preliminary outline of the proposals we are considering.  We welcome feedback from small businesses and all other affected stakeholders, including consumers and providers alike.  Our formal and deliberative process will lead to fundamental decisions about the proper direction of change in this important marketplace. 
Our proposed framework would provide two different approaches:  debt trap prevention and debt trap protection.   Under the prevention requirements, lenders would have to take appropriate steps at the outset to determine that consumers will not fall into debt traps.  Under the protection requirements, lenders would have to comply with various restrictions designed to ensure that the consumer can affordably extract themselves from the loan over time.  Lenders could choose which set of requirements to follow.  The proposals under consideration also would restrict lenders from accessing consumer deposit accounts in ways that cause consumers to lose control of their own finances and that tend to rack up high fees paid to financial institutions and other parties.  We believe these measures could dramatically improve outcomes in these markets.  Consumers would still be able to get the credit they need, but they could do so within a framework of strong consumer protections under federal and state law. 
*** 
Under our proposed framework, we define the short-term credit market as loans for 45 days or less.  These are typically payday loans or vehicle title loans, but one important feature of our rules is that they would apply to any lender issuing similar short-term loans.  The rules thus would cover all firms that offer competing products in this segment of the market through any channel, including both storefront and online lenders. 
Our proposals to address these short-term loans are based in part on extensive research we have done on the market for payday loans and deposit advance loans, our careful review of the many research studies that others have done on this and related markets, and our discussions with stakeholders on all sides.  Based on our review of millions of transactions, we found in our own research that for about half of all initial payday loans, borrowers are not able to repay the loan without renewing it.  More than one in five initial loans turns into a repeating series of seven or more loans.  The amounts that people borrow in each successive loan in the series is usually the same or more as the initial amount borrowed, leaving many consumers mired in debt while lenders continue to receive their repeated fees. 
Our proposals under consideration would seek to establish strong protections for these short-term loans so that consumers are able to borrow but are not set up to fail.  Lenders would have two alternative ways to meet this requirement:  either prevent debt traps at the outset or protect against debt traps throughout the lending process. 
As Benjamin Franklin sensibly said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”  So the prevention requirements we are considering would help ensure, at the outset, that consumers can avoid debt traps.  Specifically, the proposals under consideration would require the lender to make a reasonable determination that the consumer could repay the loan when it comes due without defaulting or re-borrowing.  This requirement applies to the whole loan, including the principal, the interest, and the cost of any add-on products.  Lenders would have to engage in basic underwriting by verifying the consumer’s income, major financial obligations, and borrowing history, and determining that the consumer can meet their obligations, cover basic living expenses, and cover payments on the loan.  
If the consumer returns for an additional short-term loan before the consumer has had time to regain her financial footing, lenders would have to confirm that some change in circumstances has occurred that would make the new loan affordable even though the consumer has been unable to escape the debt.  In cases where the consumer takes out three loans in close succession, there would be a mandatory 60-day cooling-off period after the third loan to give the consumer enough time to recuperate financially before borrowing again.  This would prevent lenders from taking advantage of consumers caught in a financial rut by prohibiting long sequences of loans that trap consumers in debt.                                                                                                       
While the prevention requirements would primarily apply at the moment when the borrower takes out the loan, the alternative protection requirements under consideration would apply throughout the life of the loan.  We are considering two alternatives.  Under the first alternative, lenders would have to decrease the principal amount for each subsequent loan so that after three loans the debt is paid off.  At that point, a 60-day cooling-off period would kick in.  Under the second alternative, when the borrower still cannot repay after two rollovers, the lender would have to offer the consumer an off ramp consisting of a no-cost extended payment plan.  After that, a 60-day cooling-off period would apply.  Under either approach, the lender could not lend more than $500 or take a security interest in a vehicle title, and the lender could not keep the consumer indebted on these loans for more than 90 days in a 12-month period. 
These measures are being carefully considered to help consumers avoid spiraling into long-term debt.  The financial incentives for the lenders would change significantly because loan rollovers could not continue indefinitely.  In the end, the proposed framework under consideration for this segment of the market is designed to achieve one crucial objective:  to allow for responsible lending while ensuring that short-term loans do not turn into long-term cycles of debt. 
*** 
The second part of our proposal today covers certain longer-term, higher-cost loans.  More specifically, the proposal under consideration would apply to credit products of more than 45 days where the lender has access to the consumer’s bank account or paycheck, or has a security interest in a vehicle, and where the all-in annual percentage rate is more than 36 percent.  These types of installment and open-end loans cause us great concern.  Not only are they high-cost credit, but the lender secures a special form of preferential control over the consumer’s ability to manage his or her own financial affairs, which as we have seen is dangerous and potentially disabling. 
Once again, the proposed framework under consideration here would address the problem of debt traps by establishing strong requirements to help ensure that borrowers can afford to repay their loans.  Just as with short-term loans, lenders would have a choice between two alternative ways to meet this requirement:  prevent debt traps at the outset or protect against debt traps throughout the lending process. 
As with short-term credit products, the debt trap prevention requirements would mean the lender must determine, before a consumer takes out the loan, that the consumer can repay the entire loan – including interest, principal, and the cost of add-on products – as it comes due.  For each loan, the lender would have to verify the consumer’s income, major financial obligations, and borrowing history to determine whether the borrower could make all of the loan payments and still cover her major financial obligations and other basic living expenses. 
If the borrower has difficulty repaying the loan, the lender would be barred from refinancing the old loan upon terms and conditions that the consumer was shown to be unable to satisfy in the first place.  Instead, as with our framework for short-term loans, the lender would be required to document that the consumer’s financial circumstances have improved enough to take out yet another such loan upon the same terms and conditions. 
Alternatively, lenders could adhere to the debt trap protection requirements.  We are considering two approaches here.  Under both approaches, lenders could extend loans with a minimum duration of 45 days and a maximum duration of six months.  Under the first approach, lenders would generally be required to follow the same protections as loans that many credit unions offer under the National Credit Union Administration’s existing program for “payday alternative loans.”  These loans protect consumers by charging no more than 28 percent interest and an application fee of no more than $20.  Under the second approach, we are considering limiting monthly loan payments to no more than 5 percent of the consumer’s monthly income.  This would shield the bulk of their income from being eaten up by repayments, while the six-month limit also prevents the payments from extending in perpetuity. 
The proposed framework here is thus designed to protect consumers against high rates of default or re-borrowing that tend to aggravate their underlying financial problems while preserving their access to affordable credit.  As we go along, we welcome further input on how we can best address the issues consumers face in these credit markets.  We are focused on finding solutions that put an end to irresponsible lending practices too often based on the lender’s ability to collect rather than the consumer’s ability to repay. 
*** 
We are also considering new consumer protections about when and how lenders are able to access consumer accounts.  To mitigate the problems of racking up excessive overdraft and insufficient funds fees, we are weighing two measures:  requiring lenders to notify borrowers before accessing their deposit accounts, and protecting consumers from repeated unsuccessful attempts to access their accounts. 
The first provision would require lenders to give notice to consumers three business days before trying to withdraw funds from the account, including key information about the forthcoming attempt.  The goal here is to protect consumers by giving them more information to help them plan how to manage their accounts and their overall finances.  The notice provision would prevent nasty surprises when the consumer goes to see what money they have in their account.  It would help them avoid unexpected problems such as a rent check that bounces because a payday or installment lender already got to their account first. 
The second provision would require that if lenders make two consecutive unsuccessful attempts to collect money from consumers’ deposit accounts, they could not make any further attempts to collect from the account unless the consumer provided them with a new authorization.  This would help avoid an unexpected cascade of debilitating overdraft or insufficient funds fees incurred by multiple collection attempts. 
The goal behind these parts of our proposal is to block lenders from harming consumers by abusing their preferential access to the consumers’ accounts.  Of course, lenders that are owed money are entitled to get paid back.  But consumers should be able to maintain some meaningful control over their financial affairs, and they should not be subject to an array of fees and other costs that can be generated entirely at the whim of the lender.
*** 
The harms to consumers that we have observed in the short-term and longer-term credit markets for personal loans demand an appropriate policy response.  As Virginia’s own Thomas Jefferson once said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”  And that is why today we are issuing a call to action. 
The proposed framework under discussion reflects rigorous thinking by our colleagues at the Consumer Bureau.  In addition to our own extensive research, we have had many discussions with consumers, industry, other federal agencies, state and local regulators, academics, and other interested parties.  Our outreach efforts have covered both depository and non-depository lenders that offer payday loans, deposit advance loans, vehicle title loans, installment loans, or other similar loans. 
We are releasing this outline to kick off our efforts to solicit specific feedback from small entities that will be affected by this rulemaking.  As we are getting this feedback, we will also continue to consult with consumers, industry, and others.  We will then formally issue a proposed rule and provide opportunity for everyone to comment.  We will move as quickly as we reasonably can, but we will be thoughtful and thorough as we continue this work, in accordance with our best lights about how to address these issues. 
In the end, we intend for consumers to have a marketplace that works both for short-term and longer-term credit products.  For lenders that sincerely intend to offer responsible options for consumers who need such credit to deal with emergency situations, we are making conscious efforts to keep those options available.  For consumers who need more time to repay, there should continue to be opportunities available for affordable installment loans.  But lenders that rely on piling up fees and profits from ensnaring people in long-term debt traps would have to change their business models.  Consumers should be able to use these products without worrying that they will end up stuck in a deep hole with no way out.  We urge you to join us in helping to achieve that goal. Thank you. 
###

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov.


CFPB Considers Proposal to End Payday Debt Traps

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:March 26, 2015
CONTACT:Office of CommunicationsTel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU CONSIDERS PROPOSAL TO END PAYDAY DEBT TRAPS

Proposal Would Cover Payday Loans, Vehicle Title Loans, and Certain High-Cost Installment and Open-End Loans
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced it is considering proposing rules that would end payday debt traps by requiring lenders to take steps to make sure consumers can repay their loans. The proposals under consideration would also restrict lenders from attempting to collect payment from consumers’ bank accounts in ways that tend to rack up excessive fees. The strong consumer protections being considered would apply to payday loans, vehicle title loans, deposit advance products, and certain high-cost installment loans and open-end loans. 
“Today we are taking an important step toward ending the debt traps that plague millions of consumers across the country,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Too many short-term and longer-term loans are made based on a lender’s ability to collect and not on a borrower’s ability to repay. The proposals we are considering would require lenders to take steps to make sure consumers can pay back their loans. These common sense protections are aimed at ensuring that consumers have access to credit that helps, not harms them.” 
Today, the Bureau is publishing an outline of the proposals under consideration in preparation for convening a Small Business Review Panel to gather feedback from small lenders, which is the next step in the rulemaking process. The proposals under consideration cover both short-term and longer-term credit products that are often marketed heavily to financially vulnerable consumers. The CFPB recognizes consumers’ need for affordable credit but is concerned that the practices often associated with these products – such as failure to underwrite for affordable payments, repeatedly rolling over or refinancing loans, holding a security interest in a vehicle as collateral, accessing the consumer’s account for repayment, and performing costly withdrawal attempts – can trap consumers in debt. These debt traps also can leave consumers vulnerable to deposit account fees and closures, vehicle repossession, and other financial difficulties. 
The proposals under consideration provide two different approaches to eliminating debt traps – prevention and protection. Under the prevention requirements, lenders would have to determine at the outset of each loan that the consumer is not taking on unaffordable debt. Under the protection requirements, lenders would have to comply with various restrictions designed to ensure that consumers can affordably repay their debt. Lenders could choose which set of requirements to follow.  
Ending Debt Traps: Short-Term LoansThe proposals under consideration would cover short-term credit products that require consumers to pay back the loan in full within 45 days, such as payday loans, deposit advance products, certain open-end lines of credit, and some vehicle title loans. Vehicle title loans typically are expensive credit, backed by a security interest in a car. They may be short-term or longer-term and allow the lender to repossess the consumer’s vehicle if the consumer defaults. 
For consumers living paycheck to paycheck, the short timeframe of these loans can make it difficult to accumulate the necessary funds to pay off the loan principal and fees before the due date. Borrowers who cannot repay are often encouraged to roll over the loan – pay more fees to delay the due date or take out a new loan to replace the old one. The Bureau’s research has found that four out of five payday loans are rolled over or renewed within two weeks. For many borrowers, what starts out as a short-term, emergency loan turns into an unaffordable, long-term debt trap. 
The proposals under consideration would include two ways that lenders could extend short-term loans without causing borrowers to become trapped in debt. Lenders could either prevent debt traps at the outset of each loan, or they could protect against debt traps throughout the lending process. Specifically, all lenders making covered short-term loans would have to adhere to one of the following sets of requirements: 
  • Debt trap prevention requirements: This option would eliminate debt traps by requiring lenders to determine at the outset that the consumer can repay the loan when due – including interest, principal, and fees for add-on products – without defaulting or re-borrowing. For each loan, lenders would have to verify the consumer’s income, major financial obligations, and borrowing history to determine whether there is enough money left to repay the loan after covering other major financial obligations and living expenses. Lenders would generally have to adhere to a 60-day cooling off period between loans. To make a second or third loan within the two-month window, lenders would have to document that the borrower’s financial circumstances have improved enough to repay a new loan without re-borrowing. After three loans in a row, all lenders would be prohibited altogether from making a new short-term loan to the borrower for 60 days. 
  • Debt trap protection requirements: These requirements would eliminate debt traps by requiring lenders to provide affordable repayment options and by limiting the number of loans a borrower could take out in a row and over the course of a year. Lenders could not keep consumers in debt on short-term loans for more than 90 days in a 12-month period. Rollovers would be capped at two – three loans total – followed by a mandatory 60-day cooling-off period. The second and third consecutive loans would be permitted only if the lender offers an affordable way out of debt. The Bureau is considering two options for this: either by requiring that the principal decrease with each loan, so that it is repaid after the third loan, or by requiring that the lender provide a no-cost “off-ramp” after the third loan, to allow the consumer to pay the loan off over time without further fees. For each loan under these requirements, the debt could not exceed $500, carry more than one finance charge, or require the consumer’s vehicle as collateral. 
Ending Debt Traps: Longer-Term LoansThe proposals under consideration would also apply to high-cost, longer-term credit products of more than 45 days where the lender collects payments through access to the consumer’s deposit account or paycheck, or holds a security interest in the consumer’s vehicle, and the all-in (including add-on charges) annual percentage rate is more than 36 percent. This includes longer-term vehicle title loans and certain installment and open-end loans.   
Installment loans typically stretch longer than a two-week or one-month payday loan,have loan amounts ranging from a hundred dollars to several thousand dollars, and may impose very high interest rates. The principal, interest, and other finance charges on these loans are typically repaid in installments. Some have balloon payments. The proposal would also apply to high-cost open-end lines of credit with account access or a security interest in a vehicle. 
When lenders have the ability to access the consumer’s account or have a security interest in a vehicle, consumers may lose control over their financial choices and these longer-term loans can turn into debt traps. The CFPB’s proposals under consideration for longer-term loans would eliminate debt traps by requiring that lenders take steps to determine that borrowers can repay. Just as with short-term loans, lenders would have two alternative ways to extend credit and meet this requirement – prevent debt traps at the outset or protect against debt traps throughout the lending process. Specifically, lenders making covered longer-term loans would have to adhere to one of the following sets of requirements: 
  • Debt trap prevention requirements: Similar to short-term loans, this option would eliminate debt traps by requiring lenders to determine at the outset that the consumer can repay the loan when due – including interest, principal, and fees for add-on products – without defaulting or re-borrowing. For each loan, lenders would have to verify the consumer’s income, major financial obligations, and borrowing history to determine whether there is enough money left to repay the loan after covering other major financial obligations and living expenses. Lenders would be required to determine if a consumer can repay the loan each time the consumer seeks to refinance or re-borrow. If the borrower is having difficulty affording the current loan, the lender would be prohibited from refinancing into another loan with similar terms without documentation that the consumer’s financial circumstances have improved enough to be able to repay the loan.  
  • Debt trap protection requirements: The Bureau is considering two specific approaches to the debt trap protection requirements for longer-term products. Under either approach, loans would have a minimum duration of 45 days and a maximum duration of six months. With the first, the proposal being considered would require lenders to provide generally the same protections offered under the National Credit Union Administration program for “payday alternative loans.” These loans have a 28 percent interest rate cap and an application fee of no more than $20. With the second, the lender could make a longer-term loan provided the amount the consumer is required to repay each month is no more than 5 percent of the consumer’s gross monthly income; the lender couldn’t make more than two of these loans within a 12-month period. 
Restricting Harmful Payment Collection Practices Lenders of both short-term and longer-term loans often obtain access to a consumer’s checking, savings, or prepaid account to collect payment through a variety of methods, including post-dated checks, debit authorizations, or remotely created checks. However, this can lead to unanticipated withdrawals or debits and transaction fees. When lenders attempt to get repayment through repeated, unsuccessful withdrawal attempts, consumers are charged insufficient funds fees by their depository institution and returned payment fees by the lender, and may even face account closure. These fees add to the spiraling costs of falling behind on these loan products and make it even harder for a consumer to climb out of debt. To mitigate these problems, the Bureau is considering proposals that would: 
  • Require borrower notification before accessing deposit accounts: Under the proposals being considered, lenders would be required to provide consumers with three business days advance notice before submitting a transaction to the consumer’s bank, credit union, or prepaid account for payment. The notice would include key information about the forthcoming payment collection attempt. This requirement would apply to payment collection attempts through any method and would help consumers better manage their accounts and overall finances. 
  • Limit unsuccessful withdrawal attempts that lead to excessive deposit account fees: Under the proposals being considered, if two consecutive attempts to collect money from the consumer’s account were unsuccessful, the lender would not be allowed to make any further attempts to collect from the account unless the consumer provided a new authorization. This would limit fees incurred by multiple transactions that exacerbate a consumer’s financial woes. 
A factsheet summarizing the proposals under consideration is available at:http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201503_cfpb-proposal-under-consideration.pdf 
A factsheet summarizing the Small Business Review Panel process is available at:http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201503_cfpb_factsheet-small-business-review-panel-process.pdf 
An outline of the proposals under consideration will be available on March 26 at:http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201503_cfpb_outline-of-the-proposals-from-small-business-review-panel.pdf
A list of questions on which the Bureau will seek input from the small business representatives providing feedback to the Small Business Review Panel is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201503_cfpb_list-of-questions-from-small-business-review-panel.pdf 
This is the first public step in the CFPB’s efforts to reform the markets for these products. In addition to consulting with the Small Business Review Panel, the Bureau will continue to seek input from a wide range of stakeholders before continuing with the process of a rulemaking. Once the Bureau issues its proposed regulations, the public will be invited to submit written comments which will be carefully considered before final regulations are issued. 
###

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov.


Thursday, March 19, 2015

CFPB gives consumers a public forum to complain about banks and other financial service providers

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced today that aggrieved consumers will have the option to share their stories by consenting to have  their narrative made public (anonymously) in the Bureau's Complaint Database. Companies will be given opportunity to respond, but will not be required to do so. 

CFPB logo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:March 19, 2015
CONTACT:Office of CommunicationsTel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU FINALIZES POLICY TO GIVE CONSUMERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE PUBLICLY COMPLAINTS ABOUT FINANCIAL COMPANIESConsumers Can Now Opt-In to Share Complaint Narratives in CFPB's Public Database


WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is finalizing a policy to empower consumers to voice publicly their complaints about consumer financial products and services. When consumers submit a complaint to the CFPB, they now have the option to share their account of what happened in the CFPB’s public-facing Consumer Complaint Database. The CFPB is also publishing a Request for Information seeking public input on ways to highlight positive consumer experiences, such as by receiving consumer compliments.   
“Consumer narratives shed light on the full consumer perspective behind a complaint,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Narratives humanize the problems consumers face in the marketplace. Today’s policy will serve to empower consumers by helping them make informed decisions and helping track trends in the consumer financial market.” 
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created the CFPB, established the handling of consumer complaints as an integral part of the CFPB’s work. The CFPB began accepting complaints as soon as it opened its doors more than three years ago in July 2011. It currently accepts complaints on many consumer financial products, including credit cards, mortgages, bank accounts, private student loans, vehicle and other consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, debt collection, and payday loans. As of March 1, 2015, the Bureau has handled 558,800 complaints, with mortgages and debt collection being the most frequent topics. 
In June 2012, the CFPB launched its Consumer Complaint Database, which is the nation’s largest public collection of consumer financial complaints. It includes basic, anonymous, individual-level information about the complaints received, including the date of submission, the consumer’s zip code, the relevant company, the product type, the issue the consumer is complaining about, and how the company handled the complaint. 
In July 2014, the CFPB proposed a policy that would allow consumers to publicly share their stories when they submit complaints to the Bureau. Today, the Bureau is finalizing its consumer narrative policy after receiving and considering comments from consumer groups, trade associations, companies, and individuals. Consumer narratives provide a first-hand account of the consumer’s experience, and adding the option to share them will greatly enhance the utility of the database. The narratives will provide context to complaints, spotlight specific trends, and help consumers make informed decisions. The narratives may encourage companies to improve the overall quality of their products and services, and more vigorously compete over good customer service. 
Consumer Complaint Narrative PolicyThe CFPB’s final Consumer Complaint Narrative Policy lays out the specific procedures and safeguards the Bureau is putting in place to publish narratives in the database. When consumers submit a complaint to the Bureau, they fill in information such as who they are, who the complaint is against, and when it occurred. They are also given a text box to describe what happened and can attach documents to the complaint. The Bureau forwards the complaint to the company for response, gives the consumer a tracking number, and keeps the consumer updated on its status. 
Starting today, when consumers submit a complaint to the CFPB, they will now have the option to check a box and opt-in to sharing their narrative. In order for companies to learn about this new system, the Bureau will not publish any consented-to narrative for at least 90 days after the policy’s publication in the Federal Register. 
The CFPB’s policy recognizes the importance of protecting consumers’ private information, ensuring the informed consent of any consumer who participates, and providing companies with an opportunity to respond. The policy establishes a number of important safeguards for a clear, fair, and transparent process, including: 
  • Consumers must opt-in to share their story: The CFPB will not publish the complaint narrative unless the consumer provides informed consent. This means that when consumers submit a complaint through consumerfinance.gov, they have to affirmatively check a consent box to give the Bureau permission to publish their narrative. Currently, only narratives submitted online are available for the opt-in to publish. 
  • Personal information will be removed from narratives: The Bureau will take reasonable steps to remove personal information from the complaint to minimize the risk of re-identification. This means the CFPB will use a thorough process to ensure complaints are scrubbed of information such as names, telephone numbers, account numbers, Social Security numbers, and other direct identifiers. 
  • Companies can choose a response to publish: Companies will be given the option to select from a set list of structured response options as a public-facing response to address the consumer complaints. Companies will be under no obligation to offer a public response, and they have 180 days after the consumer complaint is routed to them to select the optional, public response. Companies will have the option to address all consumer complaints submitted after this policy announcement, not just those where a consumer consented to publication. 
  • Consumers can opt-out at any time: If a consumer decides at any time that he or she would like to withdraw consent to publish their narrative in the Consumer Complaint Database, he or she has the ability to do so. 
  • Complaints must meet certain criteria to qualify for narrative publication: In order for the Bureau to publicly share a consumer’s complaint narrative, the complaint must meet certain requirements. Such requirements include that the complaint is submitted through the CFPB website, that the complaint is not a duplicate submission, and that the consumer has a confirmed relationship with the financial institution. Complaints will not be published if they do not meet all of the publication criteria. 
Today’s policy builds on the safeguards the CFPB’s database already has in place. Complaints are listed in the database only after the company responds to the complaint or after it has had the complaint for 15 days, whichever comes first. The CFPB will disclose the consumer narrative when the company provides its public-facing response, or after the company has had the complaint for 60 calendar days, whichever comes first. 
Request for Information on Consumer ComplimentsToday, the Bureau is also issuing a Notice and Request for Information (RFI) seeking input from the public on the potential collection and sharing of information about consumers’ positive interactions with financial service providers. 
Broadly speaking, the Bureau sees two options for sharing positive consumer feedback about companies. One option is to provide more information about a company’s complaint handling such as highlighting the quality of responses to consumers. The second option is to collect and provide consumer compliments – independent of the complaint process. Today’s RFI seeks input on these options and welcomes other ideas. 
###

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau CFPB Seeks Public's Input for Review of the Credit Card Sector

Per press-release dated March 17, 2015, federal consumer protection agency CFPB invites consumers to participate in study of practices of credit card issuers, and how they affect customers. Comments are due within sixty days after publication of the notice in the Federal Register.  


CFPB logo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  March 17, 2015
CONTACT: Office of Communications Tel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU LAUNCHES PUBLIC INQUIRY TO INFORM AGENCY REVIEW OF THE 
CREDIT CARD MARKET 

Bureau Seeks Stakeholder Input on How the Credit Card Market Is Functioning 
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced it is seeking public comment on how the credit card market is functioning and the impact of credit card protections on consumers and issuers. This public inquiry will focus on issues including credit card terms, the use of consumer disclosures, credit card debt collection practices, and rewards programs, among others. 
“With today’s inquiry, the Bureau is seeking to further understand how the credit card market is working in practice and how credit card protections affect consumers and credit card issuers,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “As we undertake this review, the Bureau wants to ensure it understands the information that consumers, industry, advocates, and other stakeholders believe is most relevant.” 
In 2009, Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act, with the goal of bringing fairness and transparency to the credit card market. The CARD Act requires that the CFPB conduct a review of the consumer credit market every two years. As part of that review, the Bureau is seeking public comment from consumers, credit card issuers, industry analysts, consumer advocates, and others on the state of the credit card market. 
With today’s Request for Information, the CFPB is seeking to gather more information on how the credit card market is functioning and the continuing effects of the CARD Act on consumers. Some of the specific areas that the Bureau is requesting information on include: 
  • The terms of credit card agreements and practices of credit card issuers: The Bureau wants to know how the terms and conditions of credit card agreements may have changed since it conducted its review of the credit card market two years ago. The Bureau is looking to see how card issuers may have changed their pricing, marketing, underwriting, or other practices and whether those changes have benefited or harmed consumers. 
  • Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the credit card market: The Bureau is looking for information on the extent to which unfair or deceptive acts and practices, or unlawful discrimination, may still exist in the credit card market and with what frequency and effect on consumers. 
  • Debt collection practices within the credit card industry: The Bureau is looking for information on the collection of past due amounts on credit card accounts as well as debt collection practices within the credit card industry. Other areas the CFPB is seeking input on include how often card issuers use third-party collection agencies and how those relationships are managed. 
  • Consumer understanding of rewards products: The Bureau is looking for information on how credit card issuers determine that their disclosures for rewards products are being made in a clear and transparent manner, whether consumers understand these offers when applying for rewards credit cards, and how disclosures may be improved to benefit consumers. 
The CFPB review will culminate in a public report to Congress on the state of the consumer credit card market. The Bureau will use the data gathered to help inform future policy decisions on the topic. 
A copy of today’s Request for Information, as submitted to the Federal Register, can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201503_cfpb_card-act-report-rfi.pdf 
Comments on the Request for Information are due within 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 
###

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a 21st century agency that helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic lives. For more information, visit consumerfinance.gov


Agency Profile from the Federal Register website: CFPB 
(Click image for better view)