LENDERS COMPLIANCE GROUP®

AARMR | ABA | ACAMS | ALTA | ARMCP | IAPP | IIA | MBA | MERSCORP | MISMO | NAMB

Showing posts with label Mortgage Banking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mortgage Banking. Show all posts

Thursday, July 30, 2026

Overcoming the Fear of AI

QUESTION 

This is not an easy question for me to ask. I have a prominent position in my company and community. The company originates mortgage loans in almost all the states. Our employees have written a petition requesting a slowdown in our plans to implement artificial intelligence. The petition has been leaked to the local news outlet, and it is causing a stir among our customers – and not in a good way. 

I can't say I disagree with the staff. I'm also worried. But we also have to keep pace with industry standards, which are moving toward AI. There are many known-knowns, but even more unknown-unknowns. People are losing their jobs to AI bots. It seems to me we are in the early stages of a full-blown unemployment crisis caused by AI. 

So, I will admit. I am afraid of what is happening and what is going to come. You have written a lot about AI in our mortgage industry. I want your advice on overcoming my fear of AI. I believe I speak for many people when I admit that I am worried about where we are heading. I know you're not a psychologist. I've been reading you for many years, and you've always offered sober counsel. I want to distribute your response to our staff. 

How can we overcome the fear of AI? 

SOLUTION

We recommend:

AI POLICY PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKING

AI FOR MORTGAGE LOAN ORIGINATION

RESPONSE 

Thank you for your question. Too often we push away our fears, denying them rather than admitting them. AI represents far more than an economic revolution. It poses challenges in many areas of human activity. That suggests there is not just a single fear of AI but many. 

You may want to read some of the articles I have written about AI. Click Here. 

I am going to offer a few antidotes to address some of those AI-related fears. 

FIRST: Name the exact fear 

The first thing to do is name the exact fear. When you bunch together conceptual categories like known-knowns and unknown-unknowns, you create a colossal stressor that embeds itself in your mindset. 

To make it easier for you to contemplate, I am going to provide an outline of certain types of fears. One or more of them may resonate with you. I will return to the importance of naming the fear later on. 

"Fear of AI" is really an umbrella for several distinct fears, and they call for different responses:

 

  • Economic fear — "it'll take my job or devalue my skills" 
  • Control fear — "it'll make decisions about me I can't see or challenge" (hiring algorithms, insurance pricing, content moderation) 
  • Epistemic fear — "I won't be able to tell what's real" (deepfakes, AI-written text, and misinformation) 
  • Existential fear — "it could become powerful enough to act against human interests" 
  • Identity fear — "if a machine can write/paint/code, what's special about me doing it?" 
  • Pace fear — not about AI specifically, but about how fast everything is changing and feeling like you can't keep up 

Once you know which one (or more) you're actually carrying, you can look for information and actions that speak to that fear specifically, instead of feeling generally unsettled by "AI" as a monolith. 

SECOND: Get direct experience 

Fear feeds on abstraction. The fastest way to shrink it is contact with the actual thing:

 

  • Use a tool for something trivial and watch it get things right and wrong. 
  • Deliberately try to make it fail. Ask it something it can't know, or something tricky, and see it hedge, get confused, or make an error. This is clarifying: it shows you're dealing with a fallible tool, not an omniscient force. 
  • If your fear is job-related, look at how people in your actual field use these tools day to day, rather than trend pieces about "AI replacing X industry." 

Concrete, small-scale experience tends to replace catastrophic imagination with a more boring, accurate picture. 

THIRD: Understand the basic mechanics 

You don't need to code anything, just enough of a mental model to demystify it:

Wednesday, July 22, 2026

AI for Mortgage Loan Origination - New Manual

Introducing AI For Mortgage Origination! 
A Practical Manual for Growing Sales with Artificial Intelligence

We have received many requests for a manual that combines AI with sales and compliance. So we have created the "first in class" AI for Mortgage Loan Origination, a practical manual for growing sales with artificial intelligence, specifically meant for loan officers, branch managers, and sales leaders. 
 
This manual is a working guide for loan officers, branch managers, and sales leaders who want to use artificial intelligence to originate more mortgage loans without adding headcount or sacrificing compliance. It is organized around the loan officer's day-to-day workflow — finding borrowers, engaging them, moving files through processing, and closing — and shows where AI tools genuinely save time or lift conversion, and where a human still has to do the work. 

AI does not replace relationship-based selling in mortgage. It removes the repetitive, low-value tasks — data entry, first-draft content, routine follow-up, initial document review — so originators can spend more of their time on the calls and conversations that actually close loans.

HOW TO USE THIS MANUAL

Each chapter ends with an action checklist. Work through the manual in order the first time; after that, use it as a reference — jump to the chapter that matches the bottleneck in your pipeline this month.

THE APPROACH - FIVE POINTS IN YOUR FUNNEL

Prospect Find likely borrowers in public & licensed data

Engage Personalized outreach & 24/7 chat

Qualify Conversational pre-qual & income checks

Process Document classification & data extraction

Retain Refi alerts & rate-lock triggers

WHAT' S INSIDE — 9 CHAPTERS + APPENDICES


1 The AI Landscape for Loan Originators
        Where AI fits in the funnel, and what it still can't do.

2 AI-Powered Prospecting
        Predictive scoring and a compliant outreach workflow.

3 Lead Nurturing and Follow-Up
        Trigger sequences, rate alerts, conversational chatbots.

4 AI-Generated Marketing Content
        A repeatable brief-draft-edit workflow that clears compliance.

5 Pre-Qualification & Application Support
        Conversational intake and document intelligence.

6 Call Intelligence & Sales Coaching
        Turning sales calls into a shared coaching playbook.

7 Compliance, Risk & Fair Lending
        ECOA, FCRA, Reg Z, RESPA, UDAAP, 
        and a governance checklist.
 
8 Implementation Roadmap
        A 90-day rollout plan with clear team roles.

9 Measuring ROI
        The metrics that matter, and how to baseline them.

Most AI advice for loan officers is either a feature list with no compliance grounding, or a compliance memo with no growth
plan. 

This Manual is both — a chaptered, action-checklist playbook that follows your actual funnel from first contact to lifetime retention, with every recommendation according with Lenders Compliance Group's compliance standards.

Thursday, January 8, 2026

Staying Ahead of Regulatory Changes

YOUR QUESTION 

We are a small broker in the West. There are only four people in our company. We are licensed in three states. Every year, we get slammed with new compliance requirements from state and federal agencies. It's too much! Sometimes I think compliance is first and sales are second. Every year it gets worse and worse. 

Surely there is a way to keep track of these regulations without spending a ton of money on search engines and lawyers. I don't know what I don't know, and that is the problem. You don't have to give me every chapter and verse about what to do. I just need some advice on what I can do, given my limited means and staff. 

I need to get back to sales, but too much of my day is consumed by compliance. 

So, please let me know how to stay ahead of changing regulations. 

A Frustrated Broker 

OUR COMPLIANCE SOLUTION 

We recommend: 

BROKERS COMPLIANCE GROUP, the first full-service, mortgage risk management firm in the United States, specializing exclusively in outsourced mortgage compliance and offering a full suite of services to mortgage brokers, mini-correspondents, and independent mortgage professionals. 

OUR ANSWER 

I understand how you feel. It's the main reason why I started Lenders Compliance Group twenty years ago. 

Our Brokers Compliance Group supports the unique compliance needs of mortgage brokers. We have hundreds of brokers who let us handle their compliance so they can focus on sales and operations. 

Let me say this: there was a time, ages ago, when sales and compliance were separate activities, though they continually overlapped and coalesced. Now sales and compliance are cemented together. I know that's not what you want to hear, but it's true. 

Our industry is highly regulated, but given the tally of federal and state restrictions, it is not as regulated as others. Mortgage banking is categorically grouped within the finance and banking industries. It is certainly amongst the most highly regulated industries in the country. 

So, you will need to stay alert and proactive. However, there are several things you can do to reduce the time you give to monitoring and implementing regulations. It may seem daunting, but once you build momentum, you will be able to focus much more on sales. 

To prepare for regulatory changes, you should develop a proactive framework. By "framework," I mean a plan to closely monitor regulatory changes and, where needed, assess their impact on your origination processes. This plan should include feedback to update policies, provide training, test the loan flow process, maintain documentation, use methods to track changes, and audit ongoing compliance. You'll continually tweak the plan over the years. 

I'm going to break it down for you so that you get a feel for what I'm suggesting.

 

MONITOR

 

Develop a means to monitor court cases, enforcement actions, and regulatory bulletins. Because you have a small office, designate colleagues to track these early signals.

 

RESEARCH

 

Join, subscribe, or partner with industry associations and compliance advisors, such as Brokers Compliance Group. These resources usually provide content, updates, and specialized training.

 

TECHNOLOGY

 

Reduce research costs by using a cloud-based platform to alert you to regulatory changes. If you do not have the resources, you can partner with our compliance firm to get real-time feedback.

 

ASSESS & EVALUATE

 

Determine which business areas (for instance, lending, technology, operations) are affected by new rules (such as digital signage and AVMs). Identifying the impact strengthens compliance.

 

CONDUCT AUDITS

 

Perform internal audits or external audits to review your compliance management system. For a close look at a department, function, or regulation, use our inexpensive Compliance Tune-up.

Thursday, October 30, 2025

AI Policy Program for Mortgage Banking

QUESTION 

We need guidance on using artificial intelligence in our mortgage banking and servicing operations. Unfortunately, we have not found anything of much value. As the President and CEO of our company, I have met with our Board for almost a year to discuss governance and the utilization of AI. Being present in all states and territories, we require guidance on both state and federal requirements nationwide. 

Our lawyers provide us with white papers and legal guidance, but we have yet to receive policies based on mortgage banking experience and expertise. The last policy we got from them was basically useless. I'm a lawyer myself, but I don't need citations or case law. Why is it taking so long for professionals to provide us with the guidance we need to ensure compliance with AI-related issues? 

We need your help. For years, we have been following you. Recently, we decided to use your firm to support our compliance department. I spoke to you recently about this AI challenge, and you told me that your team is working on a comprehensive AI policy. I believe you said it would be published this month. Please share your AI policy with the mortgage community. 

What is the policy on artificial intelligence you are offering? 

COMPLIANCE SOLUTION 

Artificial Intelligence Policy Program for Mortgage Banking

ANSWER 

I enjoyed our call. We look forward to working with your compliance personnel. Indeed, we assembled a team of our compliance experts to develop policies and procedures for artificial intelligence. It quickly became clear that one policy would not do. In fact, several policies are needed. We realized that a comprehensive policy program was required, rather than just a single policy. A programmatic structure best meets the compliance demands. 

Today, we are issuing the first set of AI policies and procedures specifically designed for the mortgage banking industry. Consistent with its comprehensive approach, we have structured it as a policy program. Thus, there is a cost-effective base policy, as well as several supporting policies. At no additional cost, we maintain and expand the policy program for the first twelve months, as needed, and extensions are available. Updating is necessary in response to the rapidly changing regulatory environment associated with artificial intelligence. 

A few days ago, we conducted a demonstration for several regulators, examiners, and our money center bank clients. The feedback was enormously encouraging, and we were grateful for their interest. 

Order as soon as possible. There is already considerable demand! We will schedule collaborative support! 

Request Information Form

New Issuance 

Here is the Press Release! 

Outline 

Artificial Intelligence Policy Program for Mortgage Banking

1.     Artificial Intelligence Policy Program for Mortgage Banking – Overview

2.     Artificial Intelligence Policy – Foundational Guidelines

3.     Artificial Intelligence Workplace Policy

4.     Artificial Intelligence Credit Underwriting Policy

5.     Artificial Intelligence - Do & Do Not Policy

6.     Artificial Intelligence - Ethics Policy

Each of these policies interacts with and complements the others.

It is essential to work with our LCG Compliance Managers to conform the texts to ensure the policies accurately reflect the financial institution's actual use of Artificial Intelligence in its operations.

  • Policies are reviewed as stand-alone documents. A consolidated version of the policies is available.
  • LCG Compliance Manager support is included in the purchase price of the policy documents.
  • LCG will maintain the subject policies and procedures for 12 months from the purchase date.

Every effort will be made to conform the policies to the institution's compliance management system.

Upon reaching the final version, the Master is kept in our encrypted extranet for your use. The Master version is retained in the extranet and updated for substantive changes in applicable laws and Best Practices.

Request Information Form

For additional support or information, please email compliance@lenderscompliance group.com. 

Contact Us via our website.

For more articles on this topic, please visit: Artificial Intelligence.

________________________ 

This article, Artificial Intelligence Policy Program for Mortgage Banking, published on October 30, 2025, is authored by Jonathan Foxx, PhD, MBA, the Chairman & Managing Director of Lenders Compliance Group, the first and only full-service, mortgage risk management firm in the United States, specializing exclusively in residential mortgage compliance.

Thursday, October 23, 2025

Inflation, Tariffs, and Mortgage Lending

QUESTION 

I am the CFO of a mid-sized mortgage lender. We originate mortgages in 36 states. I am concerned about the impact that inflation has on mortgage banking. The tariffs are gradually driving up inflation, and economists predict a significant rise over time. 

I am concerned about being prepared for inflation's effects on mortgage lending. I'm sure we can prepare for inflation. But my question is about the impact and the signs to look for. Thank you for considering this question. 

What is the impact of inflation and tariffs on mortgage rates? 

OUR COMPLIANCE SOLUTION 

Secondary Tune-up

Our Secondary Tune-up helps to determine which aspects of a financial institution's Secondary Market program may be considered inadequate or defective. It is a mini-audit, targeted at Secondary Market activity, that reviews strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of this review is to provide information that will enable an organization to develop effective guidelines. At the heart of setting mortgage product pricing and rates amid intense competition is managing changes in expectations across the primary and secondary markets. Request Information 

ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION

You ask a good question. Often, mortgage originators focus on interest rates, and with good reason. Inflation indirectly increases mortgage rates by prompting central banks to raise interest rates to slow the economy, which in turn leads to higher monthly payments for new and adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). 

When rates rise, homebuyer affordability declines, and while fixed-rate borrowers are protected from future hikes, their new loans will have higher initial costs. For existing homeowners, high inflation can impact their decision to refinance, while low inflation may encourage them to lock in lower rates. 

I think you are correct to tie tariffs to interest rates. Tariffs can negatively affect mortgage lending by raising interest rates and increasing monthly payments, thereby reducing housing affordability. This is because tariffs can increase inflation, prompting central banks to raise interest rates, and can also cause market instability and reduce demand for U.S. debt, further pushing Treasury yields and mortgage rates upward. Additionally, tariffs on construction materials raise home prices and can lead to more volatile application volumes and tighter underwriting standards for lenders. 

CREDIT MARKETS 

While many people monitor equity indices, I keep an eye on credit markets. In my view, the credit indices tell me what is really happening in the economy. Credit is a crucial component of the financial system, influencing everything from individual finances to broader economic trends and serving as an indicator of economic health. So, while others look at stocks and other equity instruments, I look at the primary, secondary, public, and private credit markets. 

Prevailing interest rates are a key indicator of the health of the credit market. The level of investor demand also signals market conditions. And, the difference in interest rates between different types of bonds, like government bonds versus corporate bonds, can indicate economic risk. A widening spread can signal that investors are viewing corporate bonds as riskier, possibly foreshadowing a recession. 

So, let's dig deeper into the impact of inflation on mortgage banking. 

INFLATION 

When inflation is high, the Federal Reserve may increase its benchmark interest rate to cool the economy. This directly leads to higher interest rates on new mortgages and can increase the monthly payments on existing ARMs. Higher interest rates and home prices make mortgages more expensive, reducing a borrower's purchasing power and forcing them to buy smaller or less expensive homes. High inflation might prompt some borrowers to take out an ARM with the expectation that rates will fall, enabling them to refinance later. 

A fixed-rate mortgage offers some protection. Once a fixed-rate mortgage is secured, the interest rate will not change, even if inflation continues to rise. In a high-inflation environment, a fixed-rate mortgage taken out at a lower rate becomes more valuable compared to new mortgages with higher rates. 

Thus, refinancing becomes prevalent. If inflation is high and rates are rising, homeowners with existing fixed-rate mortgages may be hesitant to refinance, as new loans will have higher rates.

And when inflation is low and interest rates are lower, more homeowners may look to refinance their existing mortgages to lock in a better rate.

Thursday, June 15, 2023

A Fintech's Smug President

QUESTION

We are a fintech that is growing quickly. I am the company’s General Counsel. Our President is a bit arrogant and cavalier. He is only interested in attracting investors and clients. Regulation takes a distant second place. I’ve had enough of the non-compliance. I’ve tried unsuccessfully to get him to recognize the legal exposure. I’m done. I’m resigning. My last day is the end of the week. 

Before I go, I am sending this message to you. The President reads your MortgageFAQs newsletter and quotes it all the time. I have read your writing for years, and I know you do not condone workarounds, short-term fixes, and non-compliance with appropriate regulations. I hope you will consider telling your readers why Fintechs must comply with the CFPB’s expectations. 

The CFPB has been increasingly active in its review of fintech activities. It is flexing its supervisory and enforcement authority more and more. The litigation is piling up. I was hoping you could let the fintechs know they can expect considerable examination and enforcement initiatives by the CFPB. 

Why is it important for fintechs to comply with the CFPB’s rules? 

ANSWER

I’m sorry you have been so frustrated. Your message notes that you are going into private practice. Working for a difficult President can burn out even the most resilient staff. I hope you will stay alert to fintech rules and regulations. These companies need people like you as a beacon for compliance. 

Fintech compliance is relatively new. Recently, AI is getting integrated into fintech technologies. Most people in the financial services community think of fintech as applications (or “apps”) involved in financial transactions. There are fintech apps that run quite a spectrum of services, including apps involved in payments, crypto, investments, advisories, and so-called P2Ps (viz., peer-to-peer). 

The fintech categories are very broad, all in some way connected to financial services transactions. Examples include mortgage banking, various types of unsecured lending, payments, money transfers (domestic and international), equity finance, and consumer banking. 

For instance, you can go to your non-bank, bank, or credit union for a loan or apply online and, in many cases, apply using an app. Fintech’s automated systems and AI speed up the approval process to minutes or seconds. This is done using software to determine a borrower’s creditworthiness, advancing the results to an automated underwriting process, and producing an approval at dazzling speed. 

PayPal is an example of a fintech company – one of the largest. It has a global reach and many platform configurations, and it offers instant transactional opportunities to individuals and businesses worldwide. You may not realize it, but Visa, Mastercard, Intuit, Square, Robinhood, Binance, and Venmo are fintech companies.[i] There are hundreds of fintech companies, and many more are proliferating rather quickly. 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is mandated to ensure consumers have access to fair, transparent, and competitive markets for consumer financial products and services. Importantly, the CFPB’s supervisory and enforcement requirements pertain to fintechs. 

Let’s get to your question about why fintechs should comply with the CFPB’s rules.

I suggest there are at least three reasons why fintech enterprises should comply with CFPB requirements, beginning with the CFPB’s jurisdiction and power to investigate fintechs. Congress granted the CFPB the authority to police markets for consumer financial products or services,[ii] including consumer credit products, deposit-taking activity, payment processing, and debt collection, to name just a few. 

The policing is done by supervising subject institutions and enterprises and enforcing violations of law against those that offer or provide consumer financial products or services or provide a material service to a consumer financial services provider. And, to be sure, this includes fintechs. 

The Bureau has been increasingly active in supervision, enforcement, and rulemaking involving the fintech industry, many non-bank financial services providers. The CFPB will continue to develop rulemaking to expand its purview to large non-depository lenders. 

Indeed, whether partnered with banks or acting alone, fintech companies are subject to the CFPB’s supervision. 

In connection with the foregoing, tangling with the Bureau could engender a risk of penalties and injunctive relief. Several administrative consent orders come to mind. For instance, the CFPB entered into a consent order with two payment processors and their owners, requiring them to pay $3 million in penalties and refund over $8 million in fees.[iii] 

The CFPA has also sought injunctive relief in enforcement actions. The Bureau’s Director, Rohit Chopra, has said that it is seeking to enforce “limits on activities or functions of a firm” to promote “structural” changes at financial services firms to prevent future violations.[iv] 

If the law will not constrain your President, maybe reputational harm would mean something to him. When the CFPB conducts a public enforcement action or just publicly discloses an investigation, the harm to the fintech’s reputation can be enormous, perilous, and perhaps fatal. 

If an app or online application is going to replace the traditional means of banking, consumers will want to trust the fintech’s brand – which, from a marketing perspective, is critical to its survival! Reputational damage due to adverse findings issued by the CFPB could also affect a fintech’s relationships with its investors, which will surely impair future fundraising efforts. 

Such CFPB actions would tend to impact a fintech’s relationship with other regulators – federal or state agencies – and could hinder the fintech’s efforts to obtain necessary state licenses, among other things. 

Now, I realize that you are parting with the fintech enterprise. However, your President is doing a disservice to his fintech company and other similarly situated companies by not hiring a compliance professional familiar with fintech business, customers, stress and risk points, and compliance requirements. What the President thinks about compliance will be of no consequence if the company cannot mitigate legal and regulatory risks. A fintech operating without an understanding and respecting the CFPB’s guidelines is exposed to considerable CFPB scrutiny. 


Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA
Chairman & Managing Director 
Lenders Compliance Group


[i] For a recent list of the largest fintech companies, see Top Fintech Unicorns, 2021 Review, 2022 Update, Centre for Finance, Technology and Entrepreneurship (CFTE), https://courses.cfte.education/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Top-Fintech-Unicorns-in-2022.pdf; and Largest Fintech Companies by Market Valuation, https://courses.cfte.education/ranking-of-largest-fintech-companies

[ii] Title 12 – Banks and Banking, Chapter 42, Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protections, Subchapter V, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, see also USC edition, Supplement 2

[iii] In the Matter of: RAM Payment, LLC, inter alia, and Gregory Winters, and Stephen Chaya, Administrative Proceeding No. 2022-CFPB-0003, May 11, 2022

[iv] “Reining in Repeat Offenders”: 2022 Distinguished Lecture on Regulation, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Speech, Chopra, Rohit, March 28, 2022

Thursday, January 26, 2023

Nonbank Public Registry Proposal

QUESTION 

I would like to know more about the public registry that the CFPB is now trying to set up. I don't think it's fair any more than I thought it was fair years ago when the CFPB wanted to list complaints against us lenders and brokers. 

It seemed then, as it does now, as a kangaroo court where we don't get to defend ourselves! At this time, when we're already suffering from low volume, the last thing we need is the CFPB starting up another public registry. 

Here's what I want to know: What is this new public registry all about? 

ANSWER 

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has had a public-facing facility called the Consumer Complaint Database (CCD) for years. Consumers who allege financial harm contact the CFPB and lodge complaints relating to a laundry list of possible products and services. 

Here is a list of some products and services covered in the CCD:

 

·       Checking and savings accounts

·       Credit cards

·       Credit repair services

·       Credit reports and other personal consumer reports

·       Debt collection

·       Debt settlement

·       Money transfers, virtual currency, and money services

·       Mortgages

·       Payday loans

·       Personal loans (i.e., installment and title loans)

·       Prepaid cards

·       Student loans

·       Vehicle loans or leases

However, let me disabuse you of one notion: the CCD does not publish information that directly identifies your company. But, the CFPB will contact you directly about the complaint, and, if you're not responsive or can't be reached, it will send the complaint to another federal agency to contact you. That said, the Bureau will also provide the complaint information to state and federal agencies that are involved in supervision (i.e., state banking departments), enforcement (i.e., FBI), and monitoring the market for consumer financial products and services (i.e., FTC). 

The CFPB is now proposing a public registry for terms and conditions in form contracts that waive or limit consumer rights and protections.[i] The registry specifically would apply to nonbanks.[ii] A form contract is a "take-it-or-leave-it" contract between two parties where the terms and conditions of the contract are determined by one of the parties, and the other party has little or no ability to negotiate more favorable terms, thereby putting them in a "take it or leave it" position. You may have heard the term "boilerplate" contract; it's pretty much the same thing. 

There are specified exceptions;[iii] however, all nonbanks subject to CFPB supervisory jurisdiction, including those operating in payday lending, private student loan origination, and mortgage lending and servicing, would be subject to this proposed rule. Larger participants operating in student loan servicing, automobile financing, consumer reporting, consumer debt collection, and international remittances would also be subject to the rule. 

Many of these boilerplate contracts are lengthy and filled with verbose legalese. This does not mean all such contracts are inherently adverse to the consumer. Imagine how ridiculous it would be if each sale of every product or service required new drafts resulting from negotiated, long-settled standards. But imagine if a company drafts unfair terms and conditions, by which I mean, among other things, they allow the seller to avoid all liability or unilaterally modify terms or terminate the contract. 

Here's the reality: some companies stick in the fine print and even not-so-fine-print certain terms and conditions that attempt to take away consumer protections, limit how consumers exercise their rights, or silence consumer complaints or criticism; indeed, the terms and conditions potentially undermine consumer financial protection law. These boilerplate contracts often deprive consumers of choice, leaving only one choice: sign the contract. 

Here are a few examples of some "take-it-or-leave-it" terms and conditions that can be legally "controversial," to say the least: bankruptcy rights, liability amounts, or complaint rights. These boilerplate contract clauses claim to waive or limit consumer rights and protections. Have you ever been warned to "read the fine print?" The CFPB, in effect, wants to be sure the consumer is warned about the "fine print." 

It may shock you, but in some cases, the terms and conditions in boilerplate contracts mislead consumers into believing the terms or conditions are legally enforceable. In any event, the CFPB is seeking a way, through the proposed public registry, to require nonbanks to submit information on terms and conditions in boilerplate contracts, where there are provisions to waive or limit consumers' rights and other legal protections. 

And, yes, that information would be posted in a public registry available to the public and, of course, to enforcement entities involved in consumer financial protection. The CFPB’s rule would require nonbanks that are subject to CFPB supervision and that use form contracts to impose terms and conditions that limit or purport to limit consumer rights and legal protections to register with the CFPB. 

The CFPB has provided some examples of terms and conditions in boilerplate contracts that are onerous, which is the term I use when I don’t want to say litigious. Here are four types of terms and conditions that would be included in the public registry.[iv]

Waive Servicemembers’ Legal Protections

The Military Lending Act (MLA) and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) set limits on the cost of loans for military families and include numerous other important consumer protections. The MLA broadly prohibits waivers of legal protections and arbitration agreements, and the SCRA limits waivers of its protections. However, some companies include banned arbitration agreements to try to avoid accountability for loans to military families. Other companies have faced regulatory action related to how they obtain waivers of SCRA protections.

 

Undermine Credit Reporting Rights

In contracts for credit monitoring products, some consumer reporting companies use terms and conditions that seek to block the ability of consumers to pursue legal action, including through class action lawsuits, to remedy alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. For example, a term or condition may seek to limit liability to a class of consumers when a consumer reporting company fails to investigate inaccurate information on numerous consumer reports reasonably.

 

Limit Lender Liability for Bank Fees from Lender’s Repeated Debit Attempts

In contracts for short-term small-dollar loans, some companies seek to waive liability for bank fees that borrowers incur when the lender engages in repeated attempts to debit payments from an account that lacks sufficient funds to cover the debit.

 

Mislead Consumers by Using Unenforceable Waivers in Mortgage Contracts


CFPB examiners have regularly identified deceptive acts and practices committed through mortgage lenders’ use of waivers and limitations inconsistent with the Truth in Lending Act’s restrictions on the use of waivers and limitations in such transactions.

 

So, what would happen if the proposed rule becomes final? The CFPB would provide the following information to the public regarding nonbank terms and conditions, presumably giving consumers a better understanding of their consumer and legal rights.[v] 

There are two explicit goals[vi] that the CFPB wants to effectuate, as follows: 

Identify and Collect Information on Form Contract Terms and Conditions that Seek to Waive or Limit Consumer Rights and Other Legal Protections 

Under the proposal, the CFPB would seek information on contract terms and conditions seeking to waive any constitutional, statutory, or common law legal protection, right, or defense; restrict the ability of consumers to complain; limit the time or place for consumers to bring legal actions; limit liability amounts; waive class action rights; and impose arbitration provisions. Both company information and information about the use of the terms and conditions would be published. 

Increase Market Transparency and Improve Risk-based Oversight 

When standard terms and conditions limit consumers' ability to protect themselves, increased public oversight is necessary, and the registry would provide important support for the CFPB’s monitoring of supervised markets. Specifically, collecting and publishing information about the identities of nonbanks and their contract terms and conditions would allow for enhanced risk-based government oversight. The CFPB and agencies from all levels of government would be able to consider the information when prioritizing their supervision and enforcement resources.

 

A final few words about the selection criteria to be applied. The proposed rule would require covered persons to register with the CFPB if they have one or more “covered orders.” A covered order refers to public court judgments or agency orders obtained or issued by a federal, state, or local agency. The covered order must have an effective date on or later than January 1, 2017, and must resolve alleged violations of a “covered law” in connection with the offering or provision of a consumer financial product or service. A covered law, in turn, generally includes:

- a Federal consumer financial law (which is the term of art for the approximately 20 laws, such as the Truth in Lending Act and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, that the CFPB administers);

- any other law that the CFPB may enforce (such as the Military Lending Act);

- the prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAPs) under section 5 of the FTC Act; and,

- a state law prohibiting unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (viz., identified in an appendix to the proposed rule).

 

A covered order must also contain provisions requiring the company to “take certain actions or refrain from taking certain actions,” that is, containing injunctive or remedial provisions. Various authorities beyond the CFPB, such as the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, and state regulatory agencies, could issue such covered orders. 

 

Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA

Chairman & Managing Director

Lenders Compliance Group



[i] Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders, Proposed Rule with request for public comment, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 12 CFR Part 1092, Docket Number CFPB-2022-0080, RIN 3170-AB13, December 12, 2022

[ii] Nonbanks that are subject to the CFPB’s supervision and examination authority are: all nonbanks in the mortgage, private student lending, and payday industries; larger participants, as defined by CFPB regulations, in the following industries: consumer reporting, consumer debt collection, student loan servicing, international money transfer, and automobile financing; and companies designated for supervision pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5514(a)(1)(C), which authorizes the CFPB to designate particular companies for supervision based on their risks to consumers (viz., I am not aware of any such designated companies).

[iii] For instance, the proposal excludes companies that are subject to CFPB supervision only because they are service providers to supervised nonbanks.

[iv] CFPB Proposes Rule to Establish Public Registry of Terms and Conditions in Form Contracts That Claim to Waive or Limit Consumer Rights and Protections, Announcement, January 11, 2023 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

[v] The proposal states that the registry would not be implemented until at least January 2024.

[vi] Op. cit. iv

Thursday, November 17, 2022

Snollygosters and Throttlebottoms

QUESTION 

I have been reading about the CFPB coming under attacks as being unconstitutional. If it is found to be unconstitutional, we are concerned about everything it has done all these years, such as whether we are going to still be required to follow all its rules and regulations. 

It seems to me the politicians who created the CFPB should have thought of its constitutionality before setting it up in the first place. We send them to Congress, they create the CFPB, and then it is found to be unconstitutional years later. I think that could affect the whole shebang of policies my company put in place for years at a huge expense. 

I'm no lawyer but most of these Congress critters are lawyers. They should know how to write a constitutional law. I am frustrated. I am concerned about CFPB enforcement, too. Especially at this time, I do not have the money to reset our policies to pre-CFPB conditions if the CFPB's authority is destroyed. 

I have read your articles for years. I know you can explain what is going on. 

What are the implications of the CFPB being considered unconstitutional? 

ANSWER 

I have received many questions along the lines of your inquiry. Quit paying so much attention to snollygosters who prey on your fears. Fear gets people fired up, which is the point of it all. Then they get all charged up, go out to vote, and, lo and behold, they elect the fearmongering throttlebottoms who proceed to screw up the machinery with anfractuous, circuitous, serpentine, and tortuous crepitations of impending apocalypse. 

Let's dispense with the realm of signs, portents, and omens. 

So, first and foremost, take a deep breath. The CFPB's rules are not going anywhere for now. However, there are some litigation challenges along the way that will need to be vetted. 

A few weeks ago, on October 19, 2022, three judges in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is unconstitutional.[i] Specifically, the court found it was a violation of the Appropriations Clause[ii] of the Constitution for the CFPB to receive funds upon the CFPB Director's request to the Federal Reserve instead of through Congressional appropriations. 

The instant case involves a challenge to the validity of the payment provisions of the CFPB's 2017 Payday Lending Rule ("Rule"). Under the Rule, lenders are prohibited from making payment transfers from consumer accounts after two consecutive failed attempts due to insufficient funds unless the consumer authorizes such attempts. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the CFPB. But, on appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the CFPB's promulgation of the Rule, alleging that the Rule was promulgated by a Director who could not be removed, which means the Director is "insulated" from removal. (I'll come back to the implications of the Director being "insulated" momentarily.) The plaintiffs further alleged that the CFPB's rulemaking itself is violative of the non-delegation doctrine and that the CFPB's means of receiving funds violates the Appropriations Clause. 

The non-delegation doctrine stems from the Constitution's vesting clause and separation of powers. The doctrine is an interpretation derived from Article I, Section I of the Constitution that declares all legislative power granted by the Constitution is vested in the Congress, the legislative branch. Thus, it's a principle in administrative law that holds Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities, such as delegating its power to administrative agencies or private organizations. 

The court said that the way the CFPB receives funds allows the CFPB to have a "double insulation" from the Congressional appropriation power: the CFPB Director's requesting funds from the Federal Reserve, which the Director deems "to be reasonably necessary," violates Congress's appropriations power. 

Furthermore, the court reasoned that the Federal Reserve itself falls outside of Congress's appropriations power because it receives funds from bank assets not subject to review by the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations. 

Therefore, the court found that Congress's authorization of the CFPB to promulgate the Rule was not unconstitutional, but the CFPB improperly used unappropriated funds to engage in the rulemaking process. In its reasoning, the court clarified that the CFPB lacked the ability to exercise the power to promulgate the Rule through constitutionally appropriated funds. 

In my view, this ruling will not have much or any impact on the structure of the CFPB. The court's ruling focuses on how the CFPB receives its funding and its violation of the Appropriations Clause. I think it's unlikely that this case will have any effect on the CFPB's enforcement powers as a regulatory agency. 

That word "unlikely" is doing a lot of work there. I happen to think the CFPB's funding mechanism is constitutional under the Appropriations Clause; in fact, the CFPB must ask Congress for any money it receives out of the Treasury, which goes for several other federal agencies operating similarly, including the FDIC

The court must recognize the potentially devastating consequences that could result from interfering with the funding practices of all independently funded government agencies. We know this because the court specifically limited its reasoning to the CFPB. It did this juridical prestidigitation by claiming that the CFPB's authority is unlike those of other federal regulators and that its funding independence "goes a significant step further." How it goes a "significant step further" is somewhat of a mystery. 

I fail to see the difference. And if there is a difference, the court does not bother to explain why those differences are constitutionally significant, as far as I can tell. 

As the Constitutional Accountability Center has stated:


"Despite the court's attempt to carve out a special rule for the CFPB, its reasoning would seemingly apply to the host of other financial regulators that are independently funded, including the Federal Reserve Board, which supervises and regulates numerous banking institutions."[iii]

So, the court has put the CFPB and many similarly funded agencies into a reductio ad absurdum conundrum since it now calls into question the rules, guidance, and orders that the CFPB and the other agencies have issued, inasmuch as they are similarly funded like the CFPB. For instance, agencies similarly funded outside the congressional appropriations process are the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). 

The ruling attempts a surgical clip but winds up taking a machete to many agencies. 

Indeed, the CFPB has already stated that the Fifth Circuit's decision is "neither controlling nor correct" and "mistaken." The CFPB has stated, "there is nothing novel or unusual about Congress's decision to fund the CFPB outside of annual spending bills."[iv] 

This past Monday, November 14th, the CFPB petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the U. S. Supreme Court, saying that the Fifth Circuit’s decision "threatens to inflict immense legal and practical harms on the CFPB, consumers, and the nation’s financial sector.”[v] 

The CFPB should now request a stay from the Fifth Circuit pending the Supreme Court decision, or, if denied by the Fifth Circuit, it should ask for a stay from the Supreme Court. If the CFPB doesn’t get a stay, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Fifth Circuit’s decision could impede the CFPB’s litigating of current cases while also potentially impacting past enforcement actions and rulemaking.[vi]

Jonathan Foxx, Ph.D., MBA
Chairman & Managing Director

Lenders Compliance Group


[i] Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited; Consumer Service Alliance of Texas v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Rohit Chopra, in his official capacity as Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Case 21-50826

[ii] Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, U. S. Constitution: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

[iii] As Wrong as It is Dangerous: The Fifth Circuit’s Decision Holding the CFPB Funding Structure Unconstitutional, Constitutional Accountability Center, https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/blog-as-wrong-as-it-is-dangerous-the-fifth-circuits-decision-holding-the-cfpb-funding-structure-unconstitutional

[iv] Appeals court finds CFPB funding unconstitutional, Katy O'Donnell, October 19, 2022, statement to Politico from CFPB spokesperson Sam Gilford. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/19/appeals-court-cfpb-unconstitutional-00062626

[v] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Et Al, v Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, Et Al, Petition for a Write of Certiorari, November 14, 2022, section Reasons for Granting the Petition, p. 10

[vi] Ibid. Reasons for Granting the Petition, Section B. The Decision Below Warrants Review, And The Court Should Hear The Case This Term, p. 28