All posts by Tony Hadley
The U.S. Senate Banking Committee passed a financial regulatory relief bill (S. 2155) in December 2017 aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on community banks, credit unions and smaller regional banks. Committee Chairman Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), sponsored the bill, which has strong bipartisan support, with 23 cosponsors (11 Republicans and 12 Democrats and an independent). The package is likely to be considered by the full Senate in early 2018. The legislation includes two provisions related to consumer credit reporting. Both were adopted, in part, in reaction to the Equifax data breach. As the bill moves through the legislative process during 2018, it will be important for all participants in the consumer credit ecosystem to be aware of the potential changes in law. One provision deals with fraud alerts and credit freezes for consumers and the other deals with how medical debt is processed for veterans who seek medical treatment outside the VA system. Credit Freezes The bill amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide consumers with the ability to freeze/unfreeze credit files maintained by nationwide credit reporting agencies at no cost, and would extend the time period for initial fraud alerts from 90 days to one year. The credit freeze provisions would also establish a process for parents and guardians to place a freeze on the file of a minor at no cost. The bill would require the nationwide credit reporting agencies to create webpages with information on credit freezes, fraud alerts, active duty alerts and pre-screen opt-outs and these pages would be linked to the FTC’s existing website, www.IdentityTheft.gov. The credit freeze and minor freeze provisions would preempt State laws and create a national standard. Protections for Veterans The bill also incorporates a provision that would prohibit credit bureaus from including debt for health-care related services that the veteran received through the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Choice Program. The provision would cover debt that the veteran incurred in the previous year, as well as any delinquent debt that was fully paid or settled. The legislation would require a consumer reporting agency to delete medical debt if it receives information from either the veteran or the VA that the debt was incurred through the Veteran’s Choice Program. What’s next The bill now awaits consideration before the full Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the bill is a “candidate for early consideration” in 2018, but the exact timing of floor debate has yet to be scheduled. Once the package passes the Senate, it will need to be reconciled with the regulatory relief package that was passed by the House last spring.
On June 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a new study that found that the ways “credit invisible” consumers establish credit history can differ greatly based on their economic background. The CFPB estimated in its May 2015 study \"Data Point: Credit Invisibles\" that more than 45 million American consumers are credit invisible, meaning they either have a thin credit file that cannot be scored or no credit history at all. The new study reviewed de-identified credit records on more than one million consumers who became credit visible. It found that consumers in lower-income areas are 240 percent more likely to become credit visible due to negative information, such as a debt in collection. The CFPB noted consumers in higher-income areas become credit visible in a more positive way, with 30 percent more likely to become credit visible by using a credit card and 100 percent more likely to become credit visible by being added as a co-borrower or authorized user on someone else’s account. The study also found that the percentage of consumers transitioning to credit visibility due to student loans more than doubled in the last 10 years. CFPB’s research highlights the need for alternative credit data The new study demonstrates the importance of moving forward with inclusion of new sources of high-quality financial data — like on-time payment data from rent, utility and telecommunications providers — into a consumer’s credit file. Experian recently outlined our beliefs on the issue in comments responding to the CFPB’s Request for Information on Alternative Data. As a brand, we have a long history of using alternative credit data to help lenders make better lending decisions. Extensive research has shown that there is an immense opportunity to facilitate greater access to fair and affordable credit for underserved consumers through the inclusion of on-time telecommunications, utility and rental data in credit files. While these consumers may not have a traditional credit history, many make on-time payments for telephone, rent, cable, power or mobile services. However, this data is not typically being used to enhance traditional credit files held by the nationwide consumer reporting agencies, nor is it being used in most third-party or custom credit scoring models. Further, new advances in financial technology and data analytics through account aggregation platforms are also integral to the credit granting process and can be applied in a manner to broaden access to credit. Experian is currently using account aggregation software to obtain consumer financial account information for authentication and income verification to speed credit decisions, but we are looking to expand this technology to increase the collection and utilization of alternative data for improving credit decisions by lenders. Policymakers should act to help credit invisible consumers While Experian continues to work with telecommunications and utility companies to facilitate the furnishing of on-time credit data to the nationwide consumer reporting agencies, regulatory barriers continue to exist that deter utility and telecommunications companies from furnishing on-time payment data to credit bureaus. To help address this issue, Congress is currently considering bipartisan legislation (H.R. 435, The Credit Access and Inclusion Act of 2017) that would amend the FCRA to clarify that utility and telecommunication companies can report positive credit data, such as on-time payments, to the nation\' s credit reporting bureaus. The legislation has bipartisan support in Congress and Experian encourages lawmakers to move forward with this important initiative that could benefit tens of millions of American consumers. In addition, Experian believes policymakers should more clearly define the term alternative data. In public policy debates, the term \"alternative data\" is a broad term, often lumping data sources that can or have been proven to meet regulatory standards for accuracy and fairness required by both the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act with data sources that cannot or have not been proven to meet these standards. In our comment letter, Experian encourages policymakers to clearly differentiate between different types of alternative data and focus the consumer and commercial credit industry on public policy recommendations that will increase the use of those sources of data that have or can be shown to meet legal and societal standards for accuracy, validity, predictability and fairness. More info on Alternative Credit Data More Info on Alternative Financial Services
In a May 4 speech before the ACA International Conference in Washington, FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly criticized the FCC’s past decisions on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and outlined his vision on the direction that the new Commission should head to provide more certainty to businesses. Commissioner O’Rielly noted that prior decisions by the FCC and courts have “expanded the boundaries of TCPA far beyond what I believe Congress intended.” He said that the new leadership at the Commission and a new Bureau head overseeing TCPA, provides the FCC with the opportunity to “undo the misguided and harmful TCPA decisions of the past that exposed legitimate companies to massive legal liability without actually protecting consumers.” O’Rielly laid out three principles that he thought would help to frame discussions and guide the development of replacement rules. First, he said that legitimate businesses need to be able to contact consumers to communicate information that they want, need or expect to receive. This includes relief for informational calls, as well as valid telemarketing calls or texts. Second, Commissioner O’Rielly said that FCC should change the definition of an autodialer so that valid callers can operate in an efficient manner. He went on to say that if FCC develops new rules to clarify revocation of consent, it should do so in a clear and convenient way for consumers, but also does not upend standard best practices of legitimate companies. Third, O’Rielly said that the FCC should focus on actual harms and bad actors, not legitimate companies. While Commissioner O’Rielly’ s comments signal his approach to TCPA reform, it is important to note that FCC action on the issue us unlikely to happen overnight. A rule must be considered by the Commission, which will have to allow for public notice and comment. Experian will continue to monitor regulatory and legislative developments on TCPA.
Investors and financial institutions continue to invest in fintech to help meet the dynamic expectations of consumers who want fast, easy and hassle-free access to new financial products and services. Just last week, in his annual letter to shareholders, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon noted that the bank has invested approximately $600 million “on emerging fintech solutions – which include building and improving digital and mobile services and partnering with fintech companies.” Meanwhile, policymakers in Washington continue to grapple with how to spur responsible innovation and how fintech fits into the existing regulatory paradigm. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) continues to move forward with the development of a special purpose national charter for fintech lenders. On March 15, the OCC issued a draft supplement to its existing Licensing Manual that describes how the agency “will apply the licensing standards and requirements in its existing regulations and policies to fintech companies applying for a special purpose national bank charter.” The draft manual, which is open for a 30-day public comment period ending April 14, 2017, would prohibit fintech lenders from offering products “with predatory features” or entities that inappropriately mingle banking and commerce. The agency also defended its legal authority to make the move without a new law from Congress or any formal rulemaking process, saying it’s doing nothing more than expanding a longstanding practice. At the same time, a group of House Republicans, led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), has asked Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry to slow down plans to grant special charters to fintech firms. In the letter, the lawmakers state that OCC should provide “full and fair opportunity” for public comment on standards for granting fintech charters and allow President Trump’s pick for the next comptroller to weigh in. The lawmakers go on to say that if OCC “proceeds in haste” to create new limited-purpose charter for fintech, Congress will examine the agency’s actions and “if appropriate, overturn them.” The issue will likely continue to bubble under the surface as Congress and the Trump Administration tackle larger issues such as tax reform, infrastructure spending and possibly wider financial services reform. However, the fintech charter is a legacy item for Comptroller Curry and he is likely to seek to move this to closure given that his term expires at the end of April (although he would remain in place until President Trump nominates and confirms his replacement).
As 2016 comes to a close, many in the financial services industry are trying to assess the impact the Trump administration and Republican controlled Congress will have on regulatory issues. Answers to these questions may be clearer after President-elect Trump is inaugurated on Jan. 20. However, those in the federal regulatory environment are already exploring oversight and regulation of the FinTech and marketplace lending sector. Warning on alternative credit risk models Inquiries by federal and state policymakers over the past year have centered on how FinTech and marketplace lenders are assessing credit risk. In particular, regulators have asked about how credit models different from traditional credit scoring models and what, if any, new attributes or data are being incorporated into credit risk models for consumers and small businesses. On Dec. 2, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard signaled that policymakers continue to be interested in this area during a wide-ranging speech on the potential opportunities and risks associated with FinTech. In particular, Brainard warned that “While nontraditional data may have the potential to help evaluate consumers who lack credit histories, some data may raise consumer protection concerns” and that nontraditional data “… may not necessarily have a broadly agreed upon or empirically established nexus with creditworthiness and may be correlated with characteristics protected by fair lending laws.” Brainard also suggested that there are transparency concerns with alternative scoring models, saying that “alternative credit scoring methods present new challenges that could raise questions of fairness and transparency” given that consumers may not always understand what data is used utilized and how it impacts a consumer’s ability to access credit at an affordable price. Look for regulators and Congress to continue to focus on the fairness and accuracy of new credit risk models and the data underpinning those models in debates surrounding FinTech and Marketplace lending in 2017. A national charter for FinTech? Earlier this month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) announced that it was considering the creation of a national charter for FinTech lenders. There has long been speculation that the OCC would offer a national charter for FinTech. Analysts have suggested that the creation of a charter could help increase regulatory oversight of the growing market and also provide additional regulatory certainty for the emerging FinTech industry. The OCC’s proposal would create a special purpose national bank charter for FinTech businesses that are engaged in at least one of three core banking activities: receiving deposits; paying checks; or lending money. The OCC will be developing a formal agency policy for evaluating special purpose bank charters for Fintech companies that will designate the specific criteria that companies applying for a charter will have to meet for approval. OCC has suggested that this will likely focus on safety and soundness; financial inclusion; consumer protection; and community reinvestment. The OCC is collecting comments on the proposed policy through Jan. 15, 2017.
At the end of July, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took a significant step toward reforming the regulatory framework for the debt collection and debt buying industry by announcing an outline of proposals under consideration. The proposals will now be considered by a small business review panel before the CFPB announces a proposed rule for wider industry comment. The CFPB said its proposals will affect only third-party debt collectors pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). However, the CFPB signaled it may consider a separate set of proposals for first-party collectors. The collections industry has long been a focus of the CFPB. In 2012, the bureau designated larger market participants in the debt collections marketplace and placed some of these entities under supervision. In 2013, the CFPB released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking covering collections. The focus on debt collection is fueled in part by the large number of consumer complaints it receives about the debt collection market (roughly 35% of total complaints). Moreover, the CFPB’s proposals build upon some of the regulatory and enforcement priorities that the CFPB and Federal Trade Commission have pursued for several years around data quality, consumer communication and disclosures. Here are some of the key takeaways for third party debt collectors from the CFPB’s proposals: Address data quality: Collectors would be required to substantiate claims that a consumer owes a debt in order to begin a collection. Collectors would also be required to pass on information provided by consumers in the course of collections activity. New Validation Notice and Statement of Rights: The CFPB’s draft outline would update the information provided to consumers through the FDCPA validation notice, as well as require disclosure of a consumer statement of rights. Changes to frequency of communications: Debt collectors would be limited to six emails, phone calls or mailings per week, including unanswered calls and voicemails. After reaching the consumer, the debt collector would be allowed either one contact or three attempted contacts per week. There would also be a waiting period of 30 days before contacting the family of a debtor who has died. New disclosures on “out of statute” debt and litigation: In the outline, CFPB proposes having debt collectors provide new disclosures to consumers regarding the possibility of litigation and whether the debt is beyond the statute of limitations. Waiting period before sending collection accounts to a consumer reporting agency: Reporting a person’s debt would be prohibited under the draft outline unless the collector has first communicated directly with the consumer about the debt. The CFPB will next hear comments from a panel of small businesses in the industry, complete an analysis of how its proposals would impact small businesses, and take written comments from the public. Following those steps, the agency will issue a proposed rule for comment.
Congress recently took several actions signaling a growing interest in regulatory issues surrounding the Fintech sector. This growing attention follows a number of recent inquiries by federal and state regulators into the business practices in the industry. Subcommittee takes a deep dive into Fintech and OML regulatory landscape In July, the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing entitled Examining the Opportunities and Challenges with Financial Technology (“Fintech”). Witnesses and lawmakers voiced optimism that online marketplace lending can help to expand access to capital for consumers and small businesses, but the hearing also focused on a growing schism as to whether new regulations or changes to the underlying framework is necessary to ensure consumers are protected. Some lawmakers and the witness from the American Banking Association expressed concerns that the Fintech and marketplace lenders may benefit from being outside of the supervisory scope of prudential regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Witnesses from the marketplace lending industry argued that they are obligated to meet all of the same regulatory compliance requirements as traditional lenders. Rep. McHenry introduces package of Fintech bills aimed at spurring innovation In addition, Congressman Patrick McHenry (R-NC), a member of the House Republican Leadership team and the Vice Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, introduced two bills this month aimed at spurring innovation in the Fintech industry. H.R. 5724, the Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2016, would clarify that federal law preempts a loan’s interest rate as valid when made. The bill is in response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear Madden v Midland, a case in which the Second Circuit court ruled that the National Bank Act does not have a preemptive effect after the national bank has sold or otherwise assigned the loan to another party. The reading of this law has created uncertainty for Fintech companies and the banks that partner with them. H.R. 5725, the IRS Data Verification Modernization Act of 2016, requires the IRS to automate the Income Verification Express Service process by creating an Application Programming Interface (API). The legislation is aimed at speeding up and improving the automation of the loan application process. In particular, it is aimed at streamlining the process by which lenders gain access to tax transcript data. Currently, lenders may require applicants to fill out IRS form “4506-T,” which gives the lender the right to access a summarized version of their tax transcript as part of the process to confirm certain data points on their application. According to industry reports, this manual process at the IRS takes two to eight days, creating unnecessary delays for Fintech companies and banks that rely on leveraging data and technology to make faster, informed decision for consumer and small business lending Both bills have been referred to the House Financial Services Committee for review.
Whether its new regulations and enforcement actions from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or emerging legislation in Congress, the public policy environment for consumer and commercial credit is dynamic and increasingly complex. If you are interested to learn more about how to navigate an increasingly choppy regulatory environment, consider joining a breakout session at Experian’s Vision 2016 Conference that I will be moderating. I’ll be joined by several experts and practitioners, including: John Bottega, Enterprise Data Management Conor French, Funding Circle Troy Dennis, TD Bank Don Taylor, President, Automated Collection Services During our session, you’ll learn about some of the most trying regulatory issues confronting the consumer and commercial credit ecosystem. Most importantly, the session will look at how to turn potential challenges into opportunities. This includes learning how to incorporate new alternative data sets into credit scoring models while still ensuring compliance with existing fair lending laws. We’ll also take a deep dive into some of the coming changes to debt collection practices as a result of the CFPB’s highly anticipated rulemaking. Finally, the panel will take a close look at the challenges of online marketplace lenders and some of the mounting regulations facing small business lenders. Learn more about Vision 2016 and how to register for the May conference.
In today’s interconnected world, reaching consumers should be as simple as sending a text or calling their cell phone. However, complying with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) can create an almost insurmountable mountain. While the law has been in place since 1991, TCPA litigation continues to be a considerable source of potential legal and compliance risk for companies communicating with consumers. There were 1,908 TCPA lawsuits in 2014, an increase of 30 percent over the previous year, and a 231 percent increase in the last four years. Is your business facing challenges in complying with TCPA? Do you want to learn more about the changing and challenging TCPA legal and regulatory framework? Are you looking for best practices on how to win the battle of right party contact? Then you should join us for a breakout session solely focused on TCPA at Experian’s Vision 2016 Conference. The panel features a number of subject matter experts who will be able to provide attendees with a look at this law and some of the best practices to manage risk and ensure compliance. Panelists include: Mary Anne Gorman, Experian Tony Hadley, Experian Tom Gilbertson, Venable LLC To learn more more about TCPA best practices, check out Experian’s annual Vision Conference in May.
Whether it is an online marketplace lender offering to refinance the student loan debt of a recent college graduate or an online small-business lender providing an entrepreneur with a loan when no one else will, there is no doubt innovation in the online lending sector is changing how Americans gain access to credit. This expanding market segment takes great pride in using “next-generation” underwriting and credit scoring risk models. In particular, many online lenders are incorporating noncredit information such as income, education history (i.e., type of degree and college), professional licenses and consumer-supplied information in an effort to strike the right balance between properly assessing credit risk and serving consumers typically shunned by traditional lenders because of a thin credit history. Regulatory concerns The exponential growth of the online lending sector has caught the attention of regulators — such as the U.S. Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Congress and the California Business Development Office — who are interested in learning more about how online marketplace lenders are assessing the credit risk of consumers and small businesses. At least one official, Antonio Weiss, a counselor to the Treasury secretary, has publicly raised concerns about the use of so-called nontraditional data in the underwriting process, particularly data gleaned from social media accounts. Weiss said that “just because a credit decision is made by an algorithm, doesn’t mean it is fair,” citing the need for lenders to be aware of compliance with fair lending obligations when integrating nontraditional credit data. Innovative and “tried and true” are not mutually exclusive Some have suggested the only way to assuage regulatory concerns and control risk is by using tried-and-true legacy credit risk models. The fact is, however, online marketplace lenders can — and should — continue to push the envelope on innovative underwriting and business models, so long as these models properly gauge credit risk and ensure compliance with fair lending rules. It’s not a simple either-or scenario. Lenders always must ensure their scoring analytics are based upon predictive and accurate data. That’s why lenders historically have relied on credit history, which is based upon data consumers can dispute using their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Statistically sound and validated scores protect consumers from discrimination and lenders from disparate impact claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency guidance on model risk management is an example of regulators’ focus on holding responsible the entities they oversee for the validation, testing and accuracy of their models. Marketplace lenders who want to push the limit can look to credit scoring models now being used in the marketplace without negatively impacting credit quality or raising fair lending risk. For example, VantageScore® 3.0 allows for the scoring of 30 million to 35 million more people who currently are unscoreable under legacy credit score models. VantageScore does this by using a broader, deeper set of credit file data and more advanced modeling techniques. This allows the VantageScore model to capture unique consumer behaviors more accurately. In conclusion, online marketplace lenders should continue innovating with their own “secret sauce” and custom decisioning systems that may include a mix of noncredit factors. But they also can stay ahead of the curve by relying on innovative “tried-and-true” credit score models, like VantageScore 3.0. These models incorporate the best of both worlds by leaning on innovative scoring analytics that are more inclusive, while providing marketplace lenders with assurances the decisioning is both statistically sound and compliant with fair lending laws. VantageScore® is a registered trademark of VantageScore Solutions, LLC.
Time to dust off those compliance plans and ensure you are prepared for the new regulations, specifically surrounding the Military Lending Act (MLA). Last July, the Department of Defense (DOD) published a Final Rule to amend its regulation implementing the Military Lending Act, significantly expanding the scope of the existing protections. The new, beefed-up version encompasses new types of creditors and credit products, including credit cards. While the DOD was responsible for implementing the rule, enforcement will be led by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The new rule became effective on October 1, 2015, and compliance is required by October 3, 2016. Compliance, however, with the rules for credit cards is delayed until October 3, 2017. While there is no formal guidance yet on what federal regulators will look for in reviewing MLA compliance, there are some insights on the law and what’s coming. Why was MLA enacted? It was created to provide service members and their dependents with specific protections. As initially implemented in 2007, the law: Limited the APR (including fees) for covered products to 36 percent; Required military-specific disclosures, and; Prohibited creditors from requiring a service member to submit to arbitration in the event of a dispute. It initially applied to three narrowly-defined “consumer credit” products: Closed-end payday loans; Closed-end auto title loans; and Closed-end tax refund anticipation loans. What are the latest regulations being applied to the original MLA implemented in 2007? The new rule expands the definition of “consumer credit” covered by the regulation to more closely align with the definition of credit in the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. This means MLA now covers a wide range of credit transactions, but it does not apply to residential mortgages and credit secured by personal property, such as vehicle purchase loans. One of the most significant changes is the addition of fees paid “for a credit-related ancillary product sold in connection with the credit transaction.” Although the MAPR limit is 36 percent, ancillary product fees can add up and — especially for accounts that carry a low balance — can quickly exceed the MAPR limit. The final rule also includes a “safe harbor” from liability for lenders who verify the MLA status of a consumer. Under the new DOD rule, lenders will have to check each credit applicant to confirm that they are not a service member, spouse, or the dependent of a service member, through a nationwide CRA or the DOD’s own database, known as the DMDC. The rule also permits the consumer report to be obtained from a reseller that obtains such a report from a nationwide consumer reporting agency. MLA status for dependents under the age of 18 must be verified directly with the DMDC. Experian will be permitted to gain access to the DMDC data to provide lenders a seamless transaction. In essence, lenders will be able to pull an Experian profile, and MLA status will be flagged. What is happening between now and October 2016, when lenders must be compliant? Experian, along with the other national credit bureaus, have been meeting with the DOD and the DMDC to discuss providing the three national bureaus access to its MLA database. Key parties, such as the Financial Services Roundtable and the American Bankers Association, are also working to ease implementation of the safe harbor check for banks and lenders. The end goal is to enable lenders the ability to instantly verify whether an applicant is covered by MLA by the Oct. 1, 2016 compliance date. --- If you have inquiries about the new Military Lending Act regulations, feel free to email MLA.Support@experian.com or contact your Experian Account Executive directly. Next Article: A check-in on the latest Military Lending Act news
Understanding the Impact of New Marketplace Lending Regulations The online marketplace lending sector has enjoyed unprecedented growth these past few years. According to a recent Morgan Stanley research report, the volume of loans extended by online marketplace lenders in the United States has doubled every year since 2010, hitting $12 billion last year. Some analysts speculate this growth will continue at a compound annual rate of 47 percent through 2020. The market’s growth, coupled with new, disruptive lending models, is now prompting regulators in Washington to raise questions about the potential opportunities and challenges for consumers, small businesses, and the safety and soundness of our financial system. Last July, the Treasury Department issued a request for information to better understand the benefits and risks associated with new online lending platforms and other “fin-tech” startups. The Treasury’s RFI sought information about how these entities’ business models differ from traditional lenders, their impact on financially underserved consumers, and ultimately whether the regulatory framework should evolve to ensure the safe growth of this emerging marketplace. They were also interested in how online lenders were assessing credit risk of borrowers. Most comments the Treasury Department received from online lenders focused on the positive impact that innovation in financial services could have on consumers and small businesses. For example, in an open letter to the Treasury, Lending Club Founder and CEO Renaud Laplanche stated his company’s role in “bringing more transparency, removing friction, reducing systemic risk by requiring a match between assets and liabilities, and offering traditional banks … the opportunity to participate on our platform and benefit from the same cost reductions from which our other borrowers and investors benefit.” Laplanche emphasized the benefits to consumers by noting that “over 70 percent of borrowers on our platform report using their loan to pay off an existing loan or credit card balance and report that the interest rate on their Lending Club loan was an average of seven percentage points lower than they were paying on their outstanding debt or credit cards.” For small businesses, Laplanche explained how commercial loans less than $250,000 tend to be underserved by traditional lenders. “Bank loans from $100k to $250k have fallen 22 percent since 2007, during a period when bank loans of $1 million or greater increased by 56 percent,” he wrote. “Our platform’s automated processes allow us to provide smaller commercial loans that are less available more economically than traditional banks can.” Meanwhile, some commenters called for regulators to increase oversight of the marketplace to provide more certainty. In a joint comment letter, the American Bankers Association and Consumer Bankers Association argued that all lenders — regardless of medium by which they deliver loans — should operate under the same rules and standards. They highlighted the numerous consumer protections in place to protect borrowers — from transparency in pricing, to fair debt collection methods, and data protection — and advocate for these protections to apply in all bank-like activities involving lending or servicing. But what about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)? The CFPB will take a leadership role to ensure marketplace lenders comply with the fair lending and consumer financial protection laws that the CFPB has authority to enforce. The CFPB has not made any direct notice to the online lending marketplace specifically, but it did issue a notice in October 2014 saying it had no intention of bringing enforcement actions against companies that offer innovative financial products — so long as they benefit consumers. Meanwhile, it is also likely the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general will increase their focus on the online lending segment, especially as it relates to how products and services are marketed. The FTC held a symposium on Oct. 30 to examine online lead generation and consumer protection in the lending and education industries. The FTC workshop raised questions about the potential consumer protection challenges of this advertising medium used heavily by online lenders. In particular, there were calls for greater transparency in the use of lead generation, including more information on the ways consumer data is collected through lead-gen websites and how it is used and shared. Online marketplace lenders should expect to stay under the regulatory spotlight – because that’s what success often brings. The sector can avoid undue burdens by ensuring compliance with existing laws and adopting and following industry best practices. For more information, visit www.experian.com/marketplacelending.
Learn More Image
