A Flaw in the Hyperinflationary Argument

Dec 13, 2009 A Flaw in the Hyperinflationary Argument  intothegreyzone.com

People assuming hyperinflation are assuming that the cash injected into the system will be spread equally or nearly equally, resulting in competitive bidding with more dollars for the current pool of goods and services. I believe this assumption to be in error. It is my opinion that the cash being pumped into certain hands is being pumped deliberately into those hands in order to change the ratio of wealth in the country. In other words, it’s being used purely as a wealth redistribution mechanism.

Imagine for a moment if there are 10 people in a room and each has $100 and there are a fixed amount of goods in the room held by each person. Prices will balance out between people at some level. If I give each person another $100 then prices will rise to reflect the decrease in the value of the currency. But if I give $1000 to one person, prices are unlikely to rise much at all. If I raise prices on my goods, the other 8 people (aside from myself) won’t be able to afford them. And I can’t legally charge higher prices to the one person. That $1000 is inflationary but far far less inflationary than a roughly equal distribution of the same amount through the general population. Yet the person with the additional cash now can purchase more than the rest of us. In effect, he has become wealthier while we have become poorer.

This is what I believe is the intent of the current financial policies of the central banks today – to further entrench the wealthiest people at the top of the pyramid. This process can never be hyperinflationary unless the excess cash escapes into the general populace. And I doubt that it ever will. Instead it will be used to manipulate and buy the stocks and major resource flows of the world, placing the elite in even more control of our society. And of course, this leaves the door open to mistakes by the ruling elite that can lead to a deflationary collapse. Unless Helicopter Ben actually gets in a helicopter and starts dropping $100 bills around the country, there cannot be a hyperinflationary blowoff under the current credit/debt conditions.

P.S. Note also that Ben can also lose the devaluation war if Japan and Asia choose to devalue faster than he does. And Ben is bound by practicality in that if he devalues too fast, he destroys himself and those he is trying to protect due to the reserve currency status of the dollar.

Posted in Inflation or Deflation | Comments Off on A Flaw in the Hyperinflationary Argument

Why Deflation is Inevitable

Perhaps someday inflation, but not until the 1.2 quadrillion of outstanding debt are resolved first.

To understand deflation, you need to understand what money really is and how it’s created.

And you also need to read the other articles in the Inflation or Deflation category for this summary to make sense.

Boomers have to save for retirement due to losses in stock market — this will prevent a recovery because our system is based on consumer spending

Very important to understand: prices on ESSENTIAL things like oil and food can go UP in a deflation because people need to have them at any price.  This is NOT inflation.

There’s no way to get money to the 50% of Americans who need it the most short of dropping it with helicopters or drones over their homes (and even then the local gangs will probably come a calling to collect the cash they missed that fell from the sky).

The 1% prefer deflation over inflation.

  • If they lose 50% of their net worth but asset prices fall 80%, they’re up 30%! Buying back the country for cents on the dollar makes them even wealthier.
  • Hyperinflation carries more risk then deflation for the elite. Both pose risks to social stability and the possible collapse of society but in a deflationary collapse the elite would have more of an advantage.

If prices ever drop for any reason, it’s a self-fulfilling downward spiral as people hang on to cash and don’t spend because they know they can buy something even cheaper in the future

The unwillingness of foreigners to finance government deficits indefinitely as their balance sheets are constrained by declining export income (i.e. China, Japan, the Gulf oil nations)

You can only have (hyper)inflation when an economy is so isolated from the world that it prints a new currency rather than offers credit and too much of this money is printed

As demand falls, and with it prices, investment in the energy sector is likely to dry up. Many projects will be uneconomic at much lower prices, meaning that the projects which might have cushioned the downslope of Hubbert’s curve (and the much steeper net energy curve), are unlikely to be developed. In this way a demand collapse sets the stage for a supply collapse that could place a hard ceiling on any prospect of economic recovery. That is a recipe for extremely high energy prices in the future (Foss).

Secondly, our vulnerability to the consequences of debt is extremely high at the moment. The scale of that debt is staggeringly large. The global credit hyper-expansion has been decades in the making and is now significantly larger than notable events of the past such as the South Sea Bubble of the 1720s and the Tulip Bubble of the 1630s. It dwarfs the excesses that led to the Great Depression (Foss).

Inflation typically results from “too much money chasing too few goods.” Today, too much supply is chasing too little demand. That, coupled with consumers’ need to save money to rebuild their finances, raises the risk of deflation, not inflation. As workers compete for scarce jobs and companies underbid one another for sales, both wages and prices will remain under pressure. We began this crisis with household debt at its highest levels since the 1930s. Knowing that monthly mortgage payments don’t shrink even if your paycheck does, families are trying to deleverage and work down what they fear is their excessive debt.

Until employment grows enough to push wages, and income and production levels increase to more normal levels, the most pressing worry will be deflation, not inflation. inflation is easier to put right than deflation. The Federal Reserve can suppress inflation by raising interest rates as high as required to squelch those animal spirits, and the Fed can do that very rapidly. But there is a limit to the Fed’s ability to confront deflation, since it cannot cut nominal rates below zero in order to induce economic growth.

Unlike inflation, which divides the underlying real wealth pie into smaller and smaller pieces, credit expansion creates multiple and mutually exclusive claims to the same pieces of pie. Once a credit expansion reaches its maximum extent, and contraction begins, these excess claims begin to be extinguished. Unfortunately, the leverage is such that there are probably over a hundred claims to each piece of pie. While contraction begins slowly, as is the nature of positive feedback loops, it picks up momentum until a cascade point is reached, whereupon one can expect the excess claims to be extinguished in a rapid and chaotic process. This amounts to a rapid collapse in the supply of money and credit relative to available goods and services, which is the definition of deflation.

Banks hold extremely large amounts of illiquid ‘assets’ which are currently marked-to-make-believe. So long as large-scale price discovery events can be avoided, this fiction can continue. Unfortunately, a large-scale loss of confidence is exactly the kind of circumstance that is likely to result in a fire-sale of distressed assets. The structure of the credit default swap component of the derivatives market makes this very much more likely. The CDS market allowed large bets to be placed on certain prices falling, and by entities which did not have to own those assets. This creates a perverse incentive for some parties to cause others to fail for profit (akin to me being able to take out fire insurance on your house and thereby give me an incentive to burn it down). An added complication is the extreme degree of counterparty risk that resulted from a complete lack of capital adequacy regulation. Many parties with winning bets will not be able to collect, so they may cause financial mayhem for nothing. The CDS market is worth some $62 trillion, and a meltdown is very likely in my opinion.

The debt monetization that is going on has done nothing to increase the supply of money and credit relative to available goods and services, which is the definition of inflation.

Deregulation allowed the reckless to gamble away virtually everything, including bank deposits and pension funds. Globalized finance has created a giant Enron, which while appearing robust is actually almost completely hollowed out. Such structures implode, often without much notice.

Deflation is ultimately psychological. Without trust we will see hoarding of the cash which will be very scarce in the absence of the credit that currently comprises the vast majority of the effective money supply. The combination of scarce cash and a very low velocity of money will be toxic.  Money is the lubricant in the economic engine and without enough of it that engine will seize up as it did in the 1930s, when farmers dumped milk they couldn’t sell into ditches while others were starving for want of the money to buy food. There was plenty of everything except money, and without money, one cannot connect buyers and sellers.  Potential buyers will have no purchasing power as they will have lost access to credit and their ability to earn an income will be hit by spiking unemployment. Those who still have jobs will find that they have no bargaining power and there is therefore no wage support.  Sellers and producers will have no market and will themselves lose the means to purchase supplies or raw materials for the things they would like to produce.  If conditions remain frozen for any length of time, they will go out of business. The deeper the collapse, the more protracted the trough and the more difficult the eventual recovery.

Nicole Foss expects interest rates on private debt to rise before we see problems in the market for government debt, as the latter should benefit substantially in the shorter term from a flight to safety. The risk premium on private debt is already rising, which is a serious danger signal for such thoroughly indebted societies as we see in the developed world.

Some of the largest market rallies on record happened during the course of the Great Depression, as depressions are associated with very high volatility. Look for instance at the great sucker rally of 1930. There are always rallies of all different sizes in any bear market, just as there are pullbacks of all sizes in bull markets. No market ever moves in only one direction.

People tend to extrapolate recent trends forward, but this amounts to stepping on the gas while looking only in the rearview mirror. This is one reason why major trend changes are so rarely anticipated. Another is that the prevailing view of markets is fundamentally wrong. There is no perfect information, perfect competition, stabilizing negative feedback, rational utility maximization or efficient markets.

Markets are irrational, driven by swings of optimism and pessimism, or greed and fear, in an endless tug of war, and largely in an information vacuum. Investors chase momentum by jumping on passing bandwagons, hence demand for financial assets increases when prices are rising and falls when prices are falling, in classic positive feedback loops.

We have just lived through a period of several months when greed and complacency were in the ascendancy, but that trend is about to reverse in my opinion. Looking at markets as constructs of human herding behaviour allows them to be probabilistically predictable, permitting the forecasting of trend changes. For anyone who is interested in pursuing this idea further, I suggest looking into Bob Prechter’s socionomics – a fascinating subject which delves into the many effects of changes in collective mood.

For instance, as pessimism deepens, driving economic contraction, one would expect to see many manifestations of collective anger and mistrust. As this progresses it is likely to lead to xenophobia and a blame-game, with skillful manipulators (such as the fascist BNP leader Nick Griffin in the UK) poised to direct the anger of the herd towards their own chosen targets.

The potential for serious social fragmentation is very high when expectations have been dashed and there is not enough to go around. Having lived through a very long period of manic optimism and increasing inclusion, we in the developed world are not used to expressions of the dark side of human nature, except for entertainment purposes in popular television programmes. It will come as a considerable shock.

Nov 13, 2009 dailyreckoning predicts a Japan-like Slump that goes on for many years

So far, the US is doing almost exactly what the Japanese did…propping up zombie companies and stimulating the economy as best it can.  But if it does the same thing the Japanese did, won’t the US get the same results the Japanese got?

Here is where it gets interesting. Because the US economy is not exactly like the Japanese economy. Japan had high savings…and a positive trade balance. It could run up huge government debts and “owe it to itself.” It could finance its government debts with the savings of its own people, in other words. It never had to worry about foreigners refusing to buy its bonds…or selling them suddenly.

America’s government debt is different. The US doesn’t save enough to finance its own deficits. So it depends on the kindness of strangers. And if those strangers ever lose faith in America’s ability or willingness to repay its debts, they’ll drop the dollar like an annoying girlfriend. And when they do, the whole global monetary system will come crashing down.

But suppose savings rates go up in America – to, say, 10% of GDP, like they were before the bubble years. That would make $1.4 trillion of savings available to finance the feds’ deficits. And suppose the slump continues…as we think it will, with another big scare in the investment markets. People will seek safety in…yes, you guessed it…US bonds. This will take the pressure off the dollar and permit the US to finance its countercyclical spending without depending heavily on foreigners. The recession/depression will be annoying…but not insufferable. And Bernanke will figure het has more to lose by undermining the dollar than to gain from it. In that case, the Japan- like slump could go on for many years – just as it has in Japan!

Nov 11, 2009 Bubbles, Inflation and Overcapacity
http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov09/overcapacity11-09.html

here’s the dynamic which enabled low interest rates and low inflation even as credit exploded and bubbles rose in one asset class after another.

1. Massive expansion of credit was paralleled by a massive expansion of industrial capacity in China and indeed the entire world.

2. This expansion of capacity was matched by an expansion of supply in commodities. As the industrialization of China (one of the so-called BRIC nations–China, Russia, India and Brazil) and other developing nations drove demand for commodities, the incentives to exploit new sources drove up supply of almost everything: oil, iron ore, coffee, etc.

3. While prices have fluctuated in an upward bias, at no time did the cost of commodities rise to levels which threatened global growth except for the oil spike in 2008. Adjusted for inflation, oil is well within historical boundaries even at $80/barrel.

4. To feed the giant credit-dependent machine they’d fostered, central banks kept lowering interest rates and increasing liquidity/money supply. This drove the returns on savings and bonds down to absurdly low levels, forcing money managers to chase riskier assets to make a decent return on investments.

5. This need to earn higher returns drove vast floods of money into assets, inflating one bubble after another.

6. Though consumption also skyrocketed, the vast expansion of industrial capacity and commodity supplies actually outpaced rising consumption, keeping supply and demand more or less in balance and prices relatively stable.

In essence, the hot money was forced to chase assets for higher returns while China’s capacity to make goods matched and then exceeded global demand for goods.

The only way credit can drive inflation is if the supply of desired goods is limited. Many of us foresee a time when oil will be that commodity which is no longer able to match demand, but for now, the rise of production in Russia, Africa and elsewhere has kept pace with (now slackening) demand. Indeed, we might well see demand fall enough as the global recession takes hold that oil will fall to $30/barrel.

China’s capacity to produce goods now exceeds global demand. Add in the rest of the world’s enormous overcapacity and you get deflation, not inflation. In one industry after another, massive overcapacity is the stark reality. For example, the world can manufacture twice as many vehicles as there are customers for those vehicles.

The two key exceptions are grain and oil. If grain supply doesn’t match demand, and reserves have been drawn down, then prices could rise suddenly.

At some point oil supply will fall below demand, but when that point will occur is unknown.

Until either or both grain and oil fall into scarcity, then inflation in goods and services has no foundation. As long as interest rates remain near-zero, then the pressure to borrow money and chase asset prices higher remains in force.

No trend lasts forever. At some point interest rates will rise, risky assets will fall from favor and global scarcity in key resources will arise.

How long can the central banks inflate the exponentially-expanding credit bubble? No one knows, but we can say the end-point will arrive when no one wants to borrow more money even at zero interest rates.

 

Taipan Daily: Gold Stocks – Poised for an Epic Bull Run?
by Justice Litle, Editorial Director, Taipan Publishing Group

Major factors are pointing very much in a deflationary (falling price) direction:

* falling wages
* falling revenues
* brutal cost cuts
* imploding state budgets
* contracting credit lines
* rising unemployment
* rising credit defaults
* rising construction loan defaults
* rising government debt issuance
* rising consumer savings (long-term trend)

Hard assets aside, such factors are powerful bad juju when it comes to deflationary risks. If a “double dip” recession indeed takes hold – a possibility more likely than not in your humble editor’s estimation – the result could be a classic equity implosion, of the sort to send equities back to the general vicinity of the March 2009 lows (if not guaranteeing an actual test).

The grizzliest of deflationary bears argue loudly that the U.S. Federal Reserve (and various central bank counterparts around the globe) are helpless in the face of such headwinds, doomed to the prospect of “pushing on a string” – that is to say, flooding the economy with liquidity to no avail.

The classic liquidity trap is one in which all the excess liquidity created simply pools unused in bank vaults… like water in underground reservoirs that never gets distributed to an economy in drought.

Sources

Nov 2009 Forget Inflation, Deflation Is a Bigger Danger  Mortimer Zuckerman

October 30 2009: An interview with Stoneleigh – The case for deflation

 

 

Posted in Inflation or Deflation | Comments Off on Why Deflation is Inevitable

Debt relief scams

CFPB Files Suit Against Morgan Drexen for Charging Illegal Fees and Deceiving Consumers

Company Made Misleading Claims about its Debt-Relief Services to Consumers

CFPB Takes Action to Stop Florida Company From Engaging in Illegal Debt-Relief Practices

The Bureau Alleges Company’s Conduct is Abusive and Deceptive

CFPB Takes Action Against Two Companies for Charging Illegal Debt-Relief Fees

CFPB and State Partners Obtain Refunds for Consumers Charged Illegal Debt-Relief Fees

CFPB Announces First Joint-Enforcement Action with the States

Posted in Debt | Comments Off on Debt relief scams

Mortgage Scams: Kickbacks, Modification, etc

Nov 7 2013 CFPB Takes Action Against Castle & Cooke For Steering Consumers Into Costlier Mortgages. Company to Pay $9 Million in Restitution and $4 Million in Civil Penalties

Oct 24 2013 CFPB Files Suit Against Borders & Borders, PLC for Paying Illegal Real Estate Kickbacks. Company Funneled Kickbacks Through Network of Shell Companies

Nov 15 2013 The CFPB Takes Action Against Mortgage Insurer to End Illegal Kickbacks to Lenders. Republic Mortgage Insurance Corporation to Pay $100,000 Fine and Halt Illegal Activity

Jul 23 2013 CFPB Takes Action Against Castle & Cooke for Paying Employees to Steer Consumers into Expensive Mortgages. Employees Received Bonuses for Pushing Consumers into Loans with Higher Interest Rates

May 17 2013 The CFPB Takes Action Against Real Estate Kickbacks. Homebuilder Required to Turn Over Profits from Kickbacks Funneled Through Sham Mortgage Companies

Apr 4 2013 The CFPB Takes Action Against Mortgage Insurers to End Kickbacks to Lenders. Four Companies to Pay $15.4 Million in Penalties

Dec 11 2012 CFPB Halts Alleged Nationwide Mortgage Loan Modification Scams. Operations Targeted Financially Distressed Consumers in Danger of Losing Their Homes

Feb 18, 2009 Home loans in the US: the biggest racket since Al Capone? Financial Times.

The extreme fiscal largesse bestowed on residential housing, directly and indirectly through mortgage interest deductibility, has led to a massive misallocation of investment in the US.  There has been overinvestment in the private residential housing stock and underinvestment in just about every other form of fixed capital: infrastructure, public amenities of all kinds (sports facilities, public recreational facilities, parks etc.), commercial structures, plant and equipment.

Posted in Mortgages | Comments Off on Mortgage Scams: Kickbacks, Modification, etc

Discriminatory Mortgages $35 million fines

CFPB and DOJ Take Action Against National City Bank for Discriminatory Mortgage Pricing

Harmed African-American and Hispanic Borrowers Will Receive $35 Million in Restitution

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a joint complaint against National City Bank for charging higher prices on mortgage loans to African-American and Hispanic borrowers than similarly creditworthy white borrowers between the years 2002 and 2008. The agencies also filed a proposed order to settle the complaint that requires National City Bank, through its successor PNC Bank, to pay $35 million in restitution to harmed African-American and Hispanic borrowers.

“Borrowers should never have to pay more for a mortgage loan because of their race or national origin,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Today’s enforcement action puts money back in the pockets of harmed consumers and makes clear that we will hold lenders accountable for the effects of their discriminatory practices.”

“This settlement will provide deserved relief to thousands of African-American and Hispanic borrowers who suffered discrimination at the hands of National City Bank,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “As alleged, the bank charged borrowers higher rates not based on their creditworthiness, but based on their race and national origin. This alleged conduct resulted in increased loan prices for minority borrowers. This case marks the Justice Department’s latest step to protect Americans from discriminatory lending practices, and shows we will always fight to hold accountable those who take advantage of consumers for financial gain.”

National City Bank originated mortgage loans directly to consumers in its retail offices, as well as through independent mortgage brokers. Between 2002 and 2008, National City made over 1 million mortgage loans through its retail channel and over 600,000 loans through independent brokers. PNC acquired National City at the end of 2008.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits creditors from discriminating against loan applicants in credit transactions on the basis of characteristics such as race and national origin. In the complaint, the CFPB and DOJ allege that National City Bank violated the ECOA by charging African-American and Hispanic borrowers higher mortgage prices than similarly creditworthy white borrowers. The DOJ also alleges that National City violated the Fair Housing Act, which similarly prohibits discrimination in residential mortgage lending.

The CFPB and DOJ’s joint investigation began in 2011. The agencies allege that National City Bank’s discretionary pricing and compensation policies caused the discriminatory pricing differences. National City gave its loan officers and brokers the discretion to set borrowers’ rates and fees. National City then compensated the officers and brokers from extra costs paid by consumers. Over 76,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers paid higher costs because of this discriminatory pricing and compensation scheme.

Today’s action marks the first joint lawsuit brought in federal court by the CFPB and the DOJ to enforce federal fair lending laws. On December 6, 2012, the CFPB and the DOJ signed an agreement that has facilitated strong coordination between the two agencies on fair lending enforcement, including the pursuit of joint investigations such as this one.

Enforcement Action

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) and the ECOA authorize the CFPB to take action against creditors engaging in illegal discrimination. The consent order, which is subject to court approval, requires that PNC Bank, as the successor to National City Bank, pay restitution. Specifically, the order requires:

  • $35 million to be paid to a settlement fund. That settlement fund will go to allegedly affected African-American and Hispanic borrowers who obtained mortgage loans from National City between 2002 and 2008.
  • Funds to be distributed through a settlement administrator. The CFPB and the DOJ will identify victims by looking at loan data. A settlement administrator will contact consumers if necessary, distribute the funds, and ensure that impacted borrowers receive compensation.
  • The settlement administrator be accessible. The settlement administrator will set up various cost-free ways for consumers to contact it with any questions about potential payments. The CFPB will release a Consumer Advisory with contact information for the settlement administrator once that person is chosen.

The consent order terms take into account a number of factors, including the age of the loans, that National City Bank no longer exists, and that PNC does not employ National City’s mortgage origination policies.

The complaint and the proposed consent order resolving the complaint have been simultaneously filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The proposed federal court order will have the full force of law only when signed by the presiding judge.

The full text of the CFPB’s Complaint is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_complaint_national-city-bank.pdf

The full text of the CFPB’s Consent Order is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent_national-city-bank.pdf

Posted in Mortgages | Comments Off on Discriminatory Mortgages $35 million fines

Auto Loan Scams

CFPB and DOJ Order Ally to Pay $80 Million to Consumers Harmed by Discriminatory Auto Loan Pricing

 

Ally to Pay Additional $18 Million in Civil Penalties for Harming More Than 235,000 Minority Borrowers

Jun 27 2013

CFPB Orders Auto Lenders to Refund Approximately $6.5 Million to Servicemembers

CFPB Takes Action Against Two Companies for Charging Illegal Debt-Relief Fees

Posted in Debt | Comments Off on Auto Loan Scams

CFPB Sues For-Profit College Chain ITT For Predatory Lending

CFPB Sues For-Profit College Chain ITT For Predatory Lending

ITT Pushed Consumers into High-Cost Student Loans Likely to Fail

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a lawsuit against ITT Educational Services, Inc., accusing the for-profit college chain of predatory student lending. The CFPB alleges that ITT exploited its students and pushed them into high-cost private student loans that were very likely to end in default. The CFPB is seeking restitution for victims, a civil fine, and an injunction against the company.

“ITT marketed itself as improving consumers’ lives but it was really just improving its bottom line,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We believe ITT used high-pressure tactics to push many consumers into expensive loans destined to default. Today’s action should serve as a warning to the for-profit college industry that we will be vigilant about protecting students against predatory lending tactics.”

Like the mortgage market in the lead-up to the financial crisis, the for-profit college industry may be experiencing misaligned incentives. These colleges benefit when students take out large amounts of loans, regardless of the students’ long-term success. The CFPB is concerned that some of these corporations may be employing practices to coax consumers into taking out more federal and private student loans. Today’s announcement is the Bureau’s first public enforcement action against a company in the for-profit college industry.

ITT Educational Services, Inc. is an Indiana-based for-profit provider of post-secondary technical education. Tens of thousands of students are enrolled online or at one of ITT’s roughly 150 institutions in nearly 40 states. ITT’s tuition costs are among the highest in the country in the for-profit industry. Earning an associate’s degree at ITT can cost more than $44,000. Bachelor’s degree programs can cost $88,000. That is significantly higher than the cost of similar degrees at a community college or a public four-year institution.

Most of ITT’s students borrow large sums to pay the high tuition costs and the majority of this money is borrowed from federal student loan programs. But private student loans also provide critical revenue for ITT. Because most ITT students’ federal aid does not cover the full cost of an ITT program, most students face a “tuition gap” requiring them to find other sources of funding.

The CFPB’s lawsuit alleges that ITT encouraged new students to enroll at ITT by providing them funding for this tuition gap with a zero-interest loan called “Temporary Credit.” This loan typically had to be paid in full at the end of the student’s first academic year. But ITT knew from the outset that many students would not be able to repay their Temporary Credit balances or fund their next year’s tuition gap.

The CFPB lawsuit alleges that between July 2011 and December 2011, ITT pushed its students into repaying their Temporary Credit and funding their second-year tuition gaps through high-cost private student loan programs. Students were left in the dark about the fact that taking out these high-cost loans would be required to continue their studies. However, ITT’s CEO revealed in investor calls that converting the temporary loans to long-term loans was the company’s “plan all along.”

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices. Specifically, in today’s lawsuit, the Bureau alleges the following conduct by ITT:

  • Pressured into predatory loans: ITT used its financial aid staff to rush students through an automated application process without affording them a fair opportunity to understand the loan obligations involved. In some cases, students did not even know they had a private student loan until they started getting collection calls. The loans were high-cost. For borrowers with credit scores under 600, for example, the costs of the private student loans included 10 percent origination fees and interest rates as high as 16.25 percent.
  • Credits not transferable: ITT was accredited by a national organization that accredits many for-profit schools, but the credits that students earned typically did not transfer to local community colleges or other nonprofit schools such as public or private colleges. ITT used the prospect of expulsion and the loss of the money already spent during the student’s first year to coerce students into taking out the private loans.
  • Misleading future job prospects: The Bureau believes that ITT’s representations led students to think that when they graduated they were likely to land good jobs and enough salary to repay their private student loans. In this way, ITT exploited student expectations while it knew that a majority of students would default.
  • Loans likely to fail: ITT knew that most of its students would ultimately default on their private student loans; it projected a default rate for its students of 64 percent. Defaulting on private student loans can have grave consequences for consumers. It can make it difficult to get any kind of loan for years and even affect a borrower’s job prospects. And, because private student loans are difficult to discharge in bankruptcy, the debt can be very difficult to recover from.

The complaint against ITT can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201402_cfpb_complaint_ITT.pdf

The Bureau’s complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law.

To assist student loan borrowers who may be in delinquency or default, the CFPB recently launched an updated version of the Repay Student Debt interactive tool.

The CFPB also recently finalized a rule allowing it to supervise certain nonbank servicers of federal and private student loans. The rule takes effect on March 1.

CFPB takes complaints about student loans. To submit a complaint, consumers can:

  • Go online at consumerfinance.gov/complaint
  • Call the toll-free phone number at 1-855-411-CFPB (2372) or TTY/TDD phone number at 1-855-729-CFPB (2372)
  • Fax the CFPB at 1-855-237-2392
  • Mail a letter to: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, P.O. Box 4503, Iowa City, Iowa 52244
Posted in Debt | Comments Off on CFPB Sues For-Profit College Chain ITT For Predatory Lending

Consumers Report Being Hounded About Debts Not Owed

Consumers Report Being Hounded About Debts Not Owed

Top Debt Collection Complaints Also Include Aggressive Communication Tactics and Threatening Illegal Actions

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today issued a report on the more than 30,000 consumer complaints it has received about the debt collection market. The report finds that many consumers complain that they are being hounded by debt collectors about debts they do not owe. Top complaints also include debt collectors’ use of aggressive communication tactics and threats of illegal actions.

“Consumers should never be hounded about debts they do not owe,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We will not tolerate companies harassing consumers or threatening illegal actions in the debt collection market. We will continue to work hard to ensure that consumers are treated with dignity and fairness.”

Debt collection is a multi-billion dollar industry. It is estimated that there are more than 4,500 debt collection firms nationwide. Banks and other original creditors may collect their own debts or hire third-party debt collectors. Original creditors and other debt owners also may sell their debts to debt buyers. Debt buyers may sell the debt, collect the debt themselves, or hire third-party debt collectors to do so.

Approximately 30 million Americans had, on average, $1,400 of debt subject to collection in 2013. The main law that governs the industry and protects consumers is the 1977 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) revised the FDCPA, making the Bureau the first agency with the power to issue substantive rules under the statute. Today’s annual report to Congress highlights the Bureau’s efforts to carry out the FDCPA.

Consumer Complaints

The Bureau began accepting debt collection complaints in July 2013. These complaints quickly became the largest source of complaints each month. The Bureau received 30,300 debt collection complaints between July and December 2013. Companies have already responded to about 82 percent of the complaints the Bureau has sent to them for a response in that time frame. The top three complaints were about:

  • Collectors hounding consumers about a debt they do not owe: More than one-third of the complaints the CFPB handled were about a debt collector continually attempting to collect a debt that the consumer does not believe is owed. Of these complaints, almost two-thirds of consumers report that the debt is not theirs, while others report that the debt was paid, was the result of identity theft, or was discharged in bankruptcy.
  • Aggressive communication tactics used by debt collectors: Nearly a quarter of the complaints received by the Bureau were about debt collectors using inappropriate communication tactics. More than half of those complaints cite frequent or repeated calls from a collector and often the collector is calling the wrong phone number. Consumers also complain about debt collectors calling their places of employment or collectors using obscene, profane, or abusive language.
  • Taking or threatening an illegal action: About 14 percent of consumers report that a company is taking or threatening an illegal action. Most of these complaints are about threats to arrest or jail consumers if they do not pay. Other complaints relate to collectors threating to sue or attempting to seize property.

CFPB Advances in Debt Collection Market in 2013

The CFPB took several important steps to protect consumers and create a level playing field for law-abiding debt collectors in 2013. The Bureau’s larger participant rule for debt collection became effective on January 2, 2013. Under this rule, the Bureau has supervisory authority over any firm with more than $10 million in annual receipts from consumer debt collection activities, which extends to about 175 debt collection companies.

In November 2013, the Bureau took the first step toward considering consumer protection rules for the debt collection market with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). Through this ANPR, the Bureau is collecting information on a wide array of issues, including the accuracy of information used by debt collectors, how to ensure consumers know their rights, and the communication tactics collectors employ to recover debts. The Bureau can use the information it gathers to inform future rulemaking.

The Bureau also pursued two debt collection enforcement actions in 2013. The Bureau sued an online loan servicer, CashCall Inc., its owner, its subsidiary, and its affiliate, for collecting money on loans that were legally invalid. The Bureau also ordered payday lender, Cash America International, Inc. to refund up to $14 million to consumers for robo-signing court documents in debt collection lawsuits. Through its ongoing supervision and enforcement activities, the Bureau will continue to prevent and deter debt collectors from violating the law.

The Bureau issued sample letters consumers can use in dealing with debt collectors. These letters may help consumers obtain valuable information about claims being made against them or may help consumers protect themselves from inappropriate or unwanted collection activities. And the Bureau’s interactive online tool, Ask CFPB, contains more than 85 questions and answers related to the topic of debt collection.

A copy of today’s report is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201403_cfpb_fair-debt-collection-practices-act.pdf

Posted in Debt | Comments Off on Consumers Report Being Hounded About Debts Not Owed

$2 Billion to Homeowners for servicing wrongs

CFPB, State Authorities Order Ocwen to Provide $2 Billion in Relief to Homeowners for Servicing Wrongs

Largest Nonbank Servicer Will Also Refund $125 Million to Foreclosure Victims and Adhere to Significant New Homeowner Protections

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), authorities in 49 states, and the District of Columbia filed a proposed court order requiring the country’s largest nonbank mortgage loan servicer, Ocwen Financial Corporation, and its subsidiary, Ocwen Loan Servicing, to provide $2 billion in principal reduction to underwater borrowers. The consent order addresses Ocwen’s systemic misconduct at every stage of the mortgage servicing process. Ocwen must also refund $125 million to the nearly 185,000 borrowers who have already been foreclosed upon and it must adhere to significant new homeowner protections.

“Deceptions and shortcuts in mortgage servicing will not be tolerated,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Ocwen took advantage of borrowers at every stage of the process. Today’s action sends a clear message that we will be vigilant about making sure that consumers are treated with the respect, dignity, and fairness they deserve.”

The proposed Ocwen Consent Order is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_consent-order_ocwen.pdf

Ocwen, a publicly traded Florida corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Ga., is the largest nonbank mortgage servicer and the fourth-largest servicer overall in the United States. As a mortgage servicer, it is responsible for collecting payments from the mortgage borrower and forwarding those payments to the owner of the loan. It handles customer service, collections, loan modifications, and foreclosures.

Ocwen specializes in servicing subprime or delinquent loans and places a major emphasis on resolving delinquency through loss mitigation or foreclosure. In recent years, it has acquired competitors – including Homeward Residential Holdings LLC (formerly American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.) and Litton Loan Servicing LP. It has also acquired the mortgage servicing rights from the portfolios of some of the country’s largest banks.

The CFPB is charged with enforcing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which protects consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by mortgage servicers – whether they are a bank or nonbank. State financial regulators, state attorneys general, and the CFPB uncovered substantial evidence that Ocwen violated state laws and the Dodd-Frank Act.

In early 2012, examinations by the Multistate Mortgage Committee, which is comprised of state financial regulators, identified potential violations at Ocwen. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission referred its investigation of Ocwen to the CFPB after the Bureau opened in July 2011. The Bureau then teamed with state attorneys general and state regulators to investigate and resolve the issues identified. Today’s settlement is a multi-jurisdictional collaborative effort.

Borrowers Pushed into Foreclosure by Servicing Errors

The CFPB and its partner states believe that Ocwen was engaged in significant and systemic misconduct that occurred at every stage of the mortgage servicing process. According to the complaint filed in the federal district court in the District of Columbia, Ocwen’s violations of consumer financial protections put thousands of people across the country at risk of losing their homes. Specifically, the complaint says that Ocwen:

  • Took advantage of homeowners with servicing shortcuts and unauthorized fees: Customers relied on Ocwen to, among other things, treat them fairly, give them accurate information, and appropriately charge for services. According to the complaint, Ocwen violated the law in a number of ways, including:
    • Failing to timely and accurately apply payments made by borrowers and failing to maintain accurate account statements;
    • Charging borrowers unauthorized fees for default-related services;
    • Imposing force-placed insurance on consumers when Ocwen knew or should have known that they already had adequate home-insurance coverage; and
    • Providing false or misleading information in response to consumer complaints.
  • Deceived consumers about foreclosure alternatives and improperly denied loan modifications: Struggling homeowners generally turn to mortgage servicers, the link to the owners of the loans, as their only means of developing a plan for payment. Ocwen failed to effectively assist, and in fact impeded, struggling homeowners trying to save their homes. This included:
    • Failing to provide accurate information about loan modifications and other loss mitigation services;
    • Failing to properly process borrowers’ applications and calculate their eligibility for loan modifications;
    • Providing false or misleading reasons for denying loan modifications;
    • Failing to honor previously agreed upon trial modifications with prior servicers; and
    • Deceptively seeking to collect payments under the mortgage’s original unmodified terms after the consumer had already begun a loan modification with the prior servicer.
  • Engaged in illegal foreclosure practices: One of the most important jobs of a mortgage servicer is managing the foreclosure process. But Ocwen mishandled foreclosures and provided consumers with false information. Specifically, Ocwen is accused of:
    • Providing false or misleading information to consumers about the status of foreclosure proceedings where the borrower was in good faith actively pursuing a loss mitigation alternative also offered by Ocwen; and
    • Robo-signing foreclosure documents, including preparing, executing, notarizing, and filing affidavits in foreclosure proceedings with courts and government agencies without verifying the information.

Remedies: Consumer Protections

Today’s proposed court order will bar Ocwen from committing such violations in the future. It requires Ocwen to provide $125 million in refunds to foreclosed-upon consumers and $2 billion in loan modification relief to its customers through principal reduction. The refunds and relief also apply to consumers whose loans were previously serviced by Homeward Residential Holdings and Litton Loan Servicing. According to the proposed order, Ocwen must:

  • Provide $2 billion in relief to underwater borrowers: Over a three-year period, Ocwen must complete sustainable loan modifications that result in principal reductions totaling $2 billion. For loan modification options, eligible borrowers may be contacted directly by Ocwen. Or borrowers may contact Ocwen to obtain more information about specific loan modification programs and to find out whether they may be impacted by this settlement. Ocwen can be reached at 1-800-337-6695 or ConsumerRelief@Ocwen.com. If Ocwen fails to meet this commitment, it must pay a cash penalty in the amount of any shortfall to the CFPB and the states.
  • Provide $125 million in refunds to foreclosure victims: Ocwen must refund $125 million to consumers whose loans were being serviced by Ocwen, Homeward Residential Holdings, or Litton Loan Servicing, and who lost their homes to foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2012. All eligible consumers who submit valid claims will receive an equal share of the $125 million. Borrowers who receive payments will not have to release any claims and will be free to seek additional relief in the courts. Ocwen will also pay $2.3 million to administer the refund process. Eligible consumers can expect to hear from the settlement administrator about potential payments.
  • Stop robo-signing official documents: Ocwen must ensure that facts asserted in its documents about borrowers’ loans used in foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings are accurate and supported by reliable evidence. Affidavits and sworn statements must be based on personal knowledge.
  • Adhere to significant new homeowner protections: Ocwen must change the way it services mortgages to ensure that borrowers are protected from the illegal behavior that puts them in danger of losing their homes. To ensure this, the CFPB and the states are proposing that Ocwen follow the servicing standards set up by the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement with the five largest banks. Because of Ocwen’s track record of problems handling the large volume of mortgage servicing rights it has quickly acquired in recent years, Ocwen is also being ordered to adhere to additional consumer protections, including how it manages transferred lans. Among other things, Ocwen must:
    • Properly process pending requests: For loans that are transferred to Ocwen, the company must determine the status of in-process loss mitigation requests pending within 60 days of transfer. Until then, Ocwen cannot start, refer to, or proceed with foreclosure.
    • Honor previous loan modification agreements: If the borrower has a loan modification agreement, Ocwen must honor it under the terms of the company that transferred the loan.
    • Ensure continuity of contact for consumers: Ocwen will have to ensure that consumers get regular and dependable assistance when they call for help. This includes requiring more than just a single point of contact assigned to each borrower, but also that other Ocwen employees with access to the borrower’s information be available if the borrower wants to speak to someone immediately.
    • Restrict servicing fees: All servicing fees must be reasonable, bona fide, and disclosed in detail to borrowers. For example, Ocwen cannot collect any late fees if a loan modification application is under review or if the borrower is making timely trial modification payments.
    • Notify consumers of loss mitigation options and restrict dual tracking: Ocwen generally cannot refer a borrower’s account to foreclosure while the borrower’s application for a loan modification is still pending. If the loan-modification request is denied, the borrower can appeal that decision and Ocwen cannot proceed to foreclosure until that appeal has been resolved.

In January 2013, the CFPB released new rules on mortgage servicing that will apply to every mortgage servicer. The standards that Ocwen must adhere to according to this court order are in addition to the protections offered to consumers under the new rules that take effect on Jan. 10, 2014. More information about the CFPB’s new mortgage rules can be found at: consumerfinance.gov/mortgage.

A factsheet about the proposed order filed today can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_factsheet_ocwen.pdf

Common consumer questions and answers about the order can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_common-questions_ocwen.pdf

A copy of the Ocwen complaint that the CFPB and state attorneys general filed today can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201312_cfpb_complaint_ocwen.pdf

The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. The proposed federal court order will have the full force of law only when signed by the presiding judge.

###

Posted in Mortgages | Comments Off on $2 Billion to Homeowners for servicing wrongs

Payday Loans

CFPB Finds Four Out Of Five Payday Loans Are Rolled Over Or Renewed

Research Shows the Majority of Payday Loans Are Made to Borrowers Caught in a Revolving Door of Debt

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a report on payday lending finding that four out of five payday loans are rolled over or renewed within 14 days. The study also shows that the majority of all payday loans are made to borrowers who renew their loans so many times that they end up paying more in fees than the amount of money they originally borrowed.

“We are concerned that too many borrowers slide into the debt traps that payday loans can become,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “As we work to bring needed reforms to the payday market, we want to ensure consumers have access to small-dollar loans that help them get ahead, not push them farther behind.”

The report is at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201403_cfpb_report_payday-lending.pdf

Payday loans are typically described as a way to bridge a cash flow shortage between paychecks or other income. Also known as “cash advances” or “check loans,” they are usually expensive, small-dollar loans, of generally $500 or less. They can offer quick and easy accessibility, especially for consumers who may not qualify for other credit.

Today’s report is based on data from a 12-month period with more than 12 million storefront payday loans. It is a continuation of the work in last year’s CFPB report on Payday Loans and Deposit Advance Products, one of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken on the market. That report raised questions about the loose lending standards, high costs, and risky loan structures that may contribute to the sustained use of these products.

Today’s report provides a deeper analysis of the data, focusing on repeated borrowing by consumers after they take out an initial payday loan. A primary driver of the cost of payday loans is that consumers may roll over the loans or engage in re-borrowing within a short window of time after repaying their first loan. Today’s study looks at not only the initial loans but also loans taken out within 14 days of paying off the old loans; it considers these subsequent loans to be renewals and part of the same “loan sequence.” Today’s study is the most in-depth analysis of this pattern to date.

Key Findings: Many Payday Loans Become Revolving Doors of Debt

By focusing on payday loan renewals, the study found that a large share of consumers end up in cycles of repeated borrowing and incur significant costs over time. Specifically, the study found:

  • Four out of five payday loans are rolled over or renewed: More than 80 percent of payday loans are rolled over or renewed within two weeks. The study found that when looking at 14-day windows in the states that have cooling-off periods that reduce the level of same-day renewals, the renewal rates are nearly identical to states without these limitations.
  • Three out of five payday loans are made to borrowers whose fee expenses exceed amount borrowed: Over 60 percent of loans are made to borrowers in the course of loan sequences lasting seven or more loans in a row. Roughly half of all loans are made to borrowers in the course of loan sequences lasting ten or more loans in a row.
  • One out of five new payday loans end up costing the borrower more than the amount borrowed: For 48 percent of all initial payday loans – those that are not taken out within 14 days of a prior loan – borrowers are able to repay the loan with no more than one renewal. But for 22 percent of new loans, borrowers end up renewing their loans six times or more. With a typical payday fee of 15 percent, consumers who take out an initial loan and six renewals will have paid more in fees than the original loan amount.
  • Four out of five payday borrowers either default or renew a payday loan over the course of a year: Only 15 percent of borrowers repay all of their payday debts when due without re-borrowing within 14 days; 20 percent default on a loan at some point; and 64 percent renew at least one loan one or more times. Defaulting on a payday loan may cause the consumer to incur bank fees. Renewing loans repeatedly can put consumers on a slippery slope toward a debt trap where they cannot get ahead of the money they owe.
  • Four out of five payday borrowers who renew end up borrowing the same amount or more: Specifically, more than 80 percent of borrowers who rolled over loans owed as much or more on the last loan in a loan sequence than the amount they borrowed initially. These consumers are having trouble getting ahead of the debt. The study also found that as the number of rollovers increases, so too does the percentage of borrowers who increase their borrowing.
  • One out of five payday borrowers on monthly benefits trapped in debt: The study also looked at payday borrowers who are paid on a monthly basis and found one out of five remained in debt the entire year of the CFPB study. Payday borrowers who fall into this category include elderly Americans or disability recipients receiving Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability.

Today’s report will help educate regulators and the public about how the payday lending market works and about the behavior of borrowers in the market. The CFPB has authority to oversee the payday loan market. It began its supervision of payday lenders in January 2012. In November 2013, the CFPB began accepting complaints from borrowers encountering problems with payday loans.

 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Takes Action Against Payday Lender For Robo-Signing

Cash America to Refund up to $14 Million for Robo-Signing and Illegally Overcharging Servicemembers

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) today took its first enforcement action against a payday lender by ordering Cash America International, Inc. to refund consumers for robo-signing court documents in debt collection lawsuits. The CFPB also found that Cash America – one of the largest short-term, small-dollar lenders in the country – violated the Military Lending Act by illegally overcharging servicemembers and their families. Cash America will pay up to $14 million in refunds to consumers and it will pay a $5 million fine for these violations and for destroying records in advance of the Bureau’s examination.

“This action brings justice to the Cash America customers who were affected by illegal robo-signing, and shows that we will vigilantly protect the consumer rights that servicemembers have earned,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We are also sending a clear message today to all companies under our watch that impeding a CFPB exam by destroying documents, withholding records, and instructing employees to mislead examiners is unacceptable.”

Payday loans are often described as a way for consumers to bridge a cash flow shortage between paychecks or the receipt of other income. They can offer quick access to credit, especially for consumers who may not qualify for other credit. Many payday loans are for small-dollar amounts that must be repaid in full in a short period of time.

Cash America is a publicly traded financial services company headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas that provides consumer financial products and services, including payday loans, lines of credit, installment loans, and pawn loans. With hundreds of retail locations across more than 20 states, it is one of the largest payday lending companies in the United States. Cash America’s Chicago-based subsidiary, Enova, offers online loans in 32 states under the brand name CashNetUSA.

Today’s action is the Bureau’s first public enforcement action against a payday lender; its first public action under the Military Lending Act; and the first public action for a company’s failure to comply fully with the CFPB’s supervisory examination authority.

Violations

After a routine CFPB examination of Cash America’s operations, the CFPB found multiple violations of consumer financial protection laws, including:

  • Robo-signing: Robo-signing generally refers to a practice where important documents that require careful review and a signature from a knowledgeable individual are instead signed by someone else, a machine, or by someone who does not follow appropriate procedures. Robo-signing can result in inaccurate court affidavits and pleadings, which may cause consumers to pay false debts, incorrect debts, or legal costs and court fees. For nearly five years, Cash America’s debt collection subsidiary in Ohio, Cashland Financial Services, Inc., had been preparing, executing, and notarizing documents filed in its Ohio collections litigations without complying with state and court-required signature rules. The CFPB estimates that about 14,000 consumers paid money as a result of debt collection litigation which may have involved reliance on improper court filings. Specifically:
    • Employees manually stamped attorney signatures on legal pleadings, and department manager signatures on balance-due and military-status affidavits, without prior review; and
    • Legal assistants notarized documents without following proper procedures.
  • Illegally overcharged servicemembers: Cash America violated the Military Lending Act, which restricts the rate on certain types of loans given to servicemembers to 36 percent. Cash America extended payday loans exceeding that rate to more than 300 active-duty servicemembers or dependents.
  • Impeded the CFPB exam: During a routine examination of Cash America that began in July 2012, the company, among other things, carelessly destroyed records relevant to the Bureau’s onsite compliance examination. Specifically, Cash America’s online lending subsidiary, Enova Financial:
    • Instructed employees to limit the information they provided to the CFPB about their sales and marketing pitches;
    • Deleted recorded phone calls with consumers; and
    • Continued to shred documents after the CFPB told them to halt such activities.
    • In addition, Cash America withheld an internal audit report related to collection practices.

Enforcement Action

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions for violations of federal consumer financial protection laws. To ensure that all impacted consumers are repaid and that consumers are no longer subject to these illegal practices, Cash America has committed to:

  • Refund consumers: Cash America has already voluntarily paid back roughly $6 million to military borrowers and victims of the robo-signing practices. Through today’s CFPB order, they have committed to offer an additional $8 million to consumers, for a total refund of up to $14 million. Consumers who were subject to debt collection lawsuits in the state of Ohio from 2008 through January 2013 are eligible. More information is available at: www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/our-first-enforcement-action-against-a-payday-lender
  • Dismiss pending collections lawsuits: Within months of the CFPB discovering the robo-signing, Cash America dismissed pending collections lawsuits, terminated all post-judgment collections activities, cancelled all judgments obtained, and corrected information it furnished to credit bureaus for the nearly 14,000 wrongful cases filed in Ohio.
  • Pay a $5 million fine: Cash America will pay a $5 million civil money penalty in connection with these serious violations. Cash America’s preemptive refunds to consumers and other actions after the Bureau discovered the conduct were considered when determining the civil money penalty amount.
  • Improve internal compliance systems: Cash America will develop and implement a comprehensive plan to improve its compliance with consumer financial protection laws, including the Military Lending Act.

The CFPB has authority to oversee the payday loan market and began its supervision of payday lenders in January 2012. In addition, the CFPB has taken a number of steps to learn more about the marketplace for payday loans, and released a report on payday loans earlier this year. That report found that payday products can lead to a cycle of indebtedness for many consumers. In early November, the CFPB began accepting consumer complaints about payday loans. More information is available at: www.consumerfinance.gov/blog/you-can-submit-a-payday-loan-complaint/

The full text of the CFPB’s Consent Order is available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201311_cfpb_cashamerica_consent-order.pdf

Posted in Banking | Comments Off on Payday Loans