Tag: regulatory
As thought leaders in every industry make predictions for what 2016 will bring, I’m guessing there will be a few constants. New couples will marry. Some couples, sadly, will divorce. Young and old will move – some into first homes – others downsizing or making moves cross-country for work. And waves of individuals will clamor to the latest devices – a new iPhone7, perhaps. The Apple rumors are already flying. Yes, no big surprises, right? But, do you know what all of these very standard life events have in common? These transitions often result in shifts in consumer data, sometimes making people more difficult to track and contact. New last names, new addresses, new phone numbers. Suddenly, the consumer data that companies and lenders have on file are dated, and when it comes time to reach out to these individuals, it’s a challenge to connect. But that is just the beginning. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is increasing its efforts to register consumer complaints and taking aggressive actions to stop companies from making unsolicited phone calls. And the penalties are steep. Fines per individual infraction can be anywhere from $500 to $1,500. Companies have been delivered hefty penalties in the thousands, and in some cases millions, of dollars, over the past few years. All have questions and are seeking to understand how they must adjust their policies and call practices. Now those multiple attempts to call and find a consumer can cost you – big time. No more “shotgun” approaches to identifying and using phones. It’s simply too risky. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), enforced by the FCC, has been around since 1991, but regulations have been closely scrutinized over the past year since the FCC announced a new ruling last summer to clarify hot topics. In their July paper, they aim to communicate the definition of an “auto-dialer,” consent-to-call rules, how to address the reassignment of cell phone numbers, and the new requirement for “one call” without liability. In short, the Declaratory Ruling has opened the door to even greater liability under the TCPA, leaving companies who place outbound customer calls at-risk for compliance violations. Some are projecting the TCPA rules will continue to become even more expansive in 2016, so companies must really assess their call strategies and put best practices in place to increase right-party contact rates. Suggestions include: Identify landline and cell phones for TCPA compliance with dialer campaigns Focus on right- and wrong-party contact to improve customer service Score phones or apply cut-off scores based on the confidence of the number or match Scrub often for updated or verified information Establish a process to identify ported phones Determine when and how often you dial cell phones Provide consumers user-friendly mechanisms– such as texting “STOP” or “UNSUBSCRIBE” – to opt-out of receiving TCPA-covered communications. Review the policies and practices of third-party vendors to ensure they are not sending communications violating the TCPA With the huge advancements in mobile technology and the ever-changing digital landscape, it’s challenging to keep up, but regulators are cracking down on violations, and a slew of lawyers are ready to file on behalf of unhappy consumers dialed one-too-many times. Beyond a best-practice review, tools and systems are available to identify the right number for those moving and changing consumers. And I’m sure we can all agree, those life events will continue to happen in 2016. Marriages, divorces, moves, new devices. They’re coming. As a result, it’s necessary to track the resulting changes to consumer data. Only then will you have a shot at avoiding negative customer experiences and fines.
Understanding the Impact of New Marketplace Lending Regulations The online marketplace lending sector has enjoyed unprecedented growth these past few years. According to a recent Morgan Stanley research report, the volume of loans extended by online marketplace lenders in the United States has doubled every year since 2010, hitting $12 billion last year. Some analysts speculate this growth will continue at a compound annual rate of 47 percent through 2020. The market’s growth, coupled with new, disruptive lending models, is now prompting regulators in Washington to raise questions about the potential opportunities and challenges for consumers, small businesses, and the safety and soundness of our financial system. Last July, the Treasury Department issued a request for information to better understand the benefits and risks associated with new online lending platforms and other “fin-tech” startups. The Treasury’s RFI sought information about how these entities’ business models differ from traditional lenders, their impact on financially underserved consumers, and ultimately whether the regulatory framework should evolve to ensure the safe growth of this emerging marketplace. They were also interested in how online lenders were assessing credit risk of borrowers. Most comments the Treasury Department received from online lenders focused on the positive impact that innovation in financial services could have on consumers and small businesses. For example, in an open letter to the Treasury, Lending Club Founder and CEO Renaud Laplanche stated his company’s role in “bringing more transparency, removing friction, reducing systemic risk by requiring a match between assets and liabilities, and offering traditional banks … the opportunity to participate on our platform and benefit from the same cost reductions from which our other borrowers and investors benefit.” Laplanche emphasized the benefits to consumers by noting that “over 70 percent of borrowers on our platform report using their loan to pay off an existing loan or credit card balance and report that the interest rate on their Lending Club loan was an average of seven percentage points lower than they were paying on their outstanding debt or credit cards.” For small businesses, Laplanche explained how commercial loans less than $250,000 tend to be underserved by traditional lenders. “Bank loans from $100k to $250k have fallen 22 percent since 2007, during a period when bank loans of $1 million or greater increased by 56 percent,” he wrote. “Our platform’s automated processes allow us to provide smaller commercial loans that are less available more economically than traditional banks can.” Meanwhile, some commenters called for regulators to increase oversight of the marketplace to provide more certainty. In a joint comment letter, the American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association argued that all lenders — regardless of medium by which they deliver loans — should operate under the same rules and standards. They highlighted the numerous consumer protections in place to protect borrowers — from transparency in pricing, to fair debt collection methods, and data protection — and advocate for these protections to apply in all bank-like activities involving lending or servicing. But what about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)? The CFPB will take a leadership role to ensure marketplace lenders comply with the fair lending and consumer financial protection laws that the CFPB has authority to enforce. The CFPB has not made any direct notice to the online lending marketplace specifically, but it did issue a notice in October 2014 saying it had no intention of bringing enforcement actions against companies that offer innovative financial products — so long as they benefit consumers. Meanwhile, it is also likely the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general will increase their focus on the online lending segment, especially as it relates to how products and services are marketed. The FTC held a symposium on Oct. 30 to examine online lead generation and consumer protection in the lending and education industries. The FTC workshop raised questions about the potential consumer protection challenges of this advertising medium used heavily by online lenders. In particular, there were calls for greater transparency in the use of lead generation, including more information on the ways consumer data is collected through lead-gen websites and how it is used and shared. Online marketplace lenders should expect to stay under the regulatory spotlight – because that’s what success often brings. The sector can avoid undue burdens by ensuring compliance with existing laws and adopting and following industry best practices. For more information, visit www.experian.com/marketplacelending.
The Responsible Business Lending Coalition, a group of nonbank small-business lenders, recently announced a regulatory program designed to bring greater clarity to the industry’s pricing and consumer protections, including: The right to transparent pricing and terms The right to non-abusive products The right to responsible underwriting The right to fair treatment from brokers The right to inclusive credit access The right to fair collection practices Industry self-regulation is a good way for market leaders to demonstrate self-discipline and is preferable to legislative or regulatory changes because of its flexibility and ability to accommodate evolving market trends. >> Webinar: Online Marketplace Lending
Our clients are facing three primary issues when it comes to regulatory compliance: time resources knowledge Many are facing Matters Requiring Attention (MRA) and Matters Requiring Immediate Attention (MRIA) and don’t have the staff or the capacity to complete all of the work themselves within tight deadlines. They also want their limited resources to work on internal, proprietary initiatives to grow the business and maximize profit and return. These activities cannot be outsourced as easily as regulatory and compliance work, which is relatively easy to parse out and give to an external third party. Quite often, a level of independent oversight and effective challenge is also a requirement that can easily be solved through the use of an objective, external third party. A lot of the regulations are still relatively new, and there are still many issues and knowledge gaps our clients are facing. They have insight into their own organization only and quite often aren’t aware of or able to leverage industry best practice without the view of an external third party with broader industry knowledge and experience. In terms of best practice, it all really starts with the data, leading to the attributes used in models to create sound risk management strategies, manage capital adequacy, and ensure the safety and soundness of the overall U.S. and global financial system. The integrity of data reporting, dispute management and compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements need to be an enterprise-wide effort. In the area of attribute governance, there are three primary areas of focus: Attribution creation — definitions; logic, code and accuracy; and how to reduce implementation timelines. Monitoring and maintenance — looking for shifts in attributes and their potential impact and facilitating updates to attributes based upon changes in reporting and upgrades to newer versions of attributes as the credit environment changes, such as during the most recent mortgage crisis, where loan modification and associated attributes were created and took on increased importance. And last but definitely not least, documentation — We cannot say enough about the importance of documentation, especially to regulators. Documentation ensures accuracy and consistent application and must record all general conventions and limitations. For model risk management and governance, focus areas should follow the expanded Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Guidance from Bulletin 2011-12. This guidance includes expanded requirements for model validations including not just standard back testing, but also benchmarking, effective challenge, sensitivity analysis and stress testing. It also expands the guidance beyond just validation to model development and usage, implementation, governance and controls. In response to these OCC expanded guidance requirements, one of our clients was seeking an industry expert to serve as an independent third party to 1) conduct industry best practice and benchmarking in areas of reject inference methodologies and 2) validate production models used for risk underwriting, line assignment, pricing and targeting. After a full review and assessment, we provided the client with a clear road map to improve the process to conduct reject inference through knowledge transfer and best practices. We established a best-in-class approach to annual model validations on a model inventory consisting of retail, small business and wealth segment portfolios. We also delivered expedited results that also identified alternative methods of validation that assess variability in point estimates, as well as comply with OCC requirements for precision, ranking and population measurement statistics. Through our work, the client was able to leverage Experian to establish a global approach to reject inference methodologies, to augment existing staffing and to offshore resources in a cost-effective manner. There are three primary areas of loss forecasting, stress testing and capital adequacy planning: International — Basel accord National — U.S. Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing (DFAST), including Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) supervisory review Internal — Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses requirements Although there are similarities, there are also important differences among each of these three requirements and practices. For these reasons, most financial institutions in the United States are still providing and managing them separately. This obviously creates a strain on internal staff and resources. One of our clients had an initial compliance strategy in place but did not have the sufficient in-house staff and resources required to create, document and review its modeling and stress testing to satisfy regulators and internal auditors. The organization needed a consultant that could work closely with its in-house team to support sophisticated models that were tailored to meet its specific compliance obligations. We worked closely with the client’s team to provide extensive consulting support for a complex set of loss-forecasting models and other tools, applying industry best practices to fully document the models. Throughout the process, our consulting team discovered and identified content gaps to help ensure that all documentation was complete. We also provided ad hoc analytics to support the client’s model development effort and strategic and tactical guidance on stress testing model development for compliance. This enabled the client to develop primary and challenge models for DFAST’s CCAR requirements, as well as internal stress scenarios. It also provided the client with the following tangible business benefits: balance compliance with maximum profitability and revenue; provided knowledge sharing and best practices to help empower client employees; helped refine models based on feedback from internal and external governance organizations; supported models with academic research to help align the correct model to the correct processes; and provided assistance with model implementation and application. Click here for a recent video I did on how capital-adequacy positions are becoming crucial in analyst recommendations.
By: Maria Moynihan A recently-released staff report prepared for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee revealed that nearly 17,000 efficiency and process improvement recommendations made by agency Inspectors General remain pending as of 2012 and in combination could have saved more than $67 billion in wasteful government spending. At the same time, the 2013 Identity Fraud Report released in February 2013 by Javelin Strategy & Research indicates that in 2012, identity fraud incidents increased by more than one million victims and fraudsters stole more than $21 billion, the highest amount since 2009. Fraudsters know where process inefficiencies lie and government agencies can no longer delay the implementation of much needed system improvements. There are several service providers and integrators in the public sector that offer options and tools to choose from. Specifically, identity management tools exist that can authenticate a person’s identity online and in real-time, verify an address, validate one’s income and assets, and provide a full view of a constituent so funds go to those who need them most and stay out of the hands of fraudsters or those who are otherwise not eligible. There is a better way to validate and authenticate individuals or businesses as part of a constituent review processes and time is of the essence. By simply incorporating third-party data and analytics into established infrastructure, agencies can immediately gain improved insight for efficient decision making. Experian recently sponsored the FCW Executive Briefing on Detecting and Preventing Wasteful and Improper Payments. Click here to view the keynote presentation or stay tuned as I share more on this pressing issue.
By: Wendy Greenawalt The final provisions included in The Credit Card Act will go into effect on August 22, 2010. Most lenders began preparing for these changes some time ago, and may have already begun adhering to the guidelines. However, I would like to talk about the provisions included and discuss the implications they will have on credit card lenders. The first provision is the implementation of penalty fee guidelines. This clause prohibits card issuers from charging fees that exceed the consumer’s violation of the account terms. For example, if a consumer’s minimum monthly payment on a credit card account was $15, and the lender charges a $39 late fee, this would be considered excessive as the penalty is greater than the consumers’ obligation on that account. Going forward, the maximum fee a lender could charge in this example would be $15 or equal to the consumers obligation. In addition to late fee limitations, lenders can no longer charge multiple penalty fees based on a single late payment, other account term violations or fees for account inactivity. These limitations will have a dramatic impact on portfolio profitability, and lenders will need to account for this with all accounts going forward. The second major provision mandates that if a lender increased a consumer’s annual interest rate after January 1, 2009 due to credit risk, market conditions, or other factors, then the lender must maintain reasonable methodologies and perform account reviews no less than every 6 months. If during the account review, the credit risk, market conditions or other factors that resulted in the interest rate increase have changed, the lender must adjust the interest rate down if warranted. This provision only affects interest rate increases and does not supply specific terms on the amount of the interest rate reduction required; so lenders must assess this independently to determine their individual compliance requirements on covered accounts. The Credit Card Act was a measure to create better policies for consumers related to credit card accounts and overall will provide greater visibility and fair account practices for all consumers. However, The Credit Card Act places more pressure on lenders to find other revenue streams to make up for revenue that was previously received when accounts were not paid by the due date, fees and additional interest rate income were generated. Over the next few years, lenders will have to find ways to make up this shortcoming and generate revenue through acquisition strategies and/or new business channels in order to maintain a profitable portfolio. http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20100303a.htm
By: Kari Michel The Federal Reserve’s decision to permit card issuers to use income estimation models to meet the Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act requirements to assess a borrower’s ability to repay a loan makes good sense. But are income estimation models useful for anything other than supporting compliance with this new regulation? Yes; in fact these types of models offer many advantages and uses for the financial industry. They provide a range of benefits including better fraud mitigation, stronger risk management, and responsible provision of credit. Using income estimation models to understand your customers’ complete financial picture is valuable in all phases of the customer lifecycle, including: • Loan Origination – use as a best practice for determining income capacity • Prospecting – target customers within a specific income range • Acquisitions – set line assignments for approved customers • Account Management – assess repayment ability before approving line increases • Collections – optimize valuation and recovery efforts One of the key benefits of income estimation models is they validate consumer income in real time and can be easily integrated into current processes to reduce expensive manual verification procedures and increase your ROI. But not all scoring models are created equal. When considering an income estimation model, it’s important to consider the source of the income data upon which the model was developed. The best models rely on verified income data and cover all income sources, including wages, rent, alimony, and Social Security. To lean more about how income estimation models can help with risk management strategies, please join the following webinar: Ability to pay: Going beyond the Credit CARD on June 8, 2010. http://www.bulldogsolutions.net/ExperianConsumerInfo/EXC1001/frmRegistration.aspx?bdls=24143
By: Kari Michel What is Basel II? Basel II is the international convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards. It is a revised framework and is the second iteration of an international standard of laws. The purpose of Basel II is to create an international standard that banking regulators can use when creating regulations about how much capital banks need to put aside to guard against the types of financial and operations risk banks face. Basel II ultimately implements standards to assist in maintaining a healthy financial system. The business challenge The framework for Basel II compels the supervisors to ensure that banks implement credit rating techniques that represent their particular risk profile. Besides the risk inputs (Probability of Default (PD), Loss Given Default (LGD) and Exposure at Default (EAD)) calculation, the final Basel accord includes the “use test” requirement which is the requirement for a firm to use an advanced approach more widely in its business and met merely for calculation of regulatory capital. Therefore many financial institutions are required to make considerable changes in their approach to risk management (i.e. infrastructure, systems, processes, data requirements). Experian is a leading provider of risk management solutions -- products and services for the new Basel Capital Accord (Basel II). Experian’s approach includes consultancy, software, and analytics tailored to meet the lender’s Basel II requirements.