Faith, Hal, Katherine, Anthony & Rob close out the year with the following topics:
–Interchange rates and the CFPB
–Passing on assessments to members
–Letter No 10-FCU-03 Re: Sales of Nondeposit Investments (replacement for Letter No. 150)
–Compliance methodology (or why Anthony won’t let us make stuff up anymore)
–Big K Roundup
–New Year’s resolutions.
Sound editing by Victor Khaze
The CIiCU hosts are:
Brian Witt
Hal Scoggins
Farleigh Wada Witt,
Attorneys at Law
121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-228-6044
Fax: 503-228-1741
http://www.fwwlaw.com
Guy Messick
Katherine Weber
Messick & Weber P.C.
211 North Olive Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone 610-891-9000
Fax 610-891-9008
http://www.cusolaw.com
Faith Anderson
American Airlines Credit Union
P.O. Box 619001
MD 2100
DFW Airport, TX
75261-9001
(800) 533-0035
https://www.aacreditunion.org/default.asp
Anthony Demangone
AFCU Director of Regulatory Compliance
NAFCU – National Association of Federal Credit Unions
3138 10th Street North
Arlington, VA 22201-2149
Telephone: 703-522-4770
Toll-Free: 800-336-4644
Fax: 703-524-1082
http://www.nafcu.org/
Robert Rutkowski
Shareholder
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.
323 W. Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Telephone: 216-739-5004
Fax: 216-739-5642
http://www.thatcreditunionblog.com
http://www.weltman.com
Subcribe to the show via iTunes Music Store: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=151785964&s=143441
Direct download: CIICU_55_Final.mp3
(authors note – the views expressed here are NOT the views of my employer, Verity Credit Union)
In September, I attended the Washington Credit Union League conference. One of my favorite sessions was a panel facilitated by Frank Diekmann. The panelists were James Kwak, co-author of the book 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, Ben Rogers, research director at Filene Research Institute and Michael Steinberger, associate dean, Western CUNA Management School.
Toward the end of the discussion, Frank asked the presenters what the last few years have taught them.
James Kwak gave, what I thought, was a fascinating answer. He replied, “That we can’t rely on credit scores to evaluate credit worthiness anymore.”
I thought it was fascinating because just a few weeks before, I had burst into my boss’ office and said the exact same thing. What made me so passionately argue this fact with the CEO of my credit union?
A trip to Costco.
I had just learned that there was a possibility that my book might be featured in Costco Connection. Since that newsletter goes out to 8 million households, I wanted to make sure I hadn’t let my membership lapse. As I was standing in the bustling Costco, upgrading to an Executive Membership, the Costco employee asked me if I wanted to apply for a credit card.
My mind raced. Do I want to apply? I would probably be turned down. But maybe having their credit card might make me a better candidate for the newsletter? I must have been nodding my head while I was debating with myself because she said, “OK, it will just be a minute.”
I started to sweat as I waited. This was 2009. My husband had been “underemployed” that whole year; making less at his freelance job than we expected. Our daycare bill was almost $30,000 annually and I had borrowed from our 401(k) to pay off some of our student loan debt.
“Alright! You are approved for a $3,000 credit card. “
I couldn’t believe it. But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. My credit score has always been in the high 700’s. A credit report doesn’t capture reduced income, non-reported loans nor high expenses. All of the things that make me a poor credit risk are not captured on a credit report. And that’s not good.
Enter Robert Manning. Dr. Manning, director of the center for consumer financial services at the Rochester Institute of Technology, devised an algorithm that statistically estimates the net return to creditors. In other words, instead of relying on a score that only reports past performance, he designed a way to predict future returns. I listened to him present when I was on Filene’s i3 team. Putting it over-simply, his program determines a person’s cash flow.
There are two types of scenarios that credit scores do not protect us against.
The first is the member who has had a long period of unemployment. They have not been able to pay their bills for a few months and they went delinquent. But now they are employed and are current on all obligations. They now have the capacity and the character to repay the credit union, but the credit union will not grant them credit because of a low credit score.
The second scenario is the member who has pristine credit rating, but is not making ends meet. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul. They have huge expenses, like daycare, that makes them struggle to pay bills every month. They have not been late yet, but any minute, their house of cards will crumble. The credit union will grant them more credit because of their good credit score.
In both scenarios a cash flow analysis would be a great assistance. It would tell you that the first person will pay the credit union back and the second person cannot. I remember when our credit union was implementing business lending. The mantra of our consultant was “Cash is king. Collateral is crap.” Are we to a point where “Cash is king and credit scores are crap?” Probably not. But I do think that running a second analysis on each credit applicant, using Robert Manning’s tool, would help credit unions underwrite better. I think it would further help them avoid risk and keep them from turning their back on a viable member opportunity.
Underwriting is still a huge issue for all financial institutions. Until the crystal ball is invented, I think credit unions would benefit from taking a look at what Robert Manning has to offer.
Shari Storm is Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer of Verity Federal Credit Union and is the author of the book ‘Motherhood is the New MBA”, available here.
By: Rob
A client of mine asked me today whether or not the credit union could create a fee to its membership that would pick up approximately one third of the cost of the assessments NCUA has given them. While this blog is not about giving legal advice it is certainly about sharing information (and my creative client wholeheartedly supports sharing this idea).
When a credit union wants to institute a new fee, it needs to do a change in terms notice. Take a look at the NCUA Rules and Regulations Part 707, Truth in Savings in §707.5:
(a) Change in terms.
(1) Advance notice required. A credit union shall
give advance notice to affected members of any change
in a term required to be disclosed under § 707.4(b), if
the change may reduce the annual percentage yield or
adversely affect the member. The notice shall include the
effective date of the change. The notice shall be mailed
or delivered at least 30 calendar days before the effective
date of the change.
Thus, in theory, a credit union could give 30 days notice to its members about the imposition of a new, annual “NCUA Fee” (or whatever you want to call it) applicable to every share account. It is an interesting thought and there is more to it with respect to calling attention to the fee change in the notice to members, etc. Also, I’m not one to advocate increasing members fees, however, if the credit union is facing oblivion in the face of assessments, a new fee to members is certainly preferable to the credit union ceasing to exist.
Please remember that you’re reading this on a blog. If you want to explore this concept as a possibility, please do your due diligence before moving forward with it.
Edit: Also take a look at this NCUA Opinion Letter (thanks Anthony). NCUA doesn’t like the idea of league dues being passed on directly. However, NCUA assessments are not dues and this does not have to be characterized as a membership fee. Moreover, even if a Federal Credit Union could not create an “NCUA” fee, it could certainly raise other fees to create more revenue.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Most people involved in the lending process understand that in certain instances a consumer has a 3-day right of rescission under Regulation Z. However, in certain cases, this rescission period can be far, far longer if something has gone wrong in the lending process. By far longer, I mean years and years later and usually only after the consumer has been sued for not paying on the mortgage. Much of this law over the years has come from courts seeking to allow borrowers to get out from under a loan for a variety of reasons.
It comes as a pleasant surprise then that in the face of the avalanche of pro-consumer legislation recently that the Federal Reserve Board apparently has proposed to require homeowners who are looking to rescind beyond that 3-day period to pay the entire principal balance on the loan first. I say apparently because this goes back to an August press release that is only garnering attention from pro-consumer groups now. It seems to have flown under the radar for a few months, but the comment period expires on December 23, so there is still plenty of time to express one’s thoughts on the issue.
The froth of anger from some of these articles is rather intense. The proposal would change something that acts as a lien stripping provision to something that is a true rescission. Pay us and we’ll release our lien. The lender still takes a hit on fees and interest but retains its status as a secured lender until it gets paid (which is particularly important in the bankruptcy context or when the consumer is otherwise uncollectible). Given the incredible pro-consumer turn that regulations have taken recently, it just seems surprising that this would hit a consumer activist hot button because this proposal is very limited in scope and only affects a comparatively small number of consumers. The reality is that rescission was never intended to give borrowers a windfall. If a lender gets its principal balance back as opposed to losing the entire distribution of the loan proceeds to an insolvent or bankrupt consumer, that is clearly more just than the contrary. If a consumer has actually been wronged, Regulation Z provides a plethora of other remedies to address the entire spectrum of lender misdeeds.
Filed under: compliance, credit unions | Tags: arbitration agreements, Consumer Rights, model disclosures, Remittance Transfer Rules, small business loans, TILA, Truth in Lending Act
Compliance—it can quite possibly make or break credit unions. In recent months, Congress and Statehouses have teamed up to roll out a myriad of new legislation creating new and burdensome requirements applicable to many financial institutions including credit unions. In particular, the recently passed Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank Act) is certain to produce a large volume of new regulations and reporting burdens[1]. The by-product of such massive legislation will undoubtedly increase regulatory costs and competitive pressures. Without effective and efficient compliance programs in place, credit unions will either fare poorly in the periodic safety and soundness examinations and/or become financially overburdened by the inability to control costs associated with inefficient compliance programs.
This new era of regulation will require many credit unions to revolutionize their compliance programs. Unlike larger banks, credit unions do not have a large amount of resources to dedicate to large and involved compliance programs[2]. Accordingly, credit unions must consider new and cost effective approaches for navigating through such legislation as the Dodd-Frank Act. Failure to establish an efficient and cost-effective compliance program will likely result in the diversion of too many resources to compliance related issues rather than meeting members’ needs.
The goal of this Article is to demonstrate the need to evaluate your compliance program and determine whether it is capable of handling the new financial services regulations. If you are not convinced and/or believe that your current compliance program will suffice, please consider the significant regulatory and legal consequences that will stem from the Dodd-Frank Act. A brief explanation of the reach and the volume of regulations that will result from the Act will illustrate the importance of an efficient and competent compliance program.
The Dodd-Frank Act is over 2,300 pages in length and was originally designed to address the issues related to the financial meltdown[3]. The Act, as passed, reaches far beyond its original purpose. What is known is that there are more than 60 studies to be performed, more than 50 committees to be formed, and more than 5,000 pages of regulations still to be written[4]. Accordingly, much uncertainty still remains as the Act leaves an extraordinary number of matters to be addressed through rulemaking and other regulatory action.
Highlights of the key provisions of the Act are as follows: (1) A new risk-based approach to financial services regulation; (2) new regulation of systemically risky institutions; (3) increased bank supervision; (4) limits on bank investment and related activities; (5) heightened regulation of mortgages; and (6) heightened focus on consumer protection.
The heightened focus on consumer protection is one area of the Act sure to burden credit unions’ compliance departments. One of the sections of the Act that focuses on consumer protection is Title X. Title X creates the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau), which is housed within the Federal Reserve System[5]. The Bureau’s primary supervisory and enforcement powers extend to depository institutions with over $10 billion in assets and certain non-depository institutions[6]. With regard to depository institutions with assets of $10 billion or less, prudential regulators are vested with exclusive authority to enforce the provisions of federal consumer financial law[7]. The Bureau, however, maintains a secondary role in supervising depository institutions with assets of $10 billion or less[8]. For example, the Bureau may require reports from smaller insured depository institutions. In the event of a material violation, the Bureau has the authority to notify the prudential regulator and recommend appropriate action[9].
The Bureau is tasked with enforcing new and existing federal consumer financial protection laws and rules to ensure that the markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent and competitive. Therefore, the Bureau is granted exclusive authority to issue regulations, orders, and guidance implementing federal consumer financial law[10]. Below is a list and a brief explanation of the legislative changes implemented under Title X that the Bureau is responsible for enforcing. Each of these legislative changes is applicable to depository institutions with assets of $10 billion or less and may be enforced by prudential regulators and monitored by the Bureau:
1. Tracking Provisions for Small Business Loans: Title X amends the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, requiring financial institutions to inquire whether a business applying for credit is a small business, a women or minority owned business, and to maintain a record of responses to those inquires. The Bureau is required to issue guidance to facilitate compliance with this requirement[11].
2. Limitations on Arbitration Agreements: The new rule allows the Bureau to impose conditions or limitations on the use of arbitration agreements if the Bureau finds that such conditions or limitations are in the interest of the public and for the protection of consumers[12].
3. Model Disclosures: The Bureau has the authority to issue rules regarding information that must be conveyed in disclosures for consumer financial products or services. The Bureau may promulgate model disclosures for financial institutions, which will provide a safe harbor for those using such a model disclosure. The Act does not require prudential regulators to accept any promulgated model disclosures. Accordingly, whether or not depository institutions with assets under $10 billion can rely on the safe harbor is to be determined[13].
4. Consumer Rights to Accessing Information: Title X requires that consumers are provided with information concerning any financial product or service that the consumer has obtained from the financial institution. Such information must be made available electronically and must include information such as costs, charges, and usage data[14].
5. Remittance Transfer Rules: Title X amends the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The new rule applies to transfers of currency where the designated recipient is in a foreign country. It requires disclosures about the amount of currency being transferred, all fees charged for the transfer, and the exchange rate used to the nearest 1/100th of a point. The rule also requires that the transferor receive a receipt at the time of transfer listing basic information about the transfer (i.e. intended recipient, promised date of delivery, and contact information). The new rule also establishes a dispute resolution if the transferor contacts the financial institution within 180 days of the transferor and claims an error[15].
6. Truth in Lending Act: The Act amends the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). TILA now applies to credit transactions and consumer leases below $50,000.00[16].
As briefly demonstrated above, the Dodd-Frank Act, specifically Title X, must be confronted with innovative/cost-effective compliance strategies. Without a plan to handle this new era of financial reform, the administrative costs to credit unions will likely diminish their ability to provide valuable customer service by diverting too many resources to compliance related issues rather than meeting members’ needs.
W. Cory Phillips is an Associate in Consumer Collections; Healthcare Collections and Governmental Collections Groups. He can be reached at (216) 685-1157 or wphillips@weltman.com.
_________________
1 http://www.ilbanker.com/Adobe/GR/Dodd_Frank_Bill.pdf.
2 Id.
3 http://www.bkd.com/docs/industry/webinar/FS/Dodd-Frank.pdf
4 Id.
5 SS038 ALI-ABA 397.
6 Id.
7 SS038 ALI-ABA 397.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 The New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Will Impact Community and Regional Banks, Susan B. Zaunbrecher, National Law Review.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
Filed under: Current Issues in Credit Unions
This month, Faith, Hal, Katherine, Anthony & Rob bring you lots of compliance goodness! Here are the topics:
–FDIC guidance on ODP programs.
–Credit Union Class Actions & Other Litigation
–CFPB update.
–Risk Based Pricing Notice confusion.
–Trigger terms and marketing compliance
The CIiCU hosts are:
Brian Witt
Hal Scoggins
Farleigh Wada Witt,
Attorneys at Law
121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 600
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: 503-228-6044 Fax: 503-228-1741
http://www.fwwlaw.com
Guy Messick
Katherine Weber
Messick & Weber P.C.
211 North Olive Street
Media, PA 19063
Telephone 610-891-9000 Fax 610-891-9008
http://www.cusolaw.com
Faith Anderson
American Airlines Credit Union
P.O. Box 619001
MD 2100
DFW Airport, TX
75261-9001
(800) 533-0035
https://www.aacreditunion.org/default.asp
Anthony Demangone
AFCU Director of Regulatory Compliance
NAFCU – National Association of Federal Credit Unions
3138 10th Street North
Arlington, VA 22201-2149
Telephone: 703-522-4770 Fax: 703-524-1082
http://www.nafcu.org/
Robert Rutkowski
Shareholder
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.
323 W. Lakeside Avenue, Suite 200
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Telephone: 216-739-5004 Fax: 216-739-5642
http://www.thatcreditunionblog.com
http://www.weltman.com
Subcribe to the show via iTunes Music Store: http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=151785964&s=143441


