The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) each published a proposed guidance on deposit advance products on April 30th, 2013.1 Deposit advance products are small dollar, short-term loans offered by a bank to its deposit account customers with recurring deposits. Deposit advance products typically have high fees and are repaid from the funds of the next direct deposit, similar to payday loans. The proposed guidance seeks to clarify the agencies’ interpretation of “safety and soundness” and consumer protection principles as applied to deposit advance products. Both agencies requested comments on their proposed guidance.
OCC and FDIC Proposed Guidance Expresses Concern about Safety and Soundness Risks and Compliance with Consumer Protection Laws
The proposed guidance by the OCC, which regulates nationally chartered banks, and the FDIC, as the regulator of many state chartered institutions, are substantially the same. 2 Both agencies assert concern that deposit advance products may cause safety and soundness risks, including credit risk, reputation risk arising from negative public opinion, legal and compliance risk, and risk in liability for the actions of third parties. In light of such risks, the agencies propose certain supervisory expectations.
Specifically, the agencies propose that banks underwrite deposit advance products by assessing the length of a customer’s deposit relationship with the bank, whether the customer has any classified credits and the customer’s financial capacity. The customer should have a deposit account with the bank for at least six months, and customers with delinquent or classified credits should be ineligible for deposit advance products. Banks should also analyze the inflows and outflows of a customer’s account over the preceding six months to ensure that the customer has sufficient financial capacity to not only repay the loan and associated fees, but also to meet necessary living expenses. Underwriting procedures should take place no less than every six months to determine ongoing eligibility. Additionally, banks should institute a “cooling-off period” of one month after a deposit advance loan is repaid before the bank can extend another deposit advance loan to that customer.
Many commenters submitted substantially identical comments to both the OCC and the FDIC. The OCC received 118 comments, with 72 comments in opposition to the proposed guidance and 46 comments in favor of it. Commenters included three national banks that offer deposit advance products, two state attorney generals, financial service, consumer credit, and commerce associations, state senators and house representatives, and individuals.
The FDIC received 98 comments, with 67 comments in opposition to the guidance and 31 comments in favor of it. Commenters included a state chartered bank that offers deposit advance products, two state attorney generals, financial service, consumer credit, and commerce associations, state senators and house representatives, and individuals.
Comments in Opposition
Comments in opposition to the proposed guidance generally stated that the proposed guidance limits consumers’ small dollar and short-term credit options, thereby pushing consumers to unregulated or more expensive lenders. Some commenters argued that deposit advance product regulation should be consistent with regulation of other short-term credit products pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act mandate for consistent regulation of comparable financial products. Indeed, Wells Fargo Bank and the American Bankers Association, two of the more significant commenters who opposed to the guidance, both made this argument by asserting that the proposed guidance would cause the discontinuation of deposit advance products because the underwriting rules are too onerous. As a result, they warned, consumers’ options will become more limited and consumers will be left to utilize expensive small dollar short-term loans. Similarly, Wells Fargo Bank and the American Bankers Association also predicted that the guidance would have a chilling effect on future innovation of small dollar short-term credit products because the underwriting requirements are stricter than commensurate procedures for other loans.
A list of all comments received in opposition to the proposed guidance, as well as a general summary of the substance of such comments, is set forth at the end of this alert.
Comments in Favor
By contrast, commenters in favor of the proposed guidance, which included the AARP, the NAACP, and U.S. Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), asserted that the proposed guidance would benefit consumers in many ways. These commenters argue that the cooling-off period proposed in the guidance, as well as the stricter underwriting procedures, will protect consumers from being caught in a “cycle of debt.”3 Specifically, they argued that the cooling-off period will prevent consumers from borrowing successive deposit advances, while the underwriting procedures will ensure that borrowers can afford both the loan and living expenses. These concerns were particularly salient to the AARP which claimed that over a quarter of deposit advance customers are senior Americans receiving social security. According to the AARP, deposit products are harmful to these Americans because deposit advance fees deplete social security direct deposits that are earmarked for basic living expenses – concerns echoed by Senators Nelson and Warren.
A list of all comments received in favor of the proposed guidance, as well as a general summary of the substance of such comments, is set forth at the end of this alert.
The opponents and proponents of the guidance have little, if any, common ground in their comments. Indeed, perhaps the only trait that they share is their conviction and enthusiasm regarding their respective positions. Such passions are warranted, however, as the potential ramifications of the proposed guidance and the significance of its impact on the advanced deposit industry and consumers who depend on such products cannot be overstated.
Comments Received by the FDIC
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Comment No. |
Party |
Type of Party |
Stance |
Substance of Comment |
1 |
Franco Mortarotti |
|
Oppose |
Consider when a customer gets a deposit advance in order to cover a previously written check. |
2 |
Rep. Sandy Crawford |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent with other regulations. Month long cooling off period and underwriting procedures are onerous. |
3 |
Anonymous |
|
Support |
Stops cycle of debt; stops predatory lending practices. |
4 |
Rep. Tony Dugger |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent with other regulations. Month long cooling off period and underwriting procedures are onerous. |
5 |
Robert E. Rutkowski |
|
Support |
Eliminates cycle of debt and stops predatory practices. |
6 |
Rep. Frank McNulty |
State Representative |
Oppose |
This inconsistent regulation will lead to consumers turning to less safe lenders. |
7 |
Michael Archer |
|
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off period stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
8 |
Rep. Woodrow Stanley |
State Representative |
Oppose |
This inconsistent regulation leads to consumers having fewer choices. |
9 |
Rep. Libby Szabo |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent regulation. |
10 |
Rep. Frank Mautino |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; doesn’t address consumer need for credit or their financial challenges. |
11 |
Rep. Ritch Workman |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice in the marketplace; doesn’t address the root of the problem. |
12 |
Rep. Timothy Jones |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
13 |
Rep. Jim Buchy |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Doesn’t address the problem. |
14 |
Rep. Joseph Souki |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
15 |
Rep. Ken Dunkin |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
16 |
Rep. Oliver Robinson |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Doesn’t address the problem; eliminates choice. |
17 |
Rep. John Adams |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
18 |
Rep. Charles Sargent |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; will drive consumers to predatory lenders. |
19 |
Rep. Verschoore |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
20 |
Rep. Turner |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
21 |
Rep. Ponti |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
22 |
Rep. Novstrup |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; CFPB should regulate this. |
23 |
Rep. Redfern |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choices. |
24 |
Rep. DeGraaf |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
25 |
Rep. Sandifer |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; regulations are arbitrary. |
26 |
Rep. Zalewski |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choices; doesn’t address the problem; will drive consumers to predators. |
27 |
Senator Mike Gloor |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent regulation leads to consumers having fewer choices. |
28 |
Senator Damon Thayer |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
29 |
Senator William Coley |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
30 |
Senator Jay Wasson |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsisten.t |
31 |
Senator Kevin Bacon |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; doesn’t address the problem. |
32 |
Senator Tom Dempsey |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice in the marketplace; pushes consumers to predatory lenders. |
33 |
Senator Michael Watson |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; will drive consumers to predatory lenders. |
34 |
Senator Bedford |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; drives consumers to predatory lenders. |
35 |
Senator Trotter |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
36 |
Senator Lightford |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
37 |
Senator Lautenbaugh |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem. |
38 |
Senator Fitzgerald |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
39 |
Senator Case |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choices. |
40 |
Senator Calderon |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice; doesn’t get to the root of the problem. |
41 |
Prof. David Stoesz |
University Professor |
Oppose |
This will hurt poor minority families. |
42 |
Senators Bill Nelson and Elizabeth Warren |
US Senators |
Support |
Deposit advances trap consumers in a circle of debt. Gov't benefits should not be used as proof of income for this product. Banks should list the cost as APR, just like payday lenders do. |
43 |
Regions Bank |
Bank |
Oppose |
Daps help consumers, improve credit; the proposed regulation increases overhead expenses; cooling off period leaders to consumers borrowing more. |
44 |
Bretton Woods, Inc. |
Corporation |
Oppose |
Will drive consumers to illegal lenders. |
45 |
Ballard Spahr (two comments) |
Law Firm |
Oppose |
(1) this usurps the CFPB's jurisdiction; even though the rules are permissive banks will have to follow them; the guidance is arbitrary and capricious; the regulations are not based on good analysis or evidence (2) on behalf of a bank client: the guidance doesn’t define what a deposit advance is; the agency should push for disclosure, not banning; the regulations will lead to banks not offering other products for fear they will be regulated as deposit advances. |
46 |
McIntyre & Lemon |
Law Firm |
Oppose |
No evidence for safety and soundness concerns; recitation of applicable laws has a chilling effect; supervisory expectations are micromanagement of a product; CFPB should regulate; should be regulation not guidance. |
47 |
Syracuse Univ. Securities Arbitration and Consumer Clinic |
Law School Students |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
48 |
Legal Services NYC |
Legal Services Provider |
Oppose |
Daps are horrible for SSI recipients; courts are unlikely to protect DAP victims; regulators should ban DAP for SSI recipients. |
49 |
PA Consumer Credit Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; drives consumers to predatory lenders. |
50 |
Kentucky Deferred Deposit Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; will drive consumers to predatory lenders. |
51 |
Tennessee Cash Advance Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
52 |
California Contract Cities Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice. |
53 |
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem. |
54 |
Plaza de la Raza |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
55 |
Colorado Financial Service Centers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem. |
56 |
LA Metro Hispanic Chamber of Commerce |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
57 |
The American Bankers' Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; pushes consumers to predators; the guidance eliminates the product; the underwriting is onerous; cooling off period promotes over borrowing; chilling effect on small loan innovation; the agency doesn’t articulate a safety and soundness reason. |
58 |
South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
59 |
CA Financial Service Providers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
60 |
Financial Service Centers of Mississippi |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem. |
61 |
OK Bankers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
The regulation doesn’t analyze safety and soundness; this seems to be targeted at consumers so the CFPB should do it; stifles product development; eliminates choices. |
62 |
FL Bankers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Impact on safety and soundness is unclear; conflicts w/ state regulation; eliminates choices; should be in a regulation rule making process, not guidance. |
63 |
Online Lenders Alliance |
Organization |
Oppose |
Safety and soundness concerns unfounded; people don’t actually get caught in a cycle of debt; eliminates choices. |
64 |
Community Financial Services Ass'n of America |
Organization |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choices; consumers are not caught in debt. |
65 |
Consumer Bankers Ass'n, The Financial Services Roundtable, The Clearing House |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; pushes consumers to predators; no evidence about safety and soundness concerns; FDIC is usurping CFPB; suggested underwriting won’t show the complete picture. |
66 |
US Chamber of Commerce Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness |
Organization |
Oppose |
Should issue rules instead of issuing guidance; CFPB has not yet gathered sufficient info; CFPB should regulate this. |
67 |
Oregon Bankers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Underwriting is burdensome; cooling off period is arbitrary; will chill innovation; safety and soundness concerns are unfounded. |
68 |
US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
69 |
US Black Chambers |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
70 |
National People's Action |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting requirements are good and deposit advances are predatory. Want even stricter regulation. |
71 |
Shriver National Center on Poverty Law |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting requirements and borrowing limits will stop cycle of debt. |
72 |
The Center for American Progress |
Organization |
Support |
Cooling off period and underwriting will stop debt cycle; want stronger restrictions. |
73 |
Opportunity Fund |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off period stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
74 |
Kentucky Equal Justice Center |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off period stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
75 |
Consumer Federation of America |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off period stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
76 |
Nat'l Community Reinvestment Coalition |
Organization |
Support |
Analyzing ability to repay, cooling off period stop cycle of debt. |
77 |
Aquinas Associates |
Organization |
Support |
Banks are churning; discriminates against minorities. |
78 |
Center for Financial Services Innovation |
Organization |
Support |
Encourage flexible underwriting; prevent overuse of small dollar credit; want transparent pricing; support it but want more/different regulation. |
79 |
Corporation for Enterprise Development |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off period will stop cycle of debt; products should be marketed as short term debt making customers aware of other options. |
80 |
Cities for Financial Empowerment Coalition |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off will stop cycle of debt. |
81 |
The Pew Charitable Trusts |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting will stop cycle of debt; compares it to cash advances at an ATM and encourages the agency to regulate this; our research shows that borrowers do not choose b/w credit products but rather they do not turn to other lenders if payday loans are not there. |
82 |
Chicago Community Loan Fund |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off will stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
83 |
Woodstock Institute |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off will stop cycle of debt; prevent automatic mandatory repayment; lots of other suggestions. |
84 |
Service Employees Int'l Union, et al. |
Organization |
Support |
Cooling off and limitations on number of loans will prevent cycle of debt; marketing practices are bad. |
85 |
CA Reinvestment Coalition |
Organization |
Support |
Should have eligibility and underwriting requirements; should have cooling off period. |
86 |
Southern Poverty Law Center |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off will stop cycle of debt; should have a lower APR. |
87 |
National People's Action et al. |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off will stop cycle of debt. |
88 |
New Yorkers for Responsible Lending |
Organization |
Support |
Should underwrite; cooling off period; eliminate automatic repayment; limit fees. |
89 |
Appleseed |
Organization |
Support |
DAPS are discriminatory and predatory. |
90 |
Americans for Financial Reform |
Organization |
Support |
Harms consumers; discriminatory; proposed guidance will stop the cycle of debt. |
91 |
AARP, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, NAACP, etc. |
Organization |
Support |
The regulations will stop the cycle of debt; daps are discriminatory and harmful, harmful to SSI recipients; want stronger regulations. |
92 |
Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending |
Organization |
Support |
The regulations protect consumers - require underwriting, cooling off, fees, and automatic repayment. |
93 |
Reinvestment Partners |
Organization |
Support |
DAP regulations should protect consumers; there is risk to safety and soundness; should be required to disclose the APR. |
94 |
CANICCOR |
Organization |
Support |
Regulations will protect consumers; want stronger regulation; underwriting might be too onerous; the cooling off period regulation is too extreme; banks should give one month daps. |
95 |
CNG Financial Corp |
Short Term Lender |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem; inconsistent. |
96 |
Jeremy Rollins |
Small Private Payday Lender |
Oppose |
The rates aren’t that high and consumers need payday loans. |
97 |
Kentucky AG |
State AG |
Oppose |
Pushes consumers to predatory lenders; should defer to the CFPB. |
98 |
Arkansas Attorney General |
State AG |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off will, limiting number of loans per year will stop cycle of debt. |
Comments Received by the OCC |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Comment No. |
Party |
Type of Party |
Stance |
Substance of Comment |
1 |
Rep. Tony Dugger |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent with other regulations. Month long cooling off period and underwriting procedures are onerous. |
2 |
Rep. Sandy Crawford |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent with other regulations. Month long cooling off period and underwriting procedures are onerous. |
3 |
Chris Barnard |
|
Support |
Deposit advances are a necessary product; regulation should focus on safety and soundness; banks should analyze customer's ability to repay. |
4 |
Rep. Libby Szabo |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent regulation. |
5 |
Scott Weir |
|
Support |
Banks shouldn’t prey on small fry. |
6 |
Rep. Frank McNulty |
State Representative |
Oppose |
This inconsistent regulation will lead to consumers turning to less safe lenders. |
7 |
Abbie Stewart |
|
Support |
My friends do not understand how bad payday loans are. |
8 |
Rep. Zuber |
State Representative |
Oppose |
States should regulate this; eliminates choice. |
9 |
Anastasia Berta |
|
Support |
Underwriting and loan limits will stop cycle of debt; also want interest rate limits. |
10 |
Rep. Woodrow Stanley |
State Representative |
Oppose |
This inconsistent regulation leads to consumers having fewer choices. |
11 |
Vi Finley |
|
Support |
Payday loans are bad. |
12 |
Rep. Ritch Workman |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice in the marketplace; doesn’t address the root of the problem. |
13 |
David McGlocklin |
|
Support |
Payday companies are bad. |
14 |
Rep. Frank Mautino |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; doesn’t address consumer need for credit or their financial challenges. |
15 |
Christine Jones |
|
Support |
Mad about title loans and payday loans. |
16 |
Rep. Timothy Jones |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
17 |
Sandra Wettergren |
|
Support |
Payday loans are bad. |
18 |
Rep. Jim Buchy |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Doesn’t address the problem. |
19 |
Sharon D'Agostino |
|
Support |
Payday loans are bad and trap people in debt. |
20 |
Rep. Oliver Robinson |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Doesn’t address the problem; eliminates choice. |
21 |
Martin Garon |
|
Support |
Banks are evil. |
22 |
Rep. Turner |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
23 |
Donald Webb |
|
Support |
Banks are evil. |
24 |
Rep. Verschoore |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
25 |
Ruth Susswein |
|
Support |
Traps people in debt. |
26 |
Rep. Novstrup |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; CFPB should regulate this. |
27 |
NPA/Chris Gebert |
|
Support |
These regulations will help stop the cycle of debt; wants stronger regulation. |
28 |
Rep. Joseph Souki |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
29 |
Marcia Flannery |
|
Support |
These regulations will help stop the cycle of debt; wants stronger regulation. |
30 |
Rep. Redfern |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choices. |
31 |
Maria Timoney |
|
Support |
These catch consumers in a cycle of debt. |
32 |
Rep. Ponti |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
33 |
Rep. Sandifer |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; regulations are arbitrary. |
34 |
Rep. Zalewski |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choices; doesn’t address the problem; will drive consumers to predators. |
35 |
Rep. DeGraaf |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
36 |
Rep. Olson |
State Representative |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice. |
37 |
Senator Mike Gloor |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent regulation leads to consumers having fewer choices. |
38 |
Senator Damon Thayer |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
39 |
Senator Jay Wasson |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent. |
40 |
Senator William Coley |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice in the marketplace. |
41 |
Senator Kevin Bacon |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; doesn’t address the problem. |
42 |
Senator Tom Dempsey |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice in the marketplace; pushes consumers to predatory lenders. |
43 |
Senator Lightford |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
44 |
Senator Mike Jacobs |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
45 |
Senator Fitzgerald |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
46 |
Senator Bedford |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; drives consumers to predatory lenders. |
47 |
Senator Trotter |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
48 |
Senator Case |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choices. |
49 |
Senator Calderon |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice; doesn’t get to the root of the problem. |
50 |
Senator Michael Watson |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; will drive consumers to predatory lenders. |
51 |
Senator Lautenbaugh |
State Senator |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem. |
52 |
Prof. David Stoesz |
University Professor |
Oppose |
This will hurt poor minority families. |
53 |
Douglas A. Howard |
|
Oppose |
There is no evidence about daps. |
54 |
David C. Holdridge |
|
Oppose |
These guidelines will eliminate this product which I use frequently. |
55 |
US Black Chambers |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
56 |
Syracuse Univ. Securities Arbitration and Consumer Clinic |
Law School Students |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
57 |
National People's Action |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting requirements are good and deposit advances are predatory. Want even stricter regulation. |
58 |
The Center for American Progress |
Organization |
Support |
Cooling off period and underwriting will stop debt cycle; want stronger restrictions. |
59 |
Green America |
Organization |
Support |
The regulations will stop cycle of debt; want to limit APR. |
60 |
MI Center for Justice |
Organization |
Support |
Daps harm consumers; need regulation. |
61 |
Center for Financial Services Innovation |
Organization |
Support |
Encourage flexible underwriting; prevent overuse of small dollar credit; want transparent pricing; support it but want more/different regulation. |
62 |
Opportunity Fund |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off period stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
63 |
Nat'l Community Reinvestment Coalition |
Organization |
Support |
Analyzing ability to repay, cooling off period stop cycle of debt. |
64 |
Aquinas Associates |
Organization |
Support |
Banks are churning; discriminates against minorities. |
65 |
Chicago Community Loan Fund |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off will stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
66 |
New Yorkers for Responsible Lending |
Organization |
Support |
Should underwrite; cooling off period; eliminate automatic repayment; limit fees. |
67 |
Reinvestment Partners |
Organization |
Support |
DAP regulations should protect consumers; there is risk to safety and soundness; should be required to disclose the APR. |
68 |
Shriver National Center on Poverty Law |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting requirements and borrowing limits will stop cycle of debt. |
69 |
CA Reinvestment Coalition |
Organization |
Support |
Should have eligibility and underwriting requirements; should have cooling off period. |
70 |
Americans for Financial Reform |
Organization |
Support |
Harms consumers; discriminatory; proposed guidance will stop the cycle of debt. |
71 |
Corporation for Enterprise Development |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off period will stop cycle of debt; products should be marketed as short term debt making customers aware of other options. |
72 |
Cities for Financial Empowerment Coalition |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off will stop cycle of debt. |
73 |
Woodstock Institute |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off will stop cycle of debt; prevent automatic mandatory repayment; lots of other suggestions. |
74 |
AARP, Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, NAACP, etc. |
Organization |
Support |
The regulations will stop the cycle of debt; daps are discriminatory and harmful, harmful to SSI recipients; want stronger regulations. |
75 |
National People's Action et al. |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off will stop cycle of debt. |
76 |
National Consumer Law Center |
Organization |
Support |
Concerned about daps on prepaid cards; credit should be kept separate from prepaid cards. |
77 |
Consumer Federation of America |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off period stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
78 |
Kentucky Equal Justice Center |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off period stop cycle of debt; want stronger regulation. |
79 |
Appleseed |
Organization |
Support |
DAPS are discriminatory and predatory. |
80 |
CANICCOR |
Organization |
Support |
Regulations will protect consumers; want stronger regulation; underwriting might be too onerous; the cooling off period regulation is too extreme; banks should give one month daps. |
81 |
The Pew Charitable Trusts |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting will stop cycle of debt; compares it to cash advances at an ATM and encourages the agency to regulate this; our research shows that borrowers do not choose b/w credit products but rather they do not turn to other lenders if payday loans are not there. |
82 |
Southern Poverty Law Center |
Organization |
Support |
Underwriting and cooling off will stop cycle of debt; should have a lower APR. |
83 |
Service Employees Int'l Union, et al. |
Organization |
Support |
Cooling off and limitations on number of loans will prevent cycle of debt; marketing practices are bad. |
84 |
Arkansans Against Abusive Payday Lending |
Organization |
Support |
The regulations protect consumers - require underwriting, cooling off, fees, automatic repayment. |
85 |
Regions Bank |
Bank |
Oppose |
Daps help consumers, improve credit; the proposed regulation increases overhead expenses; cooling off period leaders to consumers borrowing more. |
86 |
BOK Financial |
Bank |
Oppose |
Request for clarification; request for extra time before requirements go into effect. |
87 |
Wells Fargo Bank |
Bank |
Oppose |
Cooling off will encourage customers to take out the maximum amount; we don’t want to underwrite because the product is intended for people who can't access traditional credit products; we give customers the option to pay back over time; we don’t let customers use it for over 6 months in a row; the proposal will limit innovation and access to credit. |
88 |
US Bank |
Bank |
Oppose |
Under the new guidelines our customers will not be eligible and will have to go outside the bank for these products; this will hinder development of new products; further research is needed; customers need time to transition to other products after the OCC shuts DAP down. |
89 |
Bretton Woods, Inc. |
Corporation |
Oppose |
Will drive consumers to illegal lenders. |
90 |
US Chamber of Commerce Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness |
Governmental Organization |
Oppose |
Should issue rules instead of issuing guidance; CFPB has not yet gathered sufficient info; CFPB should regulate this. |
91 |
Ballard Spahr (two comments) |
Law Firm |
Oppose |
(1) this usurps the CFPB's jurisdiction; even though the rules are permissive banks will have to follow them; the guidance is arbitrary and capricious; the regulations are not based on good analysis or evidence (2) on behalf of a bank client: the guidance doesn’t define what a deposit advance is; the agency should push for disclosure, not banning; the regulations will lead to banks not offering other products for fear they will be regulated as deposit advances. |
92 |
McIntyre & Lemon |
Law Firm |
Oppose |
No evidence for safety and soundness concerns; recitation of applicable laws has a chilling effect; supervisory expectations are micromanagement of a product; CFPB should regulate; should be regulation not guidance. |
93 |
Legal Services NYC |
Legal Services Provider |
Oppose |
Daps are horrible for SSI recipients; courts are unlikely to protect DAP victims; regulators should ban DAP for SSI receipients. |
94 |
PA Consumer Credit Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; drives consumers to predatory lenders. |
95 |
Tennessee Cash Advance Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
96 |
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates chocie; doesn’t address the problem. |
97 |
California Contract Cities Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choice. |
98 |
CA Financial Service Providers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
99 |
Financial Service Centers of Mississippi |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem. |
100 |
LA Metro Hispanic Chamber of Commerce |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
101 |
The American Bankers' Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; pushes consumers to predators; the guidance eliminates the product; the underwriting is onerous; cooling off period promotes over borrowing; chilling effect on small loan innovation; the agency doesn’t articulate a safety and soundness reason. |
102 |
OK Bankers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
The regulation doesn’t analyze safety and soundness; this seems to be targeted at consumers so the CFPB should do it; stifles product development; eliminates choices. |
103 |
Plaza de la Raza |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
104 |
PA Consumer Credit Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; drives consumers to predatory lenders. |
105 |
Colorado Financial Service Centers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem. |
106 |
South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
107 |
Online Lenders Alliance |
Organization |
Oppose |
Safety and soundness concerns unfounded; people don’t actually get caught in a cycle of debt; eliminates choices. |
108 |
Oregon Bankers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Underwriting is burdensome; cooling off period is arbitrary; will chill innovation; safety and soundness concerns are unfounded. |
109 |
Consumer Bankers Ass'n, The Financial Services Roundtable, The Clearing House |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; pushes consumers to predators; no evidence about safety and soundness concerns; FDIC is usurping CFPB; suggested underwriting won’t show the complete picture. |
110 |
CA Financial Service Providers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice. |
111 |
FL Bankers Ass'n |
Organization |
Oppose |
Impact on safety and soundness is unclear; conflicts w/ state regulation; eliminates choices; should be in a regulation rule making process, not guidance. |
112 |
United States Automobile Association |
Organization |
Oppose |
Want clarification; our program which provides deposit advances to gov't employees in case of gov't shutdown is within the guidance. |
113 |
Community Financial Services Ass'n of America |
Organization |
Oppose |
Inconsistent; eliminates choices; consumers are not caught in debt. |
114 |
US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce |
Organization |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; inconsistent. |
115 |
CNG Financial Corp |
Short Term Lender |
Oppose |
Eliminates choice; doesn’t address the problem; inconsistent. |
116 |
Kentucky AG |
State AG |
Oppose |
Pushes consumers to predatory lenders; should defer to the CFPB. |
117 |
Arkansas Attorney General |
State AG |
Support |
Underwriting, cooling off will, limiting number of loans per year will stop cycle of debt. |
118 |
Senators Bill Nelson and Elizabeth Warren |
U.S. Senators |
Support |
Deposit advances trap consumers in a circle of debt. Gov't benefits should not be used as proof of income for this product. Banks should list the cost as APR, just like payday lenders do. |
1 See 78 Fed. Reg. 25353 (proposed Apr. 22, 2013) (OCC proposed guidance); 78 Fed. Reg. 25268 (proposed Apr. 30, 2013) (FDIC proposed guidance).&n
2 Note, however, that the OCC proposed guidance withdraws its prior proposed guidance on Deposit-Related Consumer Credit Products, published on June 8, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 33409).
3 A cycle of debt occurs when a borrower is unable to afford both living expenses and loan and fee repayment, and consequently borrows a deposit advance each direct deposit cycle.