Disparate Impact Theory | Lending Curve

Contributing Author:
Jason Hash
Training Manager
EFG Companies

The 2013 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) regulation which held financial institutions responsible for potential discriminatory lending practices at dealerships was repealed by the President on Monday. The original 2013 CFPB bulletin was intended to address the potential for racial discrimination at dealerships by encouraging lenders to cap interest rate markup at 150 basis points, as opposed to the industry standard of 250 basis points. This was all based on disparate impact theory, which 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.

During its five-year existence, the directive prompted the implementation of flat fees as well as millions of dollars in fines charged to financial groups in the form of consent decrees. The root of the CFPB guidance took issue with the practice of dealers placing the buyer into a higher-interest deal than the lender had originally approved, and then the dealership collects the difference.

Thanks to some fancy footwork by Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the CFPB’s guidance, and Senator Jerry Moran (R-Ks) for putting S.J. 57 onto the floor for a vote, the regulation, and its guidance, has ceased to exist. And, if you ask some, all is now right with the world.

Groups on many sides of the situation took issue with the ruling. Auto industry trade groups argued that the bureau used its guidance to indirectly regulate the activities of dealers, which are mostly exempt from the bureau’s oversight under the Dodd-Frank Act. In addition, they argued that the guidance would ironically have an adverse effect on the groups of people it was trying to protect by limiting a dealer’s ability to secure competitive funding. Banking and financial groups reaffirmed their commitment to fair lending practices, saying they have been regulated for years and were not to blame for dealer actions that may or may not result in unintentional discrimination.

Contributing Author:
Steve Roennau
Vice President
Compliance
EFG Companies

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had a busy first quarter defending itself. In the process of appealing the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia calling the CFPB “unconstitutionally structured,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 15 state Attorneys General joined the fray of government entities agreeing with the initial ruling.

The DOJ told the D.C. Circuit Court 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. Just recently, the American Financial Services Association (AFSA) has joined the call to curb CFPB authority when they submitted a list of suggested regulatory reforms to the Trump administration. At the top of their list, was, of course, a halt to CFPB examinations and a moratorium on the use of disparate impact theory.

Lastly, in the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but required plaintiffs to prove that a defendant’s policies could cause disparity. This ruling has significant implications for the CFPB in terms of how it determines disparate impact in auto finance.