PRESS RELEASE: CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ISSUES $1.25 MILLION FINE TO SERVICEMEMBER AUTO LENDER FOR VIOLATING CONSENT ORDER

consumer financial protection bureau

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 26, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ISSUES $1.25 MILLION FINE TO SERVICEMEMBER AUTO LENDER FOR VIOLATING CONSENT ORDER
Auto Loan Company Failed to Provide Redress for Illegal Collection Tactics

Washington, D.C. — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today took action against Security National Automotive Acceptance Company (SNAAC), an auto lender specializing in loans to servicemembers, for violating a Bureau consent order. In 2015, the CFPB ordered SNAAC to pay both redress and a civil penalty for illegal debt collection tactics, including making threats to contact servicemembers’ commanding officers about debts and exaggerating the consequences of not paying. SNAAC violated the 2015 order by failing to provide more than $1 million in refunds and credits, affecting more than 1,000 consumers. Today’s consent order requires SNAAC to make good on the redress it owes to those consumers and pay an additional $1.25 million penalty.

“This company violated a Bureau order when it failed to get money back to servicemembers it had hounded with illegal debt collection tactics,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We are making sure this company finally rights its wrongs.”

SNAAC, based in Mason, Ohio, is an auto-finance company that operates in more than two dozen states and specializes in loans to servicemembers, primarily to buy used vehicles. In June 2015, the CFPB sued SNAAC for aggressive collection tactics against consumers who fell behind on their loans. If servicemembers lagged behind on payments, SNAAC’s collectors would threaten to contact—and in many cases did contact—their chain of command about their debts. Also, the company exaggerated the consequences of not paying. For instance, they told some consumers that failure to pay could result in action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, demotion, discharge, or loss of security clearance. But these consequences were extremely unlikely. The CFPB alleged that SNAAC’s aggressive tactics, which took advantage of servicemembers’ special obligations to remain current on debts, victimized thousands of borrowers.

In October 2015, a CFPB consent order found that SNAAC had indeed engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices while collecting on these auto loans. The order required SNAAC to pay $2.275 million in consumer redress through credits and refunds, and a $1 million civil penalty. Consumers with an account balance were to receive credits to their accounts, and consumers with a zero balance were to receive cash refunds. While SNAAC submitted two plans that claimed to provide the full amount of redress ordered, both were designed to underpay such redress. Acting on a tip from a servicemember’s father, the CFPB discovered that SNAAC had issued worthless “credits” to hundreds of consumers and failed to provide proper redress to many more.

The CFPB is issuing today’s consent order against SNAAC for violating the terms of the 2015 consent order by failing to properly give refunds or credits to affected borrowers. In today’s order, the CFPB found that the company had failed to meet its obligation to pay redress to consumers by:

  • Issuing worthless “credits” to settled-in-full accounts: In purporting to provide redress, SNAAC treated accounts that were settled-in-full as having a positive account balance. Instead of providing refunds to consumers with settled-in-full accounts, SNAAC issued worthless account “credits.” Those consumers received no benefit from such a “credit” because they no longer owed SNAAC money and could not use such a credit toward any new or existing loan.
  • Issuing worthless “credits” to discharged accounts: SNAAC also issued worthless account “credits” to consumers whose debts had been discharged in bankruptcy, and who no longer owed SNAAC money on their auto loan. SNAAC had no legal claim to any unpaid balance, and these consumers received no benefit from the “credits.” SNAAC had, in fact, already stopped collections on these accounts.
  • Failing to properly give redress to consumers making payments under settlement agreements:  Some SNAAC consumers were making payments under settlement agreements. But SNAAC based redress on the original, higher account balance in place before it agreed on a settlement with the borrower. As a result, in many instances, SNAAC issued credits that exceeded consumers’ settlement balances, rather than refund any amount above what the consumers actually owed. And because their settlement balances were improperly credited, some consumers unwittingly overpaid SNAAC to settle their accounts. 

Enforcement Action
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is authorized to take action against institutions engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, or that otherwise violate federal consumer financial laws. Under today’s consent order: 

  • SNAAC must pay redress as promised to affected consumers: SNAAC must pay the Bureau roughly $720,000, which the Bureau will send as refunds to about 925 consumers. SNAAC must issue about $370,000 in new credits to over 1,000 consumers with remaining account balances as well as properly credit roughly 1,000 consumers making payments under settlement agreements. SNAAC must also pay $75,000 to the Bureau to cover the costs of distributing these payments.
  • SNAAC must pay a $1.25 million penalty: SNAAC must pay a penalty of $1.25 million to the CFPB Civil Penalty Fund, in addition to the $1 million penalty it paid under the 2015 consent order.

The text of the consent order is found here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201704_SNAAC-consent-order.pdf

###

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

PRESS RELEASE: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Finds Some Student Loan and Mortgage Servicers Illegally Fail to Provide Protection to Borrowers

consumer financial protection bureau

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 26, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU SUPERVISION FINDS SOME STUDENT LOAN AND MORTGAGE SERVICERS ILLEGALLY FAIL TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS TO BORROWERS
Bureau Recovered $6.1 Million for 16,000 Consumers Harmed By Auto Loan Originators

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today announced that its recent supervisory work has found that some student loan and mortgage servicers are violating the law by failing to provide struggling borrowers with legal protections. CFPB examiners found that some student loan servicers failed to refund charges imposed on borrowers who had been wrongly denied the right to defer payments while enrolled in school. The report also found that some mortgage servicers did not deliver the required foreclosure protections to borrowers seeking to save their homes, mishandled escrow accounts, and sent incomplete bills. The report also announced that non-public supervisory activities have led to the recovery of about $6.1 million for 16,000 consumers harmed by auto loan originators.

“We found that some mortgage and student loan servicers are violating the law by failing to provide protections to borrowers,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Their slipshod practices are putting borrowers at risk of financial failure and we will hold them accountable.”

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has authority to supervise banks and credit unions with more than $10 billion in assets and certain nonbanks. These include mortgage companies, private student lenders, payday lenders, and others defined as “larger participants.” Today’s report, the 15th edition of Supervisory Highlights, covers supervisory activities generally from September-December 2016, and shares observations in the areas of student loan servicing, mortgage servicing, mortgage origination, and fair lending.

Student Loan Servicing
Student loan servicers are the primary point of contact about loans for the more than 44 million Americans with student debt. It is a Bureau priority to end illegal practices in student loan servicing. Previously, the Bureau reported that borrowers encounter servicing problems driven by incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely reporting of student data. This can cost some borrowers hundreds of dollars or more. In February, the CFPB warned student loan borrowers to take steps to protect themselves from costly student enrollment status data errors. The Department of Education has also warned that these errors can lead to higher loan costs for borrowers and may contribute to student loan delinquency and defaults. In today’s report, Bureau examiners found that student loan servicers: 

  • Routinely acted on flawed information: Most student loan borrowers have a right to postpone payments, called a deferment, while they are enrolled in school. But CFPB examiners found that one or more student loan servicers routinely acted on incorrect information about whether the borrower was enrolled in school. This faulty information was in student data reports used to manage millions of borrowers’ accounts, and was provided by National Student Clearinghouse, an enrollment data reporting company.
  • Failed to reverse charges wrongly imposed on borrowers in school: Because of data errors, one or more student loan servicers routinely failed to reverse certain charges even after it knew it had wrongly ended a deferment. These charges included improper late fees and capitalization of unpaid interest, which occurs when interest that accumulates on a student loan is added to the principal balance. 

Mortgage Servicing
Mortgage servicers collect payments from the mortgage borrower and forward those payments to the owner of the loan. They typically handle customer service, collections, loan modifications, and foreclosures. Supervision continues to see serious issues for consumers seeking alternatives to foreclosure, or loss mitigation, at certain servicers. Issues identified during recent CFPB examinations include problems with foreclosure protections, premature foreclosure filings,  mishandling of escrow accounts, and incomplete periodic statements. Bureau examiners found one or more servicers:

  • Kept borrowers in the dark on foreclosure alternatives: One or more servicers failed to identify the additional documents and information borrowers needed to submit to complete a loss mitigation application to avoid foreclosure. They then denied the applications for not including those documents. Supervision directed these servicers to enhance policies, procedures, and monitoring to address the issue.
  • Prematurely launched the foreclosure process: Servicers cannot take certain steps toward foreclosure once they receive a complete loss mitigation application from a borrower more than 37 days before a foreclosure sale. For instance, servicers cannot make first notice of a foreclosure if a borrower has submitted a complete application for a loan modification or other foreclosure alternative that is still pending review. Bureau examiners found that one or more servicers failed to properly classify applications as complete after receiving the information, and failed to give required foreclosure protections to those consumers.
  • Mishandled escrow accounts: One or more servicers used funds from escrow accounts to pay insurance premiums on unrelated loans. This created shortages in the escrow account and forced higher monthly payments onto consumers. Supervision directed the servicer to give redress to affected consumers, and adopt policies and procedures to ensure that insurance payments are made properly from escrow accounts.
  • Issued incomplete periodic statements: Servicers must provide regular statements that include the amount and due date of the next payment; a breakdown of payments by principal, interest, fees, and escrow; and recent transactions. Examiners found one or more servicers used vague language like “Misc. Expenses” and “Charge for Service” when describing certain costs. These insufficient descriptions failed to comply with the rule. Supervision directed the servicer to modify its descriptions to help consumers understand their fees and charges.

Other Highlights
In the lead-up to the financial crisis, many consumers ended up in risky mortgages because lenders did not check to see if they could afford to pay back the loan. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, lenders must make a reasonable effort to figure out if a consumer can repay the mortgage before making the loan. Today’s report looks at how CFPB examiners assess compliance with the Ability-to-Repay rule, including requirements on how a lender verifies a consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage loan. This includes whether a creditor’s decision relies on verified assets and not income, and whether it can be based on the size of the down payment for a consumer who otherwise lacks verified income or assets.

Today’s report also notes that CFPB examiners alerted one or more companies to spikes in complaint volume, prompting the companies to develop remedies. It also discusses the CFPB’s continued development and implementation of a program to directly examine key service providers to help reduce risks to consumers when a company outsources certain activities to those providers. In today’s report, the CFPB also reminds companies that creating incentives for employees and service providers to meet sales and other business goals can lead to consumer harm if those incentives are not properly managed. In addition, the report includes details about updated and expanded publicly available surname data from the U.S. Census Bureau for use in models that may be combined with geography data in CFPB analysis of fair lending practices.

The report highlights that non-public supervisory activities have led to the recovery of about $6.1 million for 16,000 consumers harmed by illegal practices by auto loan originators. The CFPB’s recent supervisory activities led to or supported five recent public enforcement actions, resulting in over $39 million in consumer remediation and another $19 million in civil money penalties. Today’s report shares information industry can use to comply with federal consumer financial law. In cases where CFPB examiners find problems, they alert the company and outline necessary remedial measures. This may include paying refunds or restitution, or taking actions to stop illegal practices, such as new policies or improved training or monitoring. When appropriate, the CFPB opens investigations for potential enforcement actions.

Today’s edition of Supervisory Highlights is available at:http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201704_cfpb_Supervisory-Highlights_Issue-15.pdf

###

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

PRESS RELEASE: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Releases Report Outlining Strategies for Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the Mortgage Industry

consumer financial protection bureau

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 27, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU RELEASES REPORT OUTLINING STRATEGIES FOR PROMOTING DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY
Report Discusses Current Approaches and Business Case for Diversity and Inclusion

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today released a report summarizing strategies for promoting diversity and inclusion used by mortgage industry participants. It highlights the business case for diversity along with current approaches and practices used in the mortgage industry, such as establishing buy-in from top leadership, integrating principles of inclusion in recruiting and hiring, and the importance of data in assessing the impact of diversity on keeping organizations competitive. The report is the result of the CFPB’s collaboration with the financial services industry to raise awareness of the importance of strengthening diversity and inclusion within organizations.

“The Consumer Bureau’s mission is to protect all consumers across the diverse American marketplace, just as financial institutions seek to serve them with helpful products and services,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray.  “The insights in this report from our roundtable with mortgage lenders help to show the advantages of integrating diversity and inclusion programs in workplaces throughout the financial services industry.”

The CFPB’s Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) convened an industry roundtable meeting in collaboration with the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), which has shown notable leadership on these issues, and today’s report is a readout of that meeting. The roundtable convened representatives from the mortgage industry, including from larger and smaller banks, as well as some nonbank financial companies. Some participants were the primary executive leaders of their companies and others led units such as mortgage banking, neighborhood lending, or human resources. The roundtable also included OMWI staff from other federal agencies, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Reserve, and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

Through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Congress required the creation of an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion at the following agencies: Treasury, FDIC, FHFA, OCC, National Credit Union Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission, CFPB, Federal Reserve Board, and each Federal Reserve Bank. Each of the OMWI directors is charged with developing standards for the diversity of the agency workforce, increasing diversity in agency programs and contracts, and assessing diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.

The report highlights issues raised by the roundtable participants, including current approaches, and underscores the need to develop a strong business case for diversity and inclusion. The speakers stressed how their businesses were being affected by the changing demographics of their customer base. They noted that a diverse and inclusive workforce was especially important to help them attract and retain the talent and perspective they need to solve new and complex problems, create innovative solutions, and improve business outcomes in face of this growing challenge. The report discusses strategies and practices on topics including:

  • The business case for diversity and inclusion: The roundtable participants shared that embracing diversity and inclusion made business sense for their organizations. Participants that analyzed how diversity and inclusion can strengthen organizations found that it improved overall performance and leads to a more positive and productive workplace.
  • The importance of leadership buy-in and accountability: A strong theme was the importance of the “tone from the top” of the organization, without which many speakers said it is virtually impossible to sustain a successful diversity program. Strong leadership on diversity and inclusion issues aligned organizations to build in diversity and inclusion as fundamental principles. 
  • Recruiting, hiring, inclusion, retention, advancement, and engagement: Participants shared that principles of inclusion are vital in developing and sustaining a diverse workforce over time. Organizations noted that they sought to boost retention levels and advancement prospects of people with different backgrounds and viewpoints. Another goal reported by participants is to make sure that discussions and decisions within the organization reflect the more robust analysis and broader understanding that can result from multiple viewpoints.
  • Broadening the customer base with new business products: Participants explained that a more diverse workforce fosters greater understanding of the particular needs and situations of a more diverse customer base, including tailoring products to the needs of different consumers. Participants saw this as a key approach to attracting and satisfying a broader base of customers. 
  • The importance of data:  Data collection and analysis play an integral role in supporting many of the participating organizations’ business cases for diversity. Some participants noted that understanding the demographics of an organization’s workforce is key to ensuring that it reflects the available talent pools and remains competitive and effective.

The CFPB’s OMWI Report on Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the Mortgages Industry is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201704_cfpb_OMWI-Regulated-Entities-External-Report.PDF

###

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

 

Operation HOPE Global Forums Annual Meeting

CFPB logo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 11, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

Prepared Remarks of Richard Cordray

Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 

Operation HOPE Global Forums Annual Meeting

Atlanta, Ga.

April 11, 2017

Thank you John for your kind words. I am glad to be back in Atlanta for the HOPE Global Forum. It is great to be here with you and to know you share similar goals and ideals for our society. The thread that links the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to Operation HOPE is the hard and important mission of empowering the economically vulnerable among us.

We are all aware that it is expensive to be poor. Even those who do have a job can work long hours for low wages and still not make enough to get by. And those shut out of the mainstream financial system may have to pay a big chunk of their income before they can even have the use of their own money.

Many of these same people are also blocked from access to credit. Our research shows that 45 million people do not have credit records that can be scored, and thus can be regarded as “credit invisibles.” Together, they make up almost one in five adults in this country, and are more likely to be African-American or Hispanic and to live in low-income neighborhoods.

A limited credit history also makes it harder to withstand financial shocks and achieve financial stability. When people face an emergency and have to borrow without access to traditional credit products, they may use higher cost alternatives to bridge the gap.

These things weigh heavily on people’s lives. The emotional cost is unknowable, but it no doubt produces mounting feelings of frustration and helplessness. The doctrines of equality that mark the aspirations of our political life in America can ring quite hollow in the economic realm.

Our country is founded on the principle of equal opportunity and the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” We are nurtured by the promise of upward mobility and the notion that our society has done away with any formal class or caste system. We like to suppose that anyone, regardless of their beginnings in life, can climb the economic ladder through merit and hard work. As Horatio Alger described it in his “rags to riches” stories, we want to believe that with some “luck and pluck,” we can all hope to “strive and succeed.”

But in the non-fiction world, for too many people the concept of upward mobility is more of a tantalizing taunt than a tangible prospect. Economic injustices too often deny opportunity, drain wealth, and damage communities. They prolong and heighten the racial disparities that already exist in America.  For white households, median income is $60,000; for African-American households, it is $35,000. White households in America have an average net worth of $134,000, but African-American households average just $11,000. Home ownership and home values show similar patterns. We know how much Operation HOPE does to empower underserved communities across the country, and we thank you for your work.

At the Consumer Bureau, we too are working on behalf of the economically vulnerable and the financially disempowered. We embrace the principle of individual responsibility, yet we know it is not easy to climb the economic ladder if you have to start near the bottom. It helps greatly to have someone who is willing to hold the ladder steady. We can take on that important role, and help make sure it is as safe as possible to undertake that climb.

***

Today, I want to talk to you about the credit reporting market, which exerts a tremendous influence over people’s financial lives. Credit reports, also known as consumer reports, can make or break whether someone gets a car loan, a credit card, a bank account, or a mortgage – and the interest rate they have to pay. They can also affect whether someone can rent an apartment or get a job.

Credit reports and credit scores form a key foundation of people’s financial options, but they are not very transparent and often are poorly understood. We do not control our own fates, since we cannot vote with our feet by choosing another credit reporting company. Instead, it is mostly a business-to-business ecosystem where people have had little power to insist on better practices or fair treatment. Because of how credit reports affect our lives, we all need this industry to operate at the highest levels of quality and performance.

Five years ago, the Consumer Bureau became the first government agency to supervise the nationwide credit reporting companies. This means we can oversee all sides of the market, from the companies that collect our information to those that furnish it to them. So now we can hold the key parties responsible for their performance and ignore any finger pointing among them.

We are focused on improving data accuracy and the handling of consumer disputes. In the past, despite a statutory duty to produce accurate credit reports, industry practices produced an unacceptable number of errors. A Federal Trade Commission study found that millions of people had an error on at least one of their credit reports that was serious enough to materially affect their credit score.

Consumers also find it hard to get errors corrected, and may have little recourse if things go wrong. I recall the stories I heard in Ohio when we were working on credit freeze legislation. People told us it took them a long time to get any help, and some got none. They brought in shoeboxes full of records documenting the efforts they had made to seek help. Of course, some errors may be unavoidable even in the best of systems, but consumers should not have to jump through hoops to get their problems fixed.

When we first started supervising the credit reporting companies, we held a public field hearing in Detroit, and we set aside time to hear from witnesses about their own experiences. An elderly woman stood up and told us she had a problem. What was her problem? She told us, “the credit reporting companies think I am dead.” Although she had tried and tried to convince them otherwise, making repeated calls and sending in documentation, they continued to write her off.

Aside from the obvious absurdity of the situation, the basic “moral” of her story was striking: the whole situation was a profound affront to her dignity. As she spoke, she made clear her thought that if she were viewed as “somebody,” this would not be happening. Only by assuming that the companies viewed her as “nobody,” and as counting for nothing, could she explain to herself their stubborn indifference to her plight.

Let me tell you another story to show the kinds of problems people have with their credit reports. Jorge, in New York, submitted a complaint with our consumer response team. He had owned a small business in Miami, suffered unexpected financial setbacks, and filed for bankruptcy. He knew the bankruptcy would stay on his credit report for 10 years. But when the time was up, and he tried to rent an apartment, the information was still on his credit report. When he contacted the company, they gave him the runaround and told him he had to wait yet another year to get it changed. Like the elderly woman from Detroit, he felt invisible, as if he did not matter. These stories are keen reminders of why the work we are doing is so crucial.

***

Over the last five years, we have been scrutinizing the credit reporting companies to make sure they are obeying the law and to assess whether their practices pose risks to consumers. We have learned a great deal, but most importantly, we are working to correct the many problems we have found and to resolve matters that harmed consumers. We monitor and examine them the same ways we monitor and examine the biggest banks. This is a much more systematic approach than they have ever experienced before.

Our approach is comprehensive, also covering those that supply the credit reporting companies with people’s financial information. Disputes about the accuracy of information have gotten our attention. So we published a bulletin emphasizing that we will hold furnishers accountable for their duty to investigate disputes. We also made clear that they must review all relevant information they have about the dispute, including documents from consumers. This may sound obvious, but we published the bulletin because we found it was not the normal practice.

Recently, we released a report on how our work is moving the needle in a positive direction. It describes how we are pushing the credit reporting companies and the furnishers to fix data accuracy and dispute handling. Let me describe some of the work we have been doing.

First, we have pressed the companies to improve their quality control systems, which we found were either rudimentary or non-existent. Improvements include testing to identify whether credit reports are being produced for the wrong consumers or contain mixed-up files. Companies are also taking more systematic approaches to correct errors, to prevent them from happening again.

Second, we have made it easier for consumers to dispute errors on their credit reports. We had found some serious failures in this process. Although the law requires companies to notify consumers about the results of dispute investigations, the notification letters did not clearly explain the changes made as a result of the dispute. That is totally unacceptable. We also found, shockingly, that companies were failing to consider the documentation people provided to support their side of the story. Our directives are making them do a better job of investigating disputes and providing more complete responses to consumers.

Third, we are cleaning up the information the credit reporting companies receive in the first place. Our examinations found widespread problems with the ways that banks and financial companies furnish this information, including errors and inadequate processes for fixing errors when they are disputed. The companies are making specific changes and devoting more resources to address these issues.

When our examiners find violations of law, they direct the companies to fix things for the consumers by correcting the errors and getting back money they lost. They also direct the companies to change things for the future. In some cases, as appropriate, this leads to enforcement actions. Recently, for example, we brought enforcement actions against each of the three largest credit reporting companies for deceiving consumers about the actual cost and the uses made of the credit scores sold to them. We also took an enforcement action against Wells Fargo for failing to update or correct inaccurate, negative information reported to the credit reporting companies about student loans.

So we are closely focused on the important issues of data accuracy and dispute handling. Our work here is far from done, but the importance of what we are doing for consumers is enormous.

***

Another way to help improve the credit reporting market is to get consumers more directly involved. People are generally in the best position to know whether the information that is collected and sold about them is accurate and complete. So we are working to improve the market by working to empower consumers. We continue to educate people about the importance of checking their credit reports, their right to a free annual report, and how to dispute errors in their reports. If people are better able to monitor their information for accuracy, then both the credit reporting companies and the furnishers will become more responsive and responsible to the public. This means turning the established “business-to-business model” of credit reporting to focus more squarely on the needs and rights of consumers.

To help people access their credit scores, we have championed the Open Credit Score initiative and related measures that are making credit scores more readily available to consumers at no cost. More than a decade ago, people were given the legal right to a free credit report from each of the three largest credit reporting companies and others every year, but usually they still had to pay to get their credit scores. The Open Credit Score initiative is now making free credit scores regularly available to tens of millions of Americans, and the number is growing fast. And when people notice an unexpected change in their score, they are likely to try to find out why and to learn more about what steps they can take to improve their score, including disputing any errors. This puts consumers in a better position to stand up for themselves in all of these ways.

We are also informing consumers about the availability of free credit scores. We are doing this by publishing a list of companies that have informed the Bureau that they offer their credit card customers free and ready access to one or more of their credit scores. Some have gone further and now offer this same service to all consumers, whether or not they are existing customers. The Open Credit Score Company List is available on our website at consumerfinance.gov. If other companies are providing this service and wish to be added to the list, we will do so.

We recognize that consumers who do not have credit cards also need better access to their credit scores. So we have worked to ensure that nonprofit financial and credit counseling agencies can share the credit reports they purchase on behalf of their clients directly with their clients as well.

***

Our ultimate vision is a credit reporting market based on highly accurate information, where consumers who dispute erroneous information can get their disputes resolved timely and effectively. Making it easier for people to monitor their own credit reports and credit scores to strengthen their financial foundation is a key part of that vision, as is making sure they are treated fairly when they seek credit to improve their lives. We and you share this vision.

As John Hope Bryant has told me many times, these goals help people achieve the American dream of prosperity for themselves and their families and give a leg up to the next generation. Access to affordable, responsible credit is essential to put us on the pathway to success.

We are helping Americans climb the economic ladder by working to fix the systems that make it unsteady. Government has a vital role in making sure these systems are working properly, where individual citizens cannot do so on their own. People who are underserved or having financial problems deserve fair opportunities to move forward in life. Our ultimate goal is to recognize the dignity and worth of every American and make sure every consumer counts. This is entirely in harmony with the important work that Operation HOPE does each day to help people improve their credit reports and raise their credit scores. Much more remains to be done, but now we can do it together, which makes a very big difference. Thank you.

###

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

consumer financial protection bureau

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Fines Experian $3 Million for Deceiving Consumers in Marketing Credit Scores

CFPB logo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 23, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU FINES EXPERIAN $3 MILLION FOR DECEIVING CONSUMERS IN MARKETING CREDIT SCORES
Credit Reporting Company Misstated How Credit Scores It Sold Were Used

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today took action against Experian and its subsidiaries for deceiving consumers about the use of credit scores it sold to consumers. Experian claimed the credit scores it marketed and provided to consumers were used by lenders to make credit decisions. In fact, lenders did not use Experian’s scores to make those decisions. The CFPB ordered Experian to truthfully represent how its credit scores are used. Experian must also pay a civil penalty of $3 million.

“Experian deceived consumers over how the credit scores it marketed and sold were used by lenders,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Consumers deserve and should expect honest and accurate information about their credit scores, which are central to their financial lives.”

Experian, based in Costa Mesa, Calif., is one of the nation’s three largest credit reporting agencies. Experian markets, advertises, sells, offers, and provides credit scores, credit reports, credit monitoring, and other related products to consumers and third parties. Credit scores are numerical summaries designed to predict consumer payment behavior in using credit. Many lenders and other commercial users consider these scores when deciding whether to extend credit. No single credit score or credit scoring model is used by every lender. In addition to the credit scores that are actually used by lenders, several companies have developed so-called “educational credit scores,” which lenders rarely, if ever, use. These scores are intended to inform consumers.

Experian developed its own proprietary credit scoring model, referred to as the “PLUS Score,” which it applied to information in consumer credit files to generate a credit score it offered directly to consumers. The PLUS Score is an “educational” credit score and is not used by lenders for credit decisions. From at least 2012 through 2014, Experian violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by deceiving consumers about the use of the credit scores it sold. In its advertising, Experian falsely represented that the credit scores it marketed and provided to consumers were the same scores lenders use to make credit decisions. In fact, lenders did not use the scores Experian sold to consumers. In some instances, there were significant differences between the PLUS Scores that Experian provided to consumers and the various credit scores lenders actually use. As a result, Experian’s credit scores in these instances presented an inaccurate picture of how lenders assessed consumer creditworthiness.

Experian also violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires a credit reporting company to provide a free credit report once every twelve months and to operate a central source – AnnualCreditReport.com – where consumers can obtain their report. Until March 2014, consumers getting their report through Experian had to view Experian advertisements before they got to the report. This violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act prohibition of such advertising tactics. 

Enforcement Action
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB is authorized to take action against institutions engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, or that otherwise violate federal consumer financial laws. Under the consent order, Experian must:

  • Pay a $3 million penalty: Experian must pay a civil money penalty of $3 million to the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund.
  • Truthfully represent the usefulness of credit scores it sells: Experian must inform consumers about the nature of the scores it sells to consumers.
  • Put in place an effective compliance management system: Experian must develop and implement a plan to make sure its advertising practices relating to credit scores and on Internet webpages that consumers access through AnnualCreditReport.com comply with federal consumer laws and the terms of the CFPB’s consent order. 

The full text of the CFPB’s Consent Order against Experian is available here:http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201703_cfpb_Experian-Holdings-Inc-consent-order.pdf

###

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

Prepared Remarks of Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – LendIt USA Conference

 

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 6, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

Prepared Remarks of Richard Cordray
Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

LendIt USA Conference

New York, N.Y.
March 6, 2017

I am glad to be with you today to hear firsthand about the latest innovations in consumer financial services. These innovations seem to be generating considerable interest and optimism about the future. They are driving new services for consumers and transforming how they conduct their finances. At the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, we want to help channel these cutting-edge approaches in positive directions. Our goal is to put consumers first and provide them with more tools to take control of their financial lives. And we want you to share this vision as well.

As many of you know, the Consumer Bureau is the single federal agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers in the financial marketplace. This includes monitoring the rapid changes that new technologies are spurring in transactions, lending, underwriting, and money management, among other things. As we track how these changes evolve, we will be keeping consumers top of mind as this all plays out.

My remarks will focus on three broad areas of special interest to the Bureau. First, our Project Catalyst initiative is familiar to many of you, yet I will begin by describing the approach we take to encouraging consumer-friendly innovations in consumer finance. Second, we are carefully considering the issue of consumer control over their personal financial data. Third, we are looking into the benefits and risks of using unconventional sources of data to underwrite loans as a way to open access to credit for more consumers.

In general, however, I will note two overarching principles that the Bureau seeks to uphold in all these areas. First, we believe in a level playing field for all providers of consumer financial products and services. Evenhanded oversight of all providers – whether they are large banks or fintech startups – is a basic rule of the road for effective regulation of the financial marketplace. Nobody gets a free pass to exploit regulatory arbitrage; everyone must be held to the same standards of compliance with the law. Second, we strongly urge all providers to make sure that consumer protections are built into emerging products and services, right from the start. Consumer protections and compliance should not be mere add-ons or afterthoughts; they must be essential elements of the business model, from beginning to end.

We all have a vested interest in fostering a marketplace where consumers can understand and access the kinds of responsible products they can rely on throughout their financial lives. And the information consumers need to make decisions about their economic opportunities must be accessible, accurate, and reliable. You are in position to play a large role in helping all American consumers achieve key components of this overarching vision.

***

Let me offer an overview of efforts we are making to encourage innovations in the financial marketplace that will lead to products and services that are more accessible, more affordable, and more convenient for consumers. Our major initiative here is our Project Catalyst, which brings us face to face with many of you. It operates on the principle that markets work best when they are wide open to competition from new ideas. As Linus Pauling, who won two Nobel prizes, once said, “The best way to come up with a good idea is to come up with a lot of ideas.”

From early on, we have made it a priority to engage with financial innovators. We are regularly gleaning insights from industry pilot programs, devising policies to promote consumer-friendly innovation, and listening to the hopes and fears of the innovators themselves. Project Catalyst hosts an “Office Hours” program where we engage with startups, nonprofits, banks, and other financial companies. We are learning about what does and does not work for consumers and the potential challenges facing entrepreneurs and investors. If you want to learn more about our programs supporting financial innovation, please join us at a future Office Hours event.

Project Catalyst also conducts research pilot programs with companies both large and small to inform our understanding of emerging issues. To date, these include a pilot to encourage savings and a pilot to improve the effectiveness of early-intervention credit counseling, among others. We continue to receive and review new pilot ideas for consumer-friendly innovations or research questions, and we urge you to consider working with us in this way.

Project Catalyst is also devising new policies to foster innovations. Our Trial Disclosure Waiver Policy allows financial providers to develop new technologies and innovative approaches for designing and testing alternative consumer disclosures. We encourage you to consider working with us to test new disclosures that could promote greater transparency, improve consumer understanding, or reduce costs. Project Catalyst also administers our “no-action letter” policy, which is intended to help promote novel products that may not fit neatly within the existing regulatory structure, yet may yield significant consumer benefits. A no-action letter would state that Bureau staff does not intend to recommend any supervisory or enforcement action based on these particular innovations for a defined period. The purpose of the policy is to mitigate regulatory risk for products that promise substantial consumer benefit, where there is substantial uncertainty about how they may be viewed under existing law.

***

Utilization of data in the financial marketplace is rapidly evolving. Many of these developments are changing and improving the way consumers manage money and direct their financial affairs, but they have not been without risk to consumers. So we want to understand how consumers and third parties are accessing and using that data, and how it fuels new innovations. We also are deeply interested in how consumers are exercising control over their personal financial data, including the data that is maintained by their financial institutions.

Many of these innovations rely on access to current information drawn from the assets, balances, and transactions in people’s financial accounts. These include savings and checking accounts and, for those who have them, investment, mortgage, credit card, auto loan, or student loan accounts. In each case, by helping them budget or obtain credit, the information recorded about them can be a valuable asset. Indeed, it may matter as much or more to their financial situations than the dollars they actually have in their accounts at any given time.

In November, we issued a Request for Information to inquire about the challenges consumers face in accessing, using, and securely sharing their financial records. We seek to identify whether barriers exist between consumers and the personal data that their financial providers maintain about them. And we want to hear solutions from stakeholders that can help address the risks and technological challenges posed by consumers who want to have ready access to this data and to share it electronically with third parties. We are keenly aware of the serious issues around privacy and security, for consumers and providers alike. One pressing issue is how to satisfy the demands of consumers without exposing the providers that maintain this data to undue costs and risks. Another pressing issue is how to prevent consumers from subjecting themselves to undue risks, including the possibility that their data could be misused.

Over the past few months, we have received about 70 comments from financial institutions, data aggregators, companies that use aggregated data, trade associations, consumer groups, and individuals. We are sifting through the comments, which are extensive and thoughtful. They present a wide range of ideas about how best to achieve the broad goals we have in mind.

Certain perspectives presented in the comments are not surprising. Banks and other financial companies raise concerns about consumer data security and offer solutions that may address those concerns. Aggregators and users of the data, by contrast, are recommending less fettered access and greater freedom to store and use the data that consumers permit them to collect. This would give them more flexibility to enhance their services and their business models. Almost everyone is offering justifications that their approach will better protect the interests of consumers. At stake is how consumers can control what data is shared, and whether security or other concerns should restrict how it is shared, with whom, how often, and for what purposes.

So there is much to digest, and we see the market moving quickly, with high stakes for all involved. Even as we speak, vigorous and spirited negotiations are underway throughout the industry that could shape the future of information access. We expect the interests of consumers to be at the forefront of these discussions. Yet we remain concerned about reports of some institutions that may be limiting or restricting access unduly.

For our part, the Consumer Bureau will continue to analyze these issues and closely follow developments. We will take action as needed to make sure that consumers can safely access and share information about their financial lives, that providers and aggregators act in accordance with their instructions, and that financial institutions have their legitimate interests appropriately protected. We recognize that data access makes it possible to realize the many benefits of competition and innovation. We will be drawing heavily on the technological expertise and insight of the various stakeholders, and we will test their arguments and explanations directly against one another. Above all, we will insist that the consumer is the focus, not the football, as this process unfolds. So we look forward to further productive engagement with all parties to find solutions that will put consumer interests first.

***

I also want to update you on our latest actions to encourage the use of new types of data that can open up credit opportunities for more consumers. Computer-enabled data analysis, for example, has the potential to provide greater insights into the financial patterns of the underserved – their inflows and outflows, and the ways they manage the gaps. Thoughtful and responsible use of financial data about individuals could expand the credit available to underserved consumers. If it is possible to expand opportunity in this manner, it would benefit not only these consumers, but perhaps would buoy the economy in ways that benefit us all.

So last month we launched an initiative to learn more about issues raised by new technologies and new uses of data. In particular, we issued a Request for Information about the potential benefits and risks of using, applying, and analyzing unconventional sources of information to predict people’s creditworthiness. We want to know whether various types of this so-called “alternative data” can help more consumers build their credit histories and gain more access to credit.

Just what consumers are we talking about here? As a self-described “data-driven agency,” naturally the Consumer Bureau has dug into the data to gain a deeper understanding. After crunching the numbers, we estimate that 26 million Americans are “credit invisible,” meaning they have no credit history at all. Another 19 million people have credit histories that, under most models, are too limited or have been inactive for too long to generate a reliable credit score.

That means about 45 million adults nationwide fall into these two categories. For every one of them, managing the ways and means of their lives usually costs more, risks more, takes longer, and does less to build their financial futures than is true for most consumers. That is simply a tragedy in a modern economy and a modern financial system like ours, and we all need to think harder about what we can do to address it. Certain longstanding products, such as secured credit cards, can provide part of the answer and should be actively offered to these consumers.

As many of you are well aware, alternative data may draw from sources such as rent or utility payments, which in general have not been traditionally defined as “credit.” It may draw from electronic or other records of transactions, such as deposits, withdrawals, or account transfers. And it might include other personal information, such as the consumer’s occupation or educational attainment. Other forms of alternative data may spring from new sources that never existed before, such as the use of mobile phones or the Internet. By filling in more details of people’s financial lives, this information may paint a fuller and more accurate picture of their creditworthiness. So adding alternative data into the mix may make it possible to open up more affordable credit for millions of additional consumers.

Through a Request for Information issued last month, we are looking at the pros and cons of using the types of alternative data available today, and what the future may hold as technologies continue to evolve. We are looking at how this information is gathered and analyzed in the underwriting models now used by banks and other financial companies, including the fintech companies. And we are seeking to better understand how all of this is beginning to unfold.

Some of the main inquiries we posed are these. First, can the use of alternative data to create or augment individual credit scores increase access to credit for consumers by helping lenders better assess their creditworthiness? Second, will this lead to more complex lending decisions for both industry and consumers, and what risks would that pose? Third, how might the use of alternative data, new modes of analysis, and new technologies affect costs and services in making credit decisions? Certainly it could mean a faster application process, lower operating costs for lenders, and lower loan costs for borrowers, all of which could benefit consumers. Fourth, what forms of alternative data might be prone to errors, and how hard will it be for consumers to identify such errors and get them corrected? Finally, and quite significantly, how may the use of alternative data affect certain groups or behaviors in ways that might run afoul of the fair lending laws or create other risks for vulnerable consumers?

We are hearing from innovators who want to expand access to credit or offer credit at lower interest rates to borrowers whose credit scores may understate their ability and willingness to repay. And we see promise in some consumer-friendly innovations that bring new products to those who had been locked out or underserved by the banking system and existing credit models. These approaches also pose risks, and we want to know more about these risks and how they can be mitigated or minimized. On the whole, we are encouraged by the potential for alternative data underwriting to benefit the very consumers that the fair lending laws are designed to protect. So we welcome you all to the frank and wide-ranging discussion we have begun on this subject. We are eager to hear your experiences and perspectives, and we encourage you to reach out to us.

***

We will continue to engage with you and others to work through these issues. As we want to make clear, everyone who provides consumers with financial products and services must adhere to the same standards and be held accountable under the law. So as we move forward, we will have one eye on protecting consumers and the other on encouraging innovations to improve their lives. As is always the case, the long-term interests of your businesses depend on delivering great value and customer service. In these ways, our goals intersect. So let us travel this course together, and consider how we can direct our paths toward a better world for many millions of American consumers. Thank you.

###

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

PRESS RELEASE: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Oversight Uncovers and Corrects Credit Reporting Problems

CFPB logo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
March 2, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU OVERSIGHT UNCOVERS AND CORRECTS CREDIT REPORTING PROBLEMS
Bureau Report Outlines Accuracy and Other Issues That Bureau Supervision Has Taken Action to Address

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report detailing the problems in the credit reporting industry that the Bureau has uncovered and corrected through its oversight work. Since launching its supervision of the credit reporting market, the CFPB has identified significant issues with the quality of the credit information being provided by furnishers and maintained by credit reporting companies. Today’s report outlines the actions that the CFPB has taken to address these ongoing problems such as fixing data accuracy at credit reporting companies, repairing the broken dispute process, and cleaning up information being reported.

“Since we began our oversight work, the CFPB has been uncovering and correcting problems in the consumer reporting industry,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Because of our work, important improvements are being made. Much more work needs to be done but our corrective actions are leading to positive changes that are benefiting consumers all over the country.”

Consumer reporting companies are businesses that track information about a consumer, including credit history, deposit account history, and other consumer transactions. Such companies, which include what are popularly called credit bureaus or credit reporting companies or agencies, play a key role in the consumer financial services marketplace and in the financial lives of consumers. For example, the reports sold by the three largest consumer reporting companies – Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion – are used in determining everything from consumer eligibility for credit to the rates consumers pay for credit. The consumer reporting companies receive their information from furnishers, including both banks and nonbanks. Inaccurate information can lead to inaccurate reports and consumer and market harm.

Consumers continue to complain about the credit reporting industry in high numbers. The Bureau has handled approximately 185,700 credit reporting complaints as of Feb. 1, 2017. Consumers have said that when they dispute an item on their report, nothing changes even though federal law requires the consumer reporting company to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation and update the file to reflect any necessary changes or delete the item. Consumers also frequently complain of debts already paid showing up on their report as unpaid and information that is not theirs being included in their report negatively affecting their credit scores.

In 2012, the CFPB became the first federal agency to supervise all sides of the credit reporting market, which includes the consumer reporting companies and providers of consumer financial products or services, many of whom furnish or use consumer reports. In 2013, the CFPB published a bulletin warning that the agency would hold furnishers accountable for their legal obligation to investigate consumer disputes forwarded by the consumer reporting companies. The bulletin also reminded companies that they must review all relevant information provided with the disputes, including documents submitted by consumers. The CFPB has also made efforts, including in a consumer advisory, to educate the public about the importance of checking their credit reports, what to look for in their reports, and how to dispute mistakes. As outlined in today’s special edition of Supervision Highlights, because of these widespread issues, CFPB supervision has aimed its work at:

  • Fixing data accuracy at consumer reporting companies: Early on, examiners found that one or more of the consumer reporting companies lacked good quality control to check the accuracy of their consumer records. The CFPB directed them to make necessary changes, and they did. In recent exams, examiners have found that quality control programs have been instituted that include tests to identify whether reports are produced for the wrong consumer and whether reports contain mixed-up files. The companies are also taking better corrective actions when mistakes are identified, and making system improvements to prevent the same mistakes from happening again. 
  • Repairing broken dispute processes at consumer reporting companies: CFPB examiners discovered that one or more consumer reporting companies were not following federal requirements that said they must send a notice with the results of disputes to consumers. They also found one or more consumer reporting companies failing to consider documentation provided by the consumer on a disputed item. The CFPB directed these companies to improve their dispute investigation systems. Now, continued monitoring has shown that the consumer reporting companies have improved processes for investigating disputes and are improving response letters to consumers.
  • Cleaning up information from furnishers: Through earlier reviews at banks and nonbanks, CFPB examiners found widespread problems with furnishers supplying incorrect information to the consumer reporting companies. The CFPB directed them to take steps to address these problems, such as maintaining evidence that they are accurately handling disputes and conducting reasonable investigations. Since then, several furnishers have dedicated more resources to ensuring the integrity of the information. This effort includes better investigations and handling of disputes, notifying consumers of results, and taking corrective action when inaccurate information has been supplied. Importantly, though, examiners continue to find numerous violations at one or more furnishers, particularly around deposit account information.

The CFPB’s approach when examining the credit reporting activities of supervised entities is just like its approach to examining other activities of supervised entities. Supervision includes a review of compliance systems and procedures, on-site examinations, discussions with relevant personnel, and requirements to produce relevant reports. The Fair Credit Reporting Act governs how companies handle consumers’ information. When examiners find violations of law, they direct the companies to change their conduct and remediate consumers. When appropriate, the CFPB’s supervisory activity also results in enforcement actions, such as the action against the furnisher Wells Fargo Bank for failing to update or correct inaccurate, negative information reported to credit reporting companies about student loans.

Today’s edition of Supervisory Highlights Credit Reporting Special Edition is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201703_cfpb_Supervisory-Highlights-Consumer-Reporting-Special-Edition.pdf 

###

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

PRESS RELEASE: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Snapshot Spotlights Credit Credit Reporting Complaints

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 28, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU SNAPSHOT SPOTLIGHTS CREDIT REPORTING COMPLAINTS
Report Also Looks at Consumer Complaints from Louisiana
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a monthly complaint snapshot highlighting consumer complaints about credit reporting. The snapshot shows that consumers continue to report struggling to resolve errors on their credit reports. This month’s report also highlights trends seen in complaints coming from Louisiana. As of Feb. 1, 2017, the Bureau had handled approximately 1,110,100 consumer complaints across all products nationally.

“Credit reports provide the means for consumers everywhere to take important steps in their financial lives,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “The Bureau will continue to work to ensure that credit reports are accurate and when disputed issues arise on credit reports consumers are able to resolve them quickly and with little hassle.”

The Monthly Complaint Report can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201702_cfpb_Monthly-Complaint-Report.pdf

Category Spotlight: Credit Reporting
Credit reporting companies track the credit history and other information about consumers who are active in the financial marketplace. The credit reports produced by the reporting companies are used to judge a consumer’s eligibility to take out a mortgage, buy a car, and even get a job in some instances. As of Feb. 1, 2017, the Bureau had handled approximately 185,700 credit reporting complaints. Some of the findings in the snapshot include:

Consumers report problems disputing complaints on their credit reports: Complaints submitted to the Bureau indicate that consumers continue to experience difficulties when submitting disputes to credit reporting companies.
Consumers complain about inaccurate information on credit reports: Consumers submit a high number of complaints about inaccurate personal information on their reports. Frequently consumers state that incorrect or unrecognized names and addresses appear on their reports.
Consumers report confusion about credit scoring: Consumers continue to be confused over the variety of scores and scoring “factors” that accompany credit score information. Consumers frequently express confusion when they receive varying scores from different reporting agencies.
National Complaint Overview
As of Feb. 1, 2017, the CFPB has handled approximately 1,110,100 complaints nationally. Some of the findings from the statistics being published in this month’s snapshot report include:

Complaint volume: For January 2017, debt collection was the most-complained-about financial product or service. Of the approximately 29,000 complaints handled in January, there were 7,730 complaints about debt collection. The second most-complained-about consumer product was student loans, which accounted for 5,389 complaints. The third most-complained-about financial product or service was credit reporting, accounting for 4,620 complaints.
Product trends: In a year-to-year comparison examining the three-month time period of November to January, student loan complaints showed the greatest increase—388 percent—of any product or service. The Bureau received 497 student loan complaints between November 2015 and January 2016, while it received 2,425 complaints during the same time period a year later. This spike in complaints came around the time the CFPB took a major enforcement action against student loan servicer Navient. Additionally, in February 2016, the Bureau expanded the student loan intake form to include federal student loans.
State information: Georgia, South Dakota, and Mississippi experienced the greatest year-to-year complaint volume increases from November 2016 to January 2017 versus the same time period 12 months before; with Georgia up 59 percent, South Dakota up 43 percent, and Mississippi up 34 percent.
Most-complained-about companies: The top three companies that received the most complaints from September through November 2016 were Wells Fargo, Equifax, and TransUnion.
Geographic Spotlight: Louisiana
This month, the CFPB highlighted complaints from Louisiana and the New Orleans metro area. As of Feb. 1, 2017, consumers in Louisiana have submitted 12,400 of the 1,110,100 complaints the CFPB has handled. Of those complaints, 4,500 came from consumers in the New Orleans metro area. Findings from the Louisiana complaints include:

Rate of debt collection complaints higher than the national average: Complaints related to debt collection accounted for 34 percent of all complaints submitted by consumers from Louisiana. This is higher than the rate of 27 percent at which consumers nationally submit debt collection complaints to the Bureau.
Rate of credit reporting complaints at roughly the national average: Consumers in Louisiana submitted complaints about credit reporting at roughly the national average. Complaints related to credit reporting accounted for 19 percent of all complaints submitted by consumers from Louisiana, while credit reporting complaints account for 17 percent of complaints submitted to the Bureau nationally.
Most-complained-about companies: Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian were the most-complained-about companies from consumers in Louisiana.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which created the CFPB, established consumer complaint handling as an integral part of the CFPB’s work. The CFPB began accepting complaints as soon as it opened its doors in July 2011. It currently accepts complaints on many consumer financial products, including credit cards, mortgages, bank accounts and services, student loans, vehicle and other consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, debt collection, and payday loans.

In June 2012, the CFPB launched its Consumer Complaint Database, which is the nation’s largest public collection of consumer financial complaints. When consumers submit a complaint they have the option to share publicly their explanation of what happened. For more individual-level complaint data and to read consumers’ experiences, visit the Consumer Complaint Database at: www.consumerfinance.gov/complaintdatabase/.

Company-level complaint data in the report uses a three-month rolling average of complaints sent by the Bureau to companies for response. This data lags other complaint data in this report by two months to reflect the 60 days companies have to respond to complaints, confirming a commercial relationship with the consumer. Company-level information should be considered in the context of company size.

To submit a complaint, consumers can:

Go online at www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
Call the toll-free phone number at 1-855-411-CFPB (2372) or TTY/TDD phone number at 1-855-729-CFPB (2372)
Fax the CFPB at 1-855-237-2392
Mail a letter to: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, P.O. Box 4503, Iowa City, Iowa 52244
Additionally, through “Ask CFPB,” consumers can get clear, unbiased answers to their questions at consumerfinance.gov/askcfpb or by calling 1-855-411-CFPB (2372).
###

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

PRESS RELEASE: CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU EXPLORES IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE DATA ON CREDIT ACCESS FOR CONSUMERS WHO ARE CREDIT INVISIBLE

CFPB logo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 16, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU EXPLORES IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE DATA ON CREDIT ACCESS FOR CONSUMERS WHO ARE CREDIT INVISIBLE
CFPB Seeks Public Feedback on Benefits, Risks of Using Unconventional Sources to Extend Affordable Credit to Consumers Lacking Credit History

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau today launched an inquiry into ways to expand access to credit for consumers who are credit invisible or who lack enough credit history to obtain a credit score. Traditional credit history includes a borrower’s payment of debts such as mortgages, credit cards, and other loans. It is used by lenders to decide who can get credit and what it will cost. The Bureau is seeking public feedback on the benefits and risks of tapping alternative data sources such as bills for mobile phones and rent payments to make lending decisions about consumers whose lack of credit history might otherwise block opportunities.

“Alternative data from unconventional sources may help consumers who are stuck outside the system build a credit history to access mainstream credit sources,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We want to learn more about whether this non-traditional approach can offer opportunities to millions of Americans who are credit invisible and how to minimize any risks in how this information is used.”

The Bureau estimates that 26 million Americans are credit invisible, meaning they have no credit history with a nationwide consumer reporting agency. Another 19 million consumers have a credit history that has gone stale, or is insufficient to produce a credit score under most scoring models. A credit score is drawn from a consumer’s credit report. A credit report may reflect if payments are made on time, what debt a consumer owes, and whether they have a debt or bill in collection. Credit reports can also include records such as liens, judgments, and bankruptcies, which can provide insight into a consumer’s financial status and obligations.

Typically, a credit score predicts the likelihood the consumer will repay a debt as agreed. A mathematical formula – the scoring model – is used to create the credit score based on payment record, amount of debts, and other factors. Each has a certain weight, and a credit score is calculated from this formula. A higher score usually makes it easier for a borrower to qualify for a loan and may garner a better interest rate. Most credit scores range from 300-850. Different lenders may use different scoring models, so a consumer’s credit score can vary from lender to lender.

Without a sufficient credit history, consumers face barriers to accessing credit, or pay more for credit. This problem disproportionately impacts consumers who are Black or Hispanic, and people who live in low-income neighborhoods. It also impacts some recent immigrants, young people just getting started, or people who are recently widowed or divorced who don’t have enough credit history on their own. Underserved consumers often resort to high-cost loans that aren’t reported to credit reporting agencies, which may not help build a credit history.

For some consumers, the use of unconventional sources of information, called “alternative data,” may be a way to gain access to credit to build a credit history. Alternative data draws from sources such as bill payments for mobile phones and rent, and electronic transactions such as deposits, withdrawals or transfers. This information could show a track record of meeting obligations that may not turn up in a credit history. As a result, some who now cannot get reasonably priced credit may see more access or lower borrowing costs. The Bureau is also exploring risks posed by alternative data that is inconsistent, incomplete, incorrect, overgeneralized, or biased. Such flaws could adversely affect credit access for low-income and underserved populations, or others. The CFPB’s Request for Information seeks insights into the benefits and risks of alternative data and the techniques used to compile and analyze it. Specifically, Bureau will explore topics including:

  • Access to credit: The CFPB seeks information about whether using alternative data to create or augment a credit score could increase access to credit by helping lenders better assess consumer creditworthiness. For instance, a consumer without a scored credit history may still pay bills on time for utilities or mobile phones. This might reassure lenders that they are viable credit risk. Some lenders might not lend to a consumer with a credit score less than 620. However, they might do so if alternative data suggests they are less of a risk for defaulting on the loan. 
  • Complexity of the process: The CFPB is looking at whether the use of this information could make credit decisions more complex for both consumers and industry. This process includes lenders who must notify consumers about credit decisions and financial educators helping consumers grasp their credit standing. The Bureau is examining whether the added complexity makes it harder for consumers to understand and take control of their financial lives.
  • Impact on costs and service: The CFPB is looking into the impact of the use of alternative data, new ways to analyze it, and new technologies on costs and services in credit decisions. The Bureau is studying if this may help produce a faster application process, lower operating costs for lenders, and lower loan costs for borrowers.
  • Implications for privacy and security: The CFPB is looking into privacy and security issues in the use of alternative data that contains sensitive personal information. Consumers may not know that it has been collected and shared or how it will be used in the credit process. The Bureau will also explore whether some data are more prone to errors because of weaker or different standards than data traditionally used in credit decisions, and whether consumers can correct errors in this information. 
  • Impact on specific groups: The CFPB is looking into whether the use of alternative data could affect certain groups or behaviors in unpredictable ways. For example, members of the military may frequently move, which might give a false impression of personal instability that would affect whether they can get credit. The Bureau is also studying the impact on fair lending of using data that may be correlated to a person’s race, ethnicity, gender, or other attribute, and how such risks could be managed. 

The CFPB Request for Information can be found here: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/20170214_cfpb_Alt-Data-RFI.pdf

###

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

PRESS RELEASE: Prepared Remarks of Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

CFPB logo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 16, 2017

CONTACT:
Office of Communications
Tel: (202) 435-7170

Prepared Remarks of Richard Cordray

Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Alternative Data Field Hearing

Charleston, W.Va.

February 16, 2017

Thank you for joining us. I am glad to be in Charleston as we explore some new frontiers for consumer access to credit. As many of you know, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the single federal agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers in the financial marketplace. We are working to ensure that consumers can gain access to financial products and services that are fair, transparent, and competitive. In this spirit, we continue to encourage consumer-friendly innovation, such as through our Project Catalyst. So today we are announcing a Request for Information about unconventional sources of information, new ways to analyze this data, and how new technologies can help in assessing people’s creditworthiness. We want to learn more about whether this kind of alternative data could open up greater access to credit for many Americans who are currently stranded outside the mainstream credit system. We also want to understand how market participants are, or could be, mitigating certain risks to consumers that may arise from these innovations.

Let us begin by reviewing how our mainstream credit system generally works. Until the rise of the modern credit reporting industry, many loans were made based on personal relationships of long standing that develop between creditors and their customers. Someone who knows all about your personal financial story – including your way of making a living, your accumulated wealth, your spending habits, and your family background – has an excellent vantage point for deciding whether it is a good risk to extend credit to you. Based on everything they know about you, they can size up your creditworthiness, including any collateral you may be able to post as security. Thus they can make a pretty careful determination as to whether they are likely to recover what they decide to lend you.

Although this framework still describes some fairly vigorous modes of local lending in this country, particularly at community banks or credit unions, we have also developed another credit framework. It uses automated underwriting systems and is built on extensive data about people’s credit histories and algorithms for analyzing that data. This newer approach reflects changes in our society, such as increased mobility and the growth of national banks and mono-line financial firms. These companies are not in the same position to know all the detailed history of local communities and individual customers at a personal level. This approach also reflects new technological capabilities that can mine mountains of data and determine mathematically which elements are most closely correlated with future performance. To get a loan under this more automated framework, a consumer typically needs a credit score.

An individual credit score is fashioned from the information contained in individual files that are managed by nationwide credit reporting companies. This is a product of the modern era, now greatly bolstered by computerized databases. Each file, known as a credit report, tells the story of a consumer’s credit history and current credit usage – at least what can be known from the information in the file. It records the size and type of loans made to the consumer, what is owed, how much credit is available, and whether prior debts were paid on time. It may list personal loans and car loans, credit card balances, student loans, and mortgages. It may also note unpaid bills in debt collection and list court judgments, liens, or bankruptcies. This credit history is then used to determine how likely consumers are to repay existing debts and to gauge the prospects for repayment of any new debts they may take on.

Some of the limitations of this system derive from historical and contingent circumstances. For example, consumers often try just as hard to meet their monthly rent payments as they do their monthly mortgage payments, but rent is often omitted from credit files, unlike a mortgage payment. This may be because rent is not typically viewed as “credit.”  Or it may be because mortgage loans are made by banks and financial companies that have mechanisms for keeping records of them, which results in more regular categories of reportable data. By contrast, rents are collected by millions of landlords scattered all over the country and data on those payments is not collected in any systematic way. To take another example, debt collectors often report data on the debts they are collecting – including debts arising from unpaid medical bills – but the billers themselves, such as medical providers, do not report such information. Credit files thus may include information about bills you failed to pay, but not about all the bills you did pay.

In automated underwriting systems – and even in many manual underwriting systems – decisions to grant credit and set interest rates on loans are based on credit scores to a large degree. These familiar three-digit scores are drawn from the information contained in individual credit files. As such, credit scores play a central role in the financial lives of American consumers. They can determine whether people will be granted credit at all, or the terms and conditions for doing so, including the interest rate. The availability of credit scores – and the accuracy and completeness of the underlying data – have thus become increasingly important to almost all Americans.

***

Unfortunately, for many consumers with a limited or non-existent credit history, a credit score is out of reach. The Consumer Bureau has run the numbers and estimates that 26 million Americans are “credit invisible,” meaning they have no credit history at all. Under the most widely used scoring models, another 19 million people have credit histories that are too limited or have been inactive for too long to generate a credit score. Here in West Virginia, nearly 180,000 residents are “credit invisible.” And nearly 130,000 residents have too little credit history or histories that are too inactive to have a credit score. Add it up, and about one-in-five adults here in the Mountain State are hampered in their financial lives by the lack of a credit score. The same story can be told virtually anywhere in the country, since 45 million adults fall into this category nationwide.

People with little or no credit history, or who lack a credit score, have fewer opportunities to borrow money in order to build a future and any credit that is available usually costs more. That only deepens their economic vulnerability. Among them are those living in lower-income neighborhoods, young people just starting out in life, and many who are recently widowed or divorced and have not yet built sufficient credit history on their own. Many people without credit records or credit scores work hard and strive to pay their bills on time. They may live paycheck to paycheck, straining to make ends meet. They often are caught in a Catch-22, unable to get credit because they have not had credit before. They cannot seize meaningful opportunities, such as borrowing to start a business or buy a house.

For these consumers, the use of unconventional sources of information, called “alternative data,” may allow them to build a credit history and gain access to credit. Alternative data may draw from sources such as rent or utility payments. These obligations may not qualify under more traditional definitions of “credit” and as a result would not be factored into the credit decisioning process. Alternative data may also draw from electronic transactions such as deposits, withdrawals, or transfers from a checking account. And it can encompass the kinds of information that relationship lenders typically know as a matter of course, such as the consumer’s occupation, educational attainment, and various other personal accomplishments. New forms of alternative data may come from sources that never existed before, such as the way we use our mobile phones or the Internet. By filling in more details of a consumer’s financial life, this information may paint a broader and more accurate picture of their creditworthiness. Adding this kind of alternative data into the mix thus holds out the promise of opening up credit for millions of additional consumers.

Alternative data holds out further promise as well. Credit scores, by their very nature, are backward-looking indicators. Consumers who experience a financial hardship – such as the loss of a job or a large medical expense – may fall behind in making credit payments. This may tag them with a low credit score long after their financial situation has turned around. Alternative data may help lenders identify more precisely, from those who currently carry “subprime” credit scores, a substantial subset of consumers who are, in fact, good credit risks. These people should not be held back simply by their retrospective credit score.

The Request for Information we are issuing today looks into the pros and cons of the use of these unconventional sources of information. We are examining what data are already available for use today, and looking into what the future may hold as technologies evolve. We are seeking to study how these data are being gathered and analyzed in underwriting models now used by banks and other financial companies, including fintech companies. And we are seeking to better understand how these models and modeling techniques are evolving.

***

This Request for Information focuses on four main issues. First, it looks at the potential risks and benefits for consumers of using this additional information to better assess their likelihood of repaying a loan. Second, it looks at how introducing new alternative data sources into the credit decisioning process might add to its complexity. Among other things, we want to find out if this will make credit decisions more difficult for people to understand and thus make it harder for them to control their financial lives. Third, the Request for Information looks at how the use and interpretation of these data may affect privacy and transparency. And finally, it looks at whether reliance on some types of alternative data could result in discrimination, whether inadvertent or otherwise, against certain consumers.

Let me start with access to credit. As I mentioned, a key question for the Consumer Bureau is how people without a credit score can begin building a credit history. We want to learn more about how we could promote the responsible use of alternative data, even as we continue to protect consumers’ interests. For instance, someone with no credit history might nonetheless be quite reliable in paying their cell phone bill or their rent on time. Or they may have a history of checking account deposits and have made good use of a debit card. This might make them a viable credit risk. We know that some lenders will not loan money to consumers with a credit score that is less than, say, 620. But they might do so if alternative data suggest that a particular consumer with such a score would be less likely to default on the loan.

This leads us to the second issue. Even as alternative data may shed more light on a consumer’s creditworthiness, the sheer volume of new data that may be streaming into the system could have other effects. On the one hand, new analytical methods based on unconventional information could produce a faster, less complicated application process, with lower operating costs for lenders and lower loan costs for borrowers. On the other hand, the accumulation of more and more alternative data could create a tangle of information that is harder for people to understand and unravel. The credit process can already be somewhat murky. So we want to learn whether folding in alternative data could complicate the decisions facing consumers. The harder it is for consumers to understand their credit record or whether they are likely to qualify for certain loans, the harder it will be for them to master their finances. This same complexity could also burden lenders who must explain adverse credit decisions to consumers. And it may bog down financial educators and counselors who are trying to help people understand their credit standing and take more control of their financial lives.

The third issue we are raising today concerns how alternative data is shared, by and to whom, and whether these interactions are safe and secure. We want to know whether this information is reliable and whether its use is transparent to consumers. Some consumers may not even know that the information was collected and shared, let alone how it may be used in the credit process. We are also exploring whether some information is more prone to errors because it was collected under weaker standards in place at the time. Another question is whether consumers can correct any mistakes that turn up. As part of our inquiry, we are looking into how the credit reporting laws may apply to these and other issues.

And finally, we are looking into how this information, even if entirely accurate, may be applied or interpreted. If the use and analysis of alternative data leads to certain consumers being needlessly penalized, we want to know that. For example, some newer underwriting algorithms use measures of residential stability. These measures may help predict creditworthiness and may identify consumers who make their rent payments on time.  Yet members of the military are required to move frequently as their duty stations change. As a result, this measure could hinder access to credit for servicemembers, even if they are, in fact, a good credit risk. Other data may be strongly correlated with characteristics such as race or gender, which could enable lenders to do indirectly what they are forbidden from doing directly: drawing conclusions about whether to make a loan based on a person’s race, gender, or other prohibited categories. Similarly, data tied to a consumer’s place on the economic ladder may hinder those trying to climb it. This may be especially true for those who are already struggling financially and facing a system that is full of obstacles. So we are looking into how fair lending laws might apply to these and other issues.

***

As we consider how the risks of alternative data may give rise to the potential for discrimination, I want to pause for a moment and make clear our intentions with this Request for Information. The fair lending laws are designed to promote equal access to credit for all Americans, without regard to race, sex, ethnic background, or a variety of other personal characteristics. The reason for these laws is to eliminate such credit discrimination in the financial marketplace. But if fair lending concerns cast a large enough shadow, they may prevent people from considering and using alternative data that might open up more credit for minority and underserved consumers. This could interfere with progress for the very people these laws are intended to protect.

Equal access to credit means even more if overall access to credit is expanded and not constrained by lingering uncertainty about how regulators intend to apply fair lending laws. So we have crafted this Request for Information to help us better understand whether and how such uncertainty may be hindering credit access for disadvantaged populations. We also want to learn more about how the Consumer Bureau might reduce that uncertainty while holding fast to the anti-discrimination principles that are the cornerstones of federal law. That would help market participants go about their business with more confidence that they can better assess the creditworthiness of particular consumers without running afoul of legal requirements. In short, we see alternative data as holding out the promise to benefit the very populations that may be most disadvantaged by excessive reliance on traditional credit reports and credit scores. And we are committed to having a full and frank discussion about how we can minimize the risks and maximize the potential benefits.

***

With the Request for Information we are issuing today, the Consumer Bureau invites all who are interested in these developments to share their views on this rapidly evolving aspect of financial services. We strongly encourage affordable, responsible lending to more people who may already be deserving of the opportunities that credit can bring to their lives. At the same time, we want to make sure that all lenders are playing by the same rules. This evenhanded oversight both protects consumers and ensures a level playing field for the financial industry. And it applies to both big banks and small startups. We want to learn more about how the use of this data affects consumers and how it is being analyzed and interpreted. And we want to know whether it can help more of our neighbors gain control of their financial destinies, enjoy more options, and achieve their own vision of the American dream. Thank you.

###

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