Categories
Compliance

Say Goodbye to Disparate Impact Theory

Dave Gibbs Training Manager EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Dave Gibbs
Training Manager
EFG Companies

On Monday, President Donald J. Trump signed into law the Congressional S.J. 57 resolution repealing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) guidance on dealer markup. Originally issued in March, 2013, the auto lending guidance quickly received negative feedback. In fact, the ruling caused several finance sources to either switch to a flat-fee compensation model or enforce lower caps on dealer markups. The ruling also prompted the CFPB to impose consent orders with several institutions resulting in millions of dollars in fines.

The retail automotive industry is cheering this move, which began five months ago when the Government Accountability Office said Congress had the power under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the CFPB guidance. But, before you start thinking the good old days are back, consider what started the industry on this path.

The CFPB’s original guidance was designed to inform lenders that it would begin enforcing the fair lending requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) using a theory on disparate impact. This theory refers to practices that adversely affect protected classes of individuals, even though employer rules and practices are meant to be neutral. The CFPB used this theory to make the argument that dealer markup practices could result in unintentional discrimination during the credit process, and must therefore be reined in.

While the CFPB can no longer use disparate impact theory to force lenders to reduce dealer markup, the ECOA and its fair lending requirements remain in full effect. Other federal, state and local compliance regulations also remain, which prompts me to remind our clients that remaining in compliance is still in the dealership’s best interest. And, it’s highly unlikely that lenders who invested millions of dollars into comprehensive compliance platforms will suddenly reverse all those process changes.

Categories
Compliance

CFPB Upheaval

Contributing Author: Steve Roennau Vice President Compliance EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Steve Roennau
Vice President
Compliance
EFG Companies

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had a busy first quarter of 2017 defending itself. In Q4 of 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the CFPB “unconstitutionally structured”. In Q1 of this year, the CFPB began the appeal process and it’s not looking too good for them.

Among those supporting the unconstitutional ruling are:

  • The Department of Justice (DOJ)
  • 15 state Attorneys General
  • American Financial Services Association (AFSA)

The DOJ stated that the ruling should be upheld in its entirety, including the remedy to give President Trump full authority to remove the CFPB’s director at will. In addition, the AFSA submitted a list of other suggested regulatory reforms for the CFPB to the Trump administration.

While the CFPB has been granted a rehearing of the initial case that determined the unconstitutional ruling, the regulatory agency has still had its powers significantly curbed, specifically in the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.