Last Fall, in its 2015 Rulemaking Agenda, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) signaled its intent to “to develop rules to define larger participants in markets for consumer installment loans.” Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is authorized to issue “larger participant” rules to define entities in a particular market for consumer financial products or services. The issuance of such rules opens the door for supervisory and examination authority over such entities. Fast forward to Spring 2016, when the CFPB announced that it is accepting complaints from consumers regarding alleged problems with online marketplace loans, and it appears that the CFPB has marketplace lenders squarely in its sights.
By: Kristie D. Kully
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently issued a final rule amending certain aspects of its integrated disclosure requirements under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Lending Act. The CFPB gave the mortgage lending and settlement industries over 18 months—until August 1, 2015—to prepare for the comprehensive overhaul of the disclosures provided to consumers upon application for and settlement of most residential mortgage loans. (Some have called that overhaul effort “TRID”—the TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosures.) During that preparation time, the CFPB has learned of the need for corrections or improvements to those complex requirements. In its latest rulemaking, the CFPB attempts to fix certain issues related to providing a revised Loan Estimate disclosure (the first part of TRID) when a creditor and consumer decide to lock in the interest rate or other charges, and when the creditor expects a long construction period prior to settlement. The new rule also requires loan originators to include their names and identification numbers on the Loan Estimate and the Closing Disclosure (the second part of TRID), and clarifies how creditors must disclose per diem interest. Below, is a description of the changes that the CFPB’s most recent rulemaking makes to the disclosure requirements under the original TRID rule.
Author’s Note: In response to the publication of the below post, a representative for the Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board advised us that the version of the proposed rules discussed in our original post are being withdrawn. A revised version of the proposed rules, based on comments received from appraisal management companies in response to the Board’s original proposal, is scheduled for publication in the Louisiana Register on or about February 20. We will update our analysis after the revised proposed rules are published, when they will be open for further comment.
A recently proposed Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board (“Board”) rule has created uncertainty in the Louisiana appraisal market regarding appraiser compensation. In proposing a rule that creates obligations inconsistent with those existing under federal law and rules, the Board has ignored the intent of the federal rule, caused conflict between state and federal law, and likely increased compliance costs for appraisal management companies (“AMCs”) – costs that may be passed along to lenders and consumers.
By: David A. Tallman
Adding to its already full plate, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB” or the “Bureau”) recently requested public comment on its review of the various consumer financial protection regulations it has inherited from other agencies. The request signals that the Bureau does not intend for its higher-profile mortgage finance initiatives to overshadow its mandate to update, modify (or even eliminate) outdated, unduly burdensome, or unnecessary existing regulations. It also suggests that the CFPB is contemplating that its initial review of the inherited regulations may extend beyond mere technical corrections to more significant substantive changes.