Consumer Financial Protection Bureau To Oversee Nonbank Auto Finance Companies

cfpb

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau To Oversee Nonbank Auto Finance Companies
Bureau Publishes Exam Procedures for Supervised Companies in $900 Billion Market

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 10, 2015

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) published a rule today that will allow the agency to supervise larger nonbank auto finance companies for the first time. The CFPB also released the examination procedures that examiners will use to ensure that auto finance companies are following the law.
“Auto loans and leases are among the most significant and complex financial transactions in a typical consumer’s life,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s rule will help ensure that larger auto finance companies treat consumers fairly.”

Auto loans are the third largest category of household debt, behind mortgages and student loans. American consumers had about $900 billion in auto loans outstanding in the fourth quarter of 2014. The automobile leasing market also continues to grow as more than a quarter of new cars are acquired through leases.

Auto loans are financed by both banks and nonbanks. Consumers can either get a loan through direct financing, where they seek credit directly from a lender, or through indirect financing, where an auto dealer typically enters into a retail installment sales contract that it then sells to a third-party. Banks, credit unions, and nonbank auto finance companies provide credit to consumers both directly and indirectly. Some nonbank finance companies are “captive” nonbanks, meaning they are owned by auto manufacturers and generally do only indirect lending.

Currently, the Bureau supervises auto financing at the largest banks and credit unions. Today’s rule extends that supervision to any nonbank auto finance company that makes, acquires, or refinances 10,000 or more loans or leases in a year. Under the rule, those companies will be considered “larger participants,” and the Bureau may oversee their activity to ensure they are complying with federal consumer financial laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Consumer Leasing Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s (Dodd-Frank Act) prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.

Under today’s final rule, which was proposed in September 2014, the Bureau estimates that it will have authority to supervise about 34 of the largest nonbank auto finance companies and their affiliated companies that engage in auto financing. These companies together originate around 90 percent of nonbank auto loans and leases, and in 2013 provided financing to approximately 6.8 million consumers. The final rule also defines additional automobile leasing activities for coverage by certain consumer protections of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Bureau is finalizing the rule largely as proposed, with minor changes. The final rule broadens the category of transactions involving asset-backed securities that are not counted toward the 10,000 transaction threshold. It also makes a minor modification to the definition of refinancing for the purpose of the threshold.

To coincide with this new authority, the Bureau has also updated its Supervisory and Examination Manual to provide guidance on how the Bureau will monitor the bank and nonbank auto finance companies that it supervises. Examiners will be assessing potential risks to consumers and whether auto finance companies are complying with requirements of federal consumer financial law. Among other things, examiners will be evaluating whether auto finance companies are:

  • Fairly marketing and disclosing auto financing terms: The Bureau will be examining auto finance companies that market directly to consumers to ensure they are not using deceptive tactics to market loans or leases. The Bureau would be concerned if consumers are being misled about the benefits or terms of financial products. The Bureau is also looking to ensure that consumers understand the terms they are getting.
  • Providing accurate information to credit bureaus: The Bureau will assess whether information auto finance companies provide to credit bureaus is accurate. The CFPB recently took an enforcement action against an auto finance company that distorted consumer credit records by inaccurately reporting information like the consumers’ payment history and delinquency status to credit bureaus. The CFPB is looking to prevent inaccurate information from being reported in the future.
  • Treating consumers fairly when collecting debts: The Bureau will assess whether auto finance companies are using illegal debt collection tactics. The Bureau will be looking to ensure that collectors are relying on accurate information and using legal processes when they collect on debts. The Bureau also will review the repossession process, including the practices of third-party service providers that are employed to repossess autos.
  • Lending fairly: The Bureau will assess whether auto finance companies’ practices comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and other Bureau authorities protecting consumers.

Today’s rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

A copy of the rule published today can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_defining-larger-participants-of-the-automobile-financing-market-and-defining-certain-automobile-leasing-activity-as-a-financial-product-or-service.pdf

The Examination Procedures for Auto Finance can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_automobile-finance-examination-procedures.pdf

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

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

Angela scolforo
October 22, 2023
Angela M. Scolforo was appointed as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Western District of Virginia on April Fool’s Day. She replaced Herbert L. Beskin who served as the Trustee for 20 years, retiring in March of this year. Angela received a B.A. in English from College of the Holy Cross in Worchester, Massachusetts, in1987. She did not immediately go...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
March 13, 2022
In order to invoke remedies granted under the CARES Act, Chapter 13 debtor need not have been current on the date of enactment as long as the debtor satisfies the conditions in the CARES Act. (Grabill) In re Gilbert, 622 BR 859 (Bankr. E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2020) Case Summary Chapter 13 Trustee sought dismissal of a number of cases...
Members
tonydiab
June 25, 2023
Litigation Practice Group Lawsuits: 4 Cases to Know (This is the only free article we could find on Litigation Practice Group a/k/a Phoenix Law and disbarred Tony Diab.  He has been disbarred from both Nevada and California.)
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
March 10, 2024
Punitive damages can be awarded for a violation of Rule 3002.1 even where there are no compensatory damages, other than attorney’s fees.
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
August 21, 2022
Where a Chapter 13 plan treats a claim as secured only by the debtor’s mobile home under § 506 and not real property, the effect of a notice of fees, costs and charges is irrelevant. (Coleman) In re White, 2022 WL 2826531 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. July 19, 2022) Case Summary Shalonda White filed a Chapter 13 petition in July of...
Members
humphrey
February 18, 2024
Retirement of the Honorable Guy R. Humphrey
June 30, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Over the past twenty years, the judicial estoppel doctrine has had a significant impact on people who file bankruptcy. Judicial estoppel has grown to be a significant issue within the consumer bankruptcy system. The Commission was asked to address it. Judicial estoppel is a doctrine created to protect the...
Members
Academy Circle Logo Final
September 3, 2023
Tracy Updike of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has been named as a Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Northern District of Indiana.  Updike will be filling the trusteeship vacated by Debra Miller when she accepted a trusteeship in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
June 21, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Objection to proof of claim barred by preclusion. The Chapter 13 debtor objected to Wells Fargo’s proof of claim in an adversary proceeding that alleged the note had been procured by fraud and was unenforceable; but the debtor had previously litigated those and other issues in the state court. Preclusive effect of the...
Members
moran_cathy
February 13, 2022
When there’s a joint bank account and a bankruptcy filing, good intentions can quickly go sour. The bankruptcy trustee sees a pile of money in the bank to which the debtor has access, even though the account also bears the name of someone not in bankruptcy. If the debtor can get the money, the trustee contends, so can a bankruptcy...
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: