Renters are getting evicted and landlords, many of who are small business owners, are suffering from nonpayments. It’s time for Florida to step it up by educating renters on how to access pandemic-related federal funds.
Florida eviction prevention funds have been slow to reach Florida renters experiencing pandemic-related hardships. The state received $871 million, and 32 local governments throughout the state received another $570 million. Yet, Florida paid out just $100,000 through the end of May, while local governments distributed $62.2 million, according to a report. June and July numbers weren’t included in the Treasury Department report, and officials expect continued growth in rental aid programs.
But more effort needs to be put into this growing challenge. Nationwide, about 15 million people live in households that owe as much as $20 billion to their landlords, according to the Aspen Institute. And as of early July, about 3.6 million people throughout the country said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey. 

Nationwide, federal money has been getting out to landlords very slowly — and Florida has been even further behind, with only about 2% of its money distributed, according to recent reports.
Carrie Davis, president and CEO of Jacksonville-based Wealth Watchers Inc., agrees that more effort needs to be focused on educating the public about resources. But she says, that’s only part of the challenge. 

“The way it works is the tenant drives the process, but the checks go to landlords,” said Davis who runs a nonprofit HUD-certified Housing Counseling and Community Development organization.
“We need to be able to get the funds out, and we don’t need to add additional layers to it. The U.S. Department of Treasury gave us broad parameters on how these funds could be spent, but on a local level when we add additional layers and rules it causes a delay in getting funds out,” Davis said. “You spend down those dollars at a slower pace because you minimize the people you can help.”

Eviction moratoriums put in place last year were meant to help curb the pandemic’s spread expired. A new moratorium was issued on Aug. 3 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, targeting places like Florida, with high transmission of the disease. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down that moratorium more than likely means pandemic protections for renters are over without Congress stepping up with new legislation to help them.
More effort needs to be made to get the word out to renters about what it takes to qualify for help. Landlords should be paid what they’re owed, but according to various media reports, too often people could have been spared eviction or at least bought more time if they knew how to navigate the process to get help.
One of the primary goals of the new moratorium is to give state and local governments more time to distribute billions in rental assistance money they’re receiving from the feds.
Resources are available for both landlords and tenants facing eviction for non-payment. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has an online tool to find out more about rental assistance programs in our area. And any Florida resident can apply for rental assistance through the OUR Florida program at OurFlorida.com.

[…] […]

Read More…

On September 1, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or “Bureau”) issued its long-awaited small business lending data collection proposed rule (“Proposed Rule” or “Proposal”). The Proposed Rule would implement Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amended the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to direct the CFPB to require financial institutions to collect and report loan data on women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses (collectively, “Small Businesses”) in connection with applications for credit. Under the Proposed Rule, covered financial institutions would be required to disclose application data from Small Businesses and demographic information about credit applicants.
Federal consumer financial protection laws typically do not apply to business-purpose credit; the ECOA, though, generally applies to both consumer-purpose and business-purpose credit transactions. The Bureau began examining ECOA compliance of small business programs in 2015. The Proposal represents the latest step in an over 10-year process, which included the Bureau agreeing to settle a complaint, filed by a group of community organizations, related to delays in commencing the Section 1071 rulemaking proceeding, with the settlement agreement setting forth specific milestones—including milestones for this Proposal—for the Section 1071 rulemaking process.
Dodd-Frank Act Section 1071
The purpose of Section 1071 is to “facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws and enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities for women-owned, minority-owned and small businesses.” Section 1071 covers “financial institutions,” defined as any partnership, company, corporation, association, trust, estate, cooperative organization, or other entity that engages in any financial activity.
Section 1071 also covers small businesses, defined as a “small business concern,” meaning “one which is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation,” as defined in Section 3 of the Small Business Act.
Under Section 1071, financial institutions are required to collect and maintain certain data for Small Business applicants, while also restricting access to certain information. As part of the data collection, financial institutions must limit or “firewall” access to the race, ethnicity, and sex data from employees in a position to make credit decisions about those applications. Financial institutions must submit this data to the Bureau annually; thereafter, the Bureau must make the data available to the public.
The Proposal
Regulation B implements the ECOA, and the Bureau is proposing to add Subpart B to Regulation B to implement Section 1071. The following is a summary of the Proposal, including key defined terms.
Key Terms
A covered financial institution would be defined as a “financial institution” that meets an origination threshold of at least 25 “covered credit transactions” to “small businesses” in each of the two preceding calendar years. Under the Proposal, “financial institution” would mean “any partnership, company, corporation, association . . . , trust, estate, cooperative organization, or other entity that engages in any financial activity[.]” Under this proposed definition, coverage would not be limited to depository institutions, but also would cover, for example, fintechs, online lenders, platform lenders, lenders involved in equipment and vehicle financing, and commercial finance companies. Coverage under the Proposal would not include certain other entities, such as motor vehicle dealers.
A covered credit transaction would be a transaction that meets the definition of business credit under Regulation B, including loans, lines of credit, credit cards, and merchant cash advances. These are the financial products covered under the rule. However, a covered credit transaction would not include trade credit, public utilities credit, securities credit, incidental credit, factoring, leases, consumer-designated credit used for business purposes, and credit secured by certain investment properties.
A small business would be defined by reference to the definitions of “business concern” and “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, as included in Section 1071; however, the proposed definition does not include the Small Business Administration’s size metrics for defining a small business concern. Instead, a small business would be defined as a business that had $5 million or less in gross annual revenue for its preceding fiscal year.
The definition of covered application closely follows the Regulation B definition of application as an oral or written request for a covered credit transaction made in accordance with procedures used by a financial institution for the type of credit requested. The Bureau proposes to exclude from “covered application” the following activity: (1) reevaluation requests, extension requests, or renewal requests on an existing business credit account, unless the request seeks additional credit amounts; or (2) inquiries and prequalification requests.
Data Collection
Under the Proposed Rule, covered financial institutions would be required to collect and maintain the following data points for each covered credit transaction: an assigned unique identifier (for identification and retrieval of files); the application date; the application method; the application recipient; credit types, including the credit product, guarantees obtained, and loan term; credit purpose; the application amount; the amount approved or originated; the action taken on the application; the date of the action taken; pricing information, including interest rate, total origination charges, broker fees, initial annual charges, the additional cost for merchant cash advances or other sales-based financing, and prepayment penalties; and the census tract.
For each applicant, covered financial institutions would be required to collect: gross annual revenue; NAICS code; number of workers; length of time in business; minority-owned business status; women-owned business status; ethnicity, race, and sex of principal owners (i.e., a person who owns at least 25% of the business); and number of principal owners. Some of these data points, including those regarding the application method, application recipient, denial reasons, and number of principal owners, are included pursuant to the Bureau’s discretionary authority under Section 1071.
Firewall
The Proposal would implement the Section 1071 “firewall” requirement that financial institutions limit the access of certain employees and officers to certain collected data. The “firewall” provisions would prohibit an employee or officer of a covered financial institution or an affiliate who is involved in making any determination concerning the applicant’s covered application from accessing an applicant’s responses to inquiries made by the covered financial institution pursuant to Section 1071 regarding whether the applicant is a minority-owned business or a women-owned business and regarding the ethnicity, race, and sex of the applicant’s principal owners.
This prohibition would not apply if (1) the covered financial institution determines that it is not feasible to limit the access of that employee or officer; and (2) the covered financial institution provides a notice to the applicant regarding that access. The Proposal includes sample language that a covered financial institution can use to satisfy the notice requirement.
Data Reporting
Under the Proposed Rule, covered financial institutions would be required to submit Section 1071 data to the CFPB on a 12‑calendar-month basis, with data due June 1 of the following year. Covered financial institutions also would have to provide information about themselves as part of the submission to the Bureau. Covered financial institutions would be required to retain evidence of compliance for at least three years. Bureau publication of data satisfies the covered financial institutions’ statutory obligation to make data available to the public upon request. The CFPB plans to publish Section 1071 data on its website, and proposes to employ a “balancing test” to determine whether and how the agency will modify or delete data prior to publication. After receiving one full year of Section 1071 data, the Bureau plans to issue a policy statement setting forth intended modification and deletions.

Comments
Comments on the Proposed Rule are due 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, after which the Bureau will consider comments and finalize the rule. Compliance with the final rule will not be required until approximately 18 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. All covered financial institutions will have to build out new capabilities to comply with the Section 1071 data reporting requirements; however, the burden of building out the systems necessary to support new reporting requirements may be felt more acutely by small financial institutions. There also are privacy concerns that arise from the collection of data, including security of data collected, privacy of small business applicants, and re-identification risk.
[View source.

[…] […]

Read More…

Thursday, Sep. 09, 2021, 11:03 AM

CARY, N.C. – After last week’s 25th annual Non-Prime Auto Financing Conference, the National Automotive Finance Association made three new additions to its board of directors.
According to messages sent to SubPrime Auto Finance News, the new NAF Association board members are:
— Jeff Anderson, vice president of claims products at SWBC— Carissa Robb, president of Constant— Brenda Stuckert, senior vice president of InterBank
The NAF Association strives to address the challenges and opportunities of auto-finance companies, dealers, third-party service providers and regulators with a dedicated forum for the non-prime auto finance industry.
“I’m honored to join the board at NAF,” Robb said in a news release from Constant. “As a fintech company that works directly with auto finance companies, NAF and Constant share many values, especially around compliance and digitization, which are at the forefront of the auto finance industry today.”
“With the CFPB increasing consumer protection efforts, the need for efficiency, flexibility and openness across the lifecycle of a loan is more important than ever,” Robb continued. “At Constant, we’re working hard to transform the outdated business of getting debt repaid by automating manual loan management tasks and empowering borrowers to self-serve, better understand, manage and repay their debts.”
“I look forward to sharing our company’s expertise and learnings with NAF stakeholders and help further their mission of providing transparent and fair finance solutions that inspire customers to buy cars,” she concluded.
For more details about the organization, go to www.nafassociation.com.

[…] […]

Read More…

The CFPB claimed a judgment in 2016 that CashCall was actually guilty of misleading and abusive business methods, and our personal workplace lately …

[…] […]

Read More…

WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2021 /PRNewswire/ — Buckley LLP, a national law firm focused on financial services, white collar defense, and complex civil litigation, announced that John R. Coleman, former Deputy General Counsel of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has joined the firm as a partner.
Coleman, who served in the federal government for 15 years as a litigator and adviser to senior policymakers, joined the CFPB soon after its creation and played a key role in standing it up. He was one of a core group of attorneys tasked with interpreting the novel authorities granted to the agency by the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and establishing the procedures by which the agency exercises those authorities. He was most recently the bureau’s Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Oversight, managing the team of attorneys responsible for representing the CFPB in litigation, including appellate matters, and before congressional oversight bodies. He also advised the director and enforcement colleagues throughout the lifecycle of investigations, including the scope of authority to issue and enforce civil investigative demands, the merits of potential claims under the federal consumer financial laws, and the CFPB’s remedial authority.
“John’s litigation and enforcement experience, combined with his knowledge of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, make him a great addition to our nationally recognized financial services practices — and a timely one given the CFPB’s increasing enforcement activity and anticipated increase in litigation with the financial services industry,” said Benjamin B. Klubes, Buckley’s Co-Managing Partner. “John distinguished himself during his tenure at the CFPB, providing valuable counsel to every director since the bureau’s inception and taking a hand in every significant litigation matter in the agency’s history. That experience will be invaluable to our clients.”
Prior to joining the CFPB, Coleman was a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division, representing federal agencies and officials in high-profile civil litigation, including cases brought under the U.S. Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and federal antidiscrimination laws.
“After 15 years of public service, now is the right time for the next challenge in my career,” said Coleman. “Buckley was the obvious choice given its broad and deep bench of talented financial services regulatory and enforcement lawyers, and I look forward to working with its outstanding team.”
Coleman received his J.D. from the University of Virginia, where he was a member of the managing board of the Virginia Law Review, and his B.A. from Dartmouth College.
With offices in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and London, Buckley LLP offers premier enforcement, litigation, compliance, regulatory, and transactional services to financial services institutions and early stage and leading fintech and technology companies, as well as venture capital and private equity funds, investment companies, and corporate and individual clients throughout the world. “The best at what they do in the country.” (Chambers USA)
CONTACT: Mark Lutin
[email protected] | (202) 349-7929
SOURCE Buckley LLP

Related Links
https://buckleyfirm.

[…] […]

Read More…

AddControlToContainer_DynamicNavigation5

 FREE PREVIEW
LOGIN OR SUBSCRIBE NOW TO READ THIS ARTICLE

Regulatory News
Thursday, September 9, 2021

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a new rule designed to help small businesses gain access to credit by increasing transparency in the lending marketplace. Under the proposal, lenders would be required to report the amount and type of small-business credit applied for and extended, demographic information about small-business credit applicants and key elements of the price of the credit offered.

TO READ THE FULL STORY

Today’s other top stories

News by Topic
 
News by Edition
 
Special Reports
 
Webinars
 
Subscribe

Library
 
 
 
RESPA Defined
 
About
 
Store

Loading…

12 USC Section 2605 or Section 6 is titled Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts. It pertains to qualified written requests, notices of transfer of servicing and the administration of escrow accounts.
An arrangement that involves a person who is in a position to refer business as part of a real estate settlement service and who has an interest in a settlement services provider.In the arrangement, the person, who has either an affiliate relationship with or a direct or beneficial ownership interest of more than one percent in a settlement services provider, directly or indirectly refers business to that provider or influences a consumer to select that provider.
An arrangement that involves a person who is in a position to refer business as part of a real estate settlement service and who has an interest in a settlement services provider.In the arrangement, the person, who has either an affiliate relationship with or a direct or beneficial ownership interest of more than one percent in a settlement services provider, directly or indirectly refers business to that provider or influences a consumer to select that provider.
A mortgage disclosure that lists all estimated charges and fees associated with your loan. In addition to fees and charges, it will list your loan amount, mortgage rate, loan term and estimated monthly payment. Your escrows due at closing for insurance and taxes will also be outlined. Mortgage lenders are legally required to provide a GFE within three days of receiving your application.
A mortgage disclosure that lists all estimated charges and fees associated with your loan. In addition to fees and charges, it will list your loan amount, mortgage rate, loan term and estimated monthly payment. Your escrows due at closing for insurance and taxes will also be outlined. Mortgage lenders are legally required to provide a GFE within three days of receiving your application.
Under RESPA Section 2605(e)(1)(B), a qualified written request is a written correspondence that includes: 1) the name and account of the borrower, or has enough information to allow the servicer identify that information; and 2) a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.A QWR cannot be written on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer.
Under RESPA Section 2605(e)(1)(B), a qualified written request is a written correspondence that includes: 1) the name and account of the borrower, or has enough information to allow the servicer identify that information; and 2) a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower that the account is in error or provides sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.A QWR cannot be written on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servicer.
12 USC Section 2609 or Section 10 is titled Limitation on requirement of advance deposits in escrow accounts. It governs escrow accounts including notifications and statements to borrowers. Section 10 also sets out penalties for those who violate the section.
RESPA Section 3 provides that a thing of value includes any payment, advance, funds, loan, service or other considerationRegulation X says thing of value includes: monies, things, discounts, salaries, commissions, fees, duplicate payments of a charge, stock, dividends, distributions of partnership profits, franchise royalties, credits representing monies that may be paid at a future date, the opportunity to participate in a money-making program, retained or increased earnings, increased equity in a parent or subsidiary entity, special bank deposits or accounts, special or unusual banking terms, services of all types at special or free rates, sales or rentals at special prices or rates, lease or rental payments based in whole or in part on the amount of business referred, trips and payment of another person’s expenses or reduction in credit against an existing obligation.
A form used by a settlement or closing agent itemizing all charges imposed on a borrower and seller in a real estate transaction. This form represents the closing transaction and provides each party with a complete list of incoming and outgoing funds. RESPA requires the HUD-1 to be used as the standard real estate settlement form in all transactions in the U.S. involving federally related mortgage loans.
Featuring:
Delivery 3X a week plus breaking news as it happens
Comprehensive title insurance industry news
Recent acquisitions, mergers, real estate stats
Exclusive in-depth coverage of the industry’s hottest stories

Featuring:

Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
Comprehensive Dodd-Frank coverage
The latest information from the CFPB
Full coverage of Congressional hearings
Updates on all agency actions
Analysis of controversial provisions
Release of newest studies and reports

Sign up today and…

Be one of the first to know where NS3 is being held
Learn about NS3 speakers and sessions
Save on registration with Super-Early Bird rates
Discover the networking opportunities NS3 offers
Find out if CE credits will be offered for your area
And much more

Featuring:

Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
Preview the latest RESPAnews.com Top Story
RESPA related headline news
Quote of the Week

Featuring:

Delivery 2X a week plus breaking news as it happens
Legal, regulatory and legislative information impacting the settlement services industry
News from HUD, Congress, state legislatures and other regulatory agencies
Follow the lobbying efforts of all the major national real estate services organizations.

[…] […]

Read More…

Washington-headquartered financial services powerhouse Buckley has brought on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s deputy general counsel, further deepening its complex litigation bench.
John Coleman joined the firm Aug. 23 after 16 years as a litigator and senior advisor in the federal government.

[…] […]

Read More…

FinTech FIS on Wednesday (Sept. 8) announced the appointment of former FIS and Worldpay executive Stephanie Ferris to its executive leadership team as chief administrative officer on Sept. 2.
In this new position, Ferris will report to Chairman and CEO Gary Norcross and will “work in partnership with FIS business and corporate leaders including strategy, mergers and acquisitions and key strategic initiatives that are focused on efforts to enhance client and shareholder value,” according to the press release.
“I am thrilled to re-join the FIS family,” Ferris stated in the announcement. “I believe in the company’s strategically competitive position to advance commerce and the financial world. FIS’ breadth of capabilities and world-class scale create sustainable competitive advantages. I look forward to working with the team to help accelerate our strategies for client and shareholder value as we advance the way the world pays, banks and invests.”
Ferris was chief operating officer of FIS from January 2018 until her new appointment, where she was responsible for driving technology transformation and the global integration of FIS and Worldpay. Before joining FIS, she served as chief financial officer of Worldpay, a global merchant acquirer, which FIS acquired in 2019.
“I am very excited to welcome Stephanie back to FIS. She is a remarkable talent with a vision for industry transformation and a record of value-generating growth,” said Norcross, per the press release.
“In this new role, Stephanie will be a pivotal leader in driving our next generation of success. I am very pleased to partner with her again on the continued execution of our strategy,” Norcross said.
Ferris is also an independent director on the Board of Directors of Lululemon Athletica, Inc., and is a member of the clothing brand’s audit committee.
Late last year, FIS and Global Payments were discussing a $70 billion merger that never materialized. The deal was reportedly in “advanced talks,” according to a Wall Street Journal report, but they broke down unexpectedly.
Read more: FIS, Global Payments Eyed Merger, but Talks Broke Down, Report Says

——————————
NEW PYMNTS DATA: TODAY’S SELF-SERVICE SHOPPING JOURNEY – SEPTEMBER 2021

About: Eighty percent of consumers are interested in using nontraditional checkout options like self-service, yet only 35 percent were able to use them for their most recent purchases. Today’s Self-Service Shopping Journey, a PYMNTS and Toshiba collaboration, analyzes over 2,500 responses to learn how merchants can address availability and perception issues to meet demand for self-service kiosks.

[…] […]

Read More…

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is alleging in court that LendUp Loans has violated a 2016 consent order and deceived borrowers, according to a press release.
In 2016, the CFPB cracked down on LendUp’s habit of misleading users on the cost of loans and the benefits of borrowing repeatedly, the release stated. At the time of the original order, the CFPB hit LendUp with a fine for $1.83 million in consumer redress and a $1.8 million civil penalty.
Now, the CFPB alleged per the release that LendUp has continued doing much of the same things for which it was originally reprimanded.
In addition, the CFPB said LendUp did not provide timely and accurate notices to users who had been denied on their loan applications, the release stated.
“LendUp lures consumers with false promises that repeat borrowing would allow them to ‘climb the LendUp Ladder’ and unlock lower interest rates,” said CFPB Acting Director Dave Uejio in the release. “For tens of thousands of borrowers, the LendUp Ladder was a lie. Not only did LendUp structure its business around wholesale deception and keeping borrowers in cycles of debt, the company doubled down after getting caught the first time. We will not tolerate this illegal scheme or allow this company to continue preying on vulnerable consumers.”
In other CFPB news, the agency put forward new rules this month that could help small- to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) get access to credit.
Read more: CFPB Proposal to Help SMBs Gain Access to Credit
The proposal would have lenders reveal information about their lending to SMBs, including “the amount and type of small business credit applied for and extended, demographic information about small business credit applicants, and key elements of the price of the credit offered.” In addition, the CFPB also rolled out a new web portal for small business owners.
“Small businesses are the primary job creators and wealth builders in communities across the country,” Uejio said at the time. “After homeownership, small business ownership is the primary means by which families and communities build wealth. Yet too often, small business development is starved for want of access to responsible, fairly priced credit.”

——————————
NEW PYMNTS DATA: TODAY’S SELF-SERVICE SHOPPING JOURNEY – SEPTEMBER 2021

About: Eighty percent of consumers are interested in using nontraditional checkout options like self-service, yet only 35 percent were able to use them for their most recent purchases. Today’s Self-Service Shopping Journey, a PYMNTS and Toshiba collaboration, analyzes over 2,500 responses to learn how merchants can address availability and perception issues to meet demand for self-service kiosks.

[…] […]

Read More…

As Banks Push AI, Worry About Worsening Inequality Follows –
“AI and machine learning might amplify patterns of historical discrimination and financial exclusion through reliance on flawed data or mistakes in development.”
Why this is important: Earlier this year, the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and National Credit Union Administration jointly issued a Request for Information and Comment on financial institutions’ use of artificial intelligence, including machine learning. The comment period has now closed, and the agencies are beginning to digest the commentary they received, which included commentary on the risk that use of machine learning could exacerbate patterns of historical discrimination and financial exclusion through reliance on flawed data, embedded with implicit biases. The American Bankers Association and Bank Policy Institute v have taken the position that the risks can be managed through existing laws and regulations and that new regulations are not necessary.
Please see full Newsletter below for more information.

SHARE: Join Our Email ListView as WebpageIssue 7, 2021Welcome!Welcome to our seventh issue of Promissory Notes — our e-newsletter focused on banking and financeinsights.Are we covering the topics you find interesting? Do you have questions about specific issues? Let usknow and we will make sure we pay close attention to those areas of interest. Thank you for reading.F. B. Webster Day, Chair, Banking and Finance Practice Group, and Co-Editor, Promissory NotesandElizabeth A. Benedetto, Chair, Public & Project Finance Practice Group, and Co-Editor, Promissory Notes “Money often costs too much.” — Ralph Waldo EmersonAs Banks Push AI, Worry About Worsening Inequality Follows”AI and machine learning might amplify patterns of historical discrimination and financial exclusionthrough reliance on flawed data or mistakes in development.”Why this is important: Earlier this year, the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System,Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and National Credit UnionAdministration jointly issued a Request for Information and Comment on financial institutions’ use ofartificial intelligence, including machine learning. The comment period has now closed, and the agenciesare beginning to digest the commentary they received, which included commentary on the risk that useof machine learning could exacerbate patterns of historical discrimination and financial exclusion throughreliance on flawed data, embedded with implicit biases. The American Bankers Association and BankPolicy Institute v have taken the position that the risks can be managed through existing laws andregulations and that new regulations are not necessary. — Brienne T. MarcoSupreme Court Invalidates CDC Eviction Moratorium”The policy had been allowed to continue by a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court early in July, althoughone justice voting to permit it said he agreed with the lower court ruling overturning the moratorium butallowed it to continue since it would soon expire.”Why this is important: Who did not see this coming? In July, SCOTUS (“Supreme Court of the UnitedStates”) allowed the landlord eviction moratorium to continue for a limited time, presumably to providethe President time to end it in an organized fashion. One of the Justices voting with the majority statedthat he voted that way only because it would expire soon anyway. Instead, with the President’sencouragement, the Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a mere subpart of theDepartment of Health and Human Services, extended the moratorium. In effect, a relatively minor officialextended activity that (i) was at best loosely related to the department involved (over “concerns” thatevictions would result in higher incidences of COVID-19); (ii) was at least questionable under the U.S.Constitution to begin with; and (iii) threatened small landlords, many retired persons on a fixed income,with financial ruin, themselves. The fact that three Justices voted to allow the CDC Director to do this is,well, horrifying. This article explains the SCOTUS decision. See also, this Wall Street Journal opinionpiece. — Hugh B. WellonsWhy the Fed is About to Stop the Party on Wall Street (andWhat It Means for You)”The Federal Reserve will soon wind down its pandemic-era stimulus measures, a process Wall Streetnerds call ‘tapering.’”Why this is important: The Federal Reserve took two actions to ameliorate the effects of COVID-19 onthe economy, very similar to the “quantitative easing” it began after the crash of 2008-2009. Those aremaintaining low interest rates and buying bonds. The Fed now is hinting at backing off of those actions.It admits that the timing may be premature, since short-term risk of further inflation is high andemployment still is low. This “threat” of easing the “easing,” however, is making markets nervous. If youenjoy “Freakonomics,” you may enjoy this article. — Hugh B. WellonsCommercial Loans Hit Record Levels for Community Banks”Recent data shows a dramatic increase in commercial real estate loans in the first half of 2021.”Why this is important: As the U.S. emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic in the first half of 2021,community banks made a record amount of commercial real estate loans. The commercial real estate(“CRE”) data from MountainSeed shows a 39 percent increase in CRE loans compared to the same periodin 2020 and a 30 percent increase over 2019. Lenders also appear confident that the tourism and travelsector will see substantial increases in lending opportunities in 2021 after that sector was severelyaffected by the pandemic. Conversely, retail and office loan originations are projected to be slightly downyear-over-year because lenders remain hesitant with that sector as employees continue to work fromhome and online shopping impacts future retail leases. Nonetheless, the increases in CRE lending showthat community banks and credit unions are getting more optimistic in a post-COVID environment. —Bryce J. Hunter’Unprecedented’ Fraud Penetrated Rollout of COVID-19 SmallBusiness Loans, Watchdog Warns”The SBA inspector general says ‘lowered guardrails’ left the program vulnerable.”Why this is important: We said so much about this already, but it is a developing story. Surprise,there was a lot of fraud in PPP loans! Who would have thunk?! The SBA explains how this happened, insome detail, proposing a timeline of how the frauds unfolded. This also explores a concern that the”unprecedented” amount of fraud may dissuade the government from engaging in a similar “giveaway”in the future. No, I’m not kidding, it really says that! — Hugh B. WellonsOptimism Turns Around for Black Small-Business Owners inBank of America Survey”About 95% of Black business owners reported the pandemic added stress to normal businessoperations, but about 84% said they expect revenue to increase over the next 12 months.”Why this is important: Many Black business owners experience some optimism, but also changes inmanaging their business, as we slowly, fitfully, exit the pandemic. This article explores that. Notunexpectedly, similar optimism and changes in approach would be reported by most small businessowners in general. Access to capital will be important. This article examines a survey of businessescoming back to “normal,” but most likely a “new normal.” — Hugh B. Wellons This is an attorney advertisement. Your receipt and/or use of this material does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationshipbetween you and Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC or any attorney associated with the firm. This e-mail publication is distributed with theunderstanding that the author, publisher and distributor are not rendering legal or other professional advice on specific facts or matters and,accordingly, assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use.Responsible Attorney: Michael J. Basile, 800-967-8251

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

[…] […]

Read More…

2021 SmartAsset Study: Income Needed to Pay Rent in the Largest U.S. CitiesHousing insecurity and lack of protection from evictions have become even more pressing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a March 2021 report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an estimated 8.8 million renter households were behind on their rental payments as of December 2020. Staying ahead of and completing rental payments can be particularly difficult in areas where the rent-to-income ratio is high.The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recommends a rent-to-income ratio of less than 30% and considers households who spend more than 30% of their pre-tax income on housing to be housing cost-burdened. Using HUD’s guidelines, SmartAsset examined the income needed to pay rent in America’s largest cities in this study.Specifically, we set a 28% rent-to-income ratio and calculated the income renters would need to afford the average one- and two-bedroom apartment rent in the 25 largest U.S. cities. Though we calculated income needed for both a one- and two-bedroom apartment, cities are ranked on the latter figure. For details on our data sources and analysis, check out our Data and Methodology section below.This is SmartAsset’s seventh study on the income needed to pay rent in America’s largest cities. Read the 2020 version here.Key FindingsIncome needed varies by more than a factor of four. In the city with most expensive two-bedroom apartment rent – San Francisco, California – the income needed to cover rent ($157,218) is about 4.3 times more than the income needed to cover rent in the city with the least expensive two-bedroom rent – El Paso, Texas ($36,550).Median income falls short for a two-bedroom apartment in about 50% of cities. In 12 of the 25 big cities we analyzed, the median household income is not enough to cover the average annual rent for a two-bedroom apartment assuming a 28% rent-to-income ratio.1. San Francisco, CAZumper data shows that the average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in San Francisco, California is $3,668 (more than $44,000 per year). Assuming a maximum rent-to-income ratio of 28%, renters in San Francisco will need to earn $157,218 per year to avoid being burdened by housing costs. By comparison, the median household income in San Francisco is less than $124,000.Story continues2. Washington, DCThe income needed for a two-bedroom apartment in Washington, D.C. is $120,457. Average monthly rent in this city for a two-bedroom apartment is $2,811, which amounts to $33,728 per year. While the median household income in the city ($92,266) is not enough to cover this amount, it is enough to afford the income needed for a one-bedroom apartment ($87,893).3. New York, NYFor a one- or two-bedroom apartment in New York City, households would need a yearly income of $108,789 or $119, 189, respectively. The average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,538, or $30,461 per year. Meanwhile, the average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $2,781, or $33,373 per year.4. Los Angeles, CAIn Los Angeles, California, the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,990 and for a two-bedroom apartment, $2,746. In order to afford a two-bedroom apartment without being burdened by rental costs, a household would need an annual income of $117,686, or more than $9,800 per month.5. San Jose, CAAccording to Census Bureau data, the median household income in San Jose, California is $115,893. This is just about $200 more than the income needed for a two-bedroom apartment, $115,668 (assuming rental costs do not exceed 28% of income). The average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in San Jose is $2,699, or $32,387 per year.6. Boston, MAIn Boston, Massachusetts, the average two-bedroom monthly rent is $2,648. By comparison, the average monthly one-bedroom rent is $2,179. This means potential renters might save almost $900 per month if they seek out a two-bedroom and live with a roommate. In order to avoid being housing cost-burdened and still be able to pay the $31,781 in rent for a two-bedroom apartment, a household in Boston would need to earn $113,504 per year.7. San Diego, CAIn San Diego, California, the average two-bedroom rent is $2,394 per month, or $28,723 per year. A household in the city would need $102,582 in order to afford this amount. By comparison, the median household income in San Diego is roughly $85,500, or about 17% percent lower.8. Seattle, WASeattle, Washington is the first city on our list that requires less than a six-figure income to afford the annual rent for the average two-bedroom apartment. Annual rent for the average two-bedroom apartment in the city is $24,858, meaning that households need to earn about $88,800 per year.9. Denver, COThe average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Denver, Colorado is $1,919. This amounts to $23,027 over one year. The household income needed to afford this apartment and avoid being housing cost-burdened is $82,239. The median household income in Denver is about 8% lower, at $75,646.10. Chicago, ILIn Chicago, Illinois, a household would need $1,797 per month (or $21,568 per year) to cover rent for a two-bedroom apartment. Assuming no more than 28% of income goes to housing costs, a household would need $77,029 to pay rent for a year. This figure exceeds Chicago’s median household income, $61,811.Data and MethodologyTo find the income needed to pay rent in America’s largest cities, SmartAsset looked at data for the 25 largest cities in America. We estimated the household income renters would need to afford the average one- and two-bedroom apartment while paying no more than 28% of their total pre-tax income on rent.To find these figures, we divided both the average annual cost of a one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartment by 0.28. The resulting numbers are the annual income needed for a rent costs to be equal to 28% of household income. We ranked the cities from highest to lowest based on the income needed to pay rent for a two-bedroom apartment.Average one-bedroom and two-bedroom rent is from Zumper and for July 2020 through June 2021.Tips for Maintaining Healthy Housing CostsConsider sharing a space with a roommate. Average two-bedroom apartment rents tend to be less than twice the cost of average one-bedroom apartment rents. This means that having a roommate can often pay off. If you are interested in where sharing a space may make the most difference, check out our study on what a roommate saves you in the 50 largest U.S. cities.Reassess your budget if possible. One of the best ways to save more is through budgeting. Our budget calculator can help with this. Beyond letting you see how much of your monthly and annual income goes towards housing costs, you can see how cutting back on discretionary expenses can increase your savings rate.Consider speaking to an expert advisor. Your budget for housing costs is likely affected by how you’re managing your money in the other areas of your life – like education planning, travel spending and retirement. Why not get some support in taking a holistic look at your finances? Finding a financial advisor doesn’t have to be hard. SmartAsset’s free tool can match you with up to three financial advisors in just five minutes. If you’re ready to connect with advisors and achieve your financial goals, get started now.Questions about our study? Contact [email protected]. Photo credit: iStock.com/SpondylolithesisThe post Income Needed to Pay Rent in the Largest U.S. Cities – 2021 Edition appeared first on SmartAsset Blog.

[…] […]

Read More…

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is accusing the online lender LendUp of violating a five-year-old consent order and deceiving thousands of borrowers about the cost of its installment loans.
The Oakland, California-based company misrepresented the benefits of repeat borrowing by claiming that certain borrowers would gain access to larger loans at lower rates, the CFPB said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday. The suit also alleges that LendUp illegally failed to provide timely and accurate notices to consumers whose loan applications were denied.

“Not only did LendUp structure its business around wholesale deception and keeping borrowers in cycles of debt, the company doubled down after getting caught the first time,” acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio said in a press release. “We will not tolerate this illegal scheme or allow this company to continue preying on vulnerable consumers.”

The CFPB, which sued LendUp on Wednesday, had previously had run-ins with the Oakland, California-based company.

The company did not immediately respond Wednesday to requests for comment.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of previous run-ins between LendUp and its regulator. In 2016, the CFPB ordered LendUp to pay a $1.8 million penalty and another $1.8 million in consumer redress for misleading consumers about the benefits of borrowing from the company.

Related News  House passes appropriations amendment to fund postal banking

The lawsuit filed Wednesday involves a claim in LendUp marketing materials that borrowers would be offered larger loans at lower rates through a program called the “LendUp Ladder.”
LendUp charged 140,000 repeat borrowers the same interest rate or a higher one even after the consumers repaid their loans on time and took free courses offered through the company’s website, according to the CFPB. Many borrowers had their maximum loan size reduced after taking part in the program, the CFPB said.
“LendUp lures consumers with false promises that repeat borrowing would allow them to ‘climb the LendUp Ladder’ and unlock lower interest rates,” Uejio said. “For tens of thousands of borrowers, the LendUp Ladder was a lie.”
The CFPB is seeking an injunction, restitution to consumers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and a civil money penalty.
LendUp is also subject to a 2021 stipulated final judgment that resolved claims filed last year by the CFPB. The consumer bureau had alleged that LendUp violated the Military Lending Act by making loans at interest rates that exceeded the federal rate cap for military borrowers.

window.fbAsyncInit = function() FB.init(
appId : ‘1203048096448894’,
xfbml : true, version : ‘v2.9’ ); ;
(function(d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); (document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));For more updates check below links and stay updated with News AKMI.

[…] […]

Read More…

Law360 (September 8, 2021, 6:14 PM EDT) — The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and several states have urged a California federal judge not to dismiss some claims against a disbarred attorney for his alleged involvement in a student debt-relief operation accused of raking in tens of millions of dollars in illegal fees, saying his legal argument for dismissal is inaccurate.The CFPB and the states of California, Minnesota and North Carolina on Tuesday told the court that co-defendant Kaine Wen completely misreads the Telemarketing Sales Rule in arguing that it bars the states from jointly asserting claims with the federal government for violations of the statute.

[…] […]

Read More…

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is accusing the online lender LendUp of violating a five-year-old consent order and deceiving thousands of borrowers about the cost of its installment loans.
The Oakland, California-based company misrepresented the benefits of repeat borrowing by claiming that certain borrowers would gain access to larger loans at lower rates, the CFPB said in a lawsuit filed Wednesday. The suit also alleges that LendUp illegally failed to provide timely and accurate notices to consumers whose loan applications were denied.
“Not only did LendUp structure its business around wholesale deception and keeping borrowers in cycles of debt, the company doubled down after getting caught the first time,” acting CFPB Director Dave Uejio said in a press release. “We will not tolerate this illegal scheme or allow this company to continue preying on vulnerable consumers.”

The CFPB, which sued LendUp on Wednesday, had previously had run-ins with the Oakland, California-based company.

The company did not immediately respond Wednesday to requests for comment.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of previous run-ins between LendUp and its regulator. In 2016, the CFPB ordered LendUp to pay a $1.8 million penalty and another $1.8 million in consumer redress for misleading consumers about the benefits of borrowing from the company.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday involves a claim in LendUp marketing materials that borrowers would be offered larger loans at lower rates through a program called the “LendUp Ladder.”
LendUp charged 140,000 repeat borrowers the same interest rate or a higher one even after the consumers repaid their loans on time and took free courses offered through the company’s website, according to the CFPB. Many borrowers had their maximum loan size reduced after taking part in the program, the CFPB said.
“LendUp lures consumers with false promises that repeat borrowing would allow them to ‘climb the LendUp Ladder’ and unlock lower interest rates,” Uejio said. “For tens of thousands of borrowers, the LendUp Ladder was a lie.”
The CFPB is seeking an injunction, restitution to consumers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and a civil money penalty.
LendUp is also subject to a 2021 stipulated final judgment that resolved claims filed last year by the CFPB. The consumer bureau had alleged that LendUp violated the Military Lending Act by making loans at interest rates that exceeded the federal rate cap for military borrowers.

[…] […]

Read More…