Comments to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and F

Thomas J. McKee, Jr.

Email

602-445-8206

Bio and Articles

Find Your Next Job !

Chief Operating Officer / Business Manager
On Balance Search Consultants

Legal Support Specialist
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Litigation Paralegal
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Trusts & Estates Attorney / Estate Planning Lawyer
On Balance Search Consultants

Litigation Legal Support Specialist
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Trusts & Estates Partner / Senior Attorney
On Balance Search Consultants

Commercial Real Estate Transactional Attorney / Real Estate Lawyer
On Balance Search Consultants

Explore More Job Openings

Comments to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Deposit Advance Proposed Guidance -- Opponents Outnumber Proponents

by: Thomas J. McKee, Jr., Gil Rudolph of Greenberg Traurig, LLP - Alerts

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Print Mail Download info_icon_img

/>i

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 30^th, 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.

_{¹See 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.