On June 20, 35 Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to CFPB Assistant Director of the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, Patrice Ficklin, questioning the manner in which recent CFPB guidance regarding lending practices in the auto lending industry was rendered and requesting details concerning the process of analyzing potential fair lending violations. The letter comes on the heels of a similar inquiry made by 13 Democratic Members of the House Financial Services Committee to CFPB Director Richard Cordray on May 28, 2013. The CFPB guidance at issue, contained within CFPB Bulletin 2013-02, advised bank and nonbank indirect auto financial institutions about compliance with federal fair lending requirements in connection with the practice by which auto dealers “mark up” the financial institution’s risk-based buy rate and receive compensation based on the increased interest revenues.
The Republican letter takes issue with the CFPB “initiating [a] process without a public hearing, without public comment, and without releasing the data, methodology, or analysis it relied upon to support such an important change in policy.” The letter notes that “allegations of disparate impact do not involve intentional conduct, but instead consist solely of statistical analysis of past transactions” and that any model assessing such impact must be reliable and accurate. Because the guidance fails to disclose the model for assessing fair lending violations, Congress requested the CFPB provide all pertinent details regarding its methodology to evaluate whether the statistical model supports its supervision and examination of financial institutions.
In addition to taking issue with the CFPB’s statistical analysis, the Republican letter also characterized the ECOA compliance controls suggested in the CFPB bulletin as “onerous and unrealistic,” noting that “restricting consumer choice is highly problematic.” To support the controls prescribed by the guidance, the Republican letter requested that the CFPB provide “all studies, analysis, and information it relied upon in developing its guidance document.” Specifically, the two congressional letters requested the analysis conducted by the CFPB on the impact of these prescribed controls on the auto lending industry and any coordination activities undertaken with other agencies in developing the guidance. The House members, like many in the auto industry, are concerned the guidance will have an adverse impact on competition, result in increased overall costs for consumers, and potentially exclude lower-income customers from the credit market entirely.
Amid these growing concerns regarding the CFPB’s guidance and inquiry into auto finance practices, on June 20, Director Cordray provided a response to the May 28 Democrat letter. Mr. Cordray’s response essentially reiterates both the CFPB’s authority to supervise and investigate financial institutions engaged in auto finance and the CFPB’s concerns that pricing discretion may create a significant risk of discrimination. In responding to the issues of the Democrat letter, Director Cordray indicated that the CFPB uses a proxy methodology to analyze disparate impact in the auto lending industry, though it is short on the specifics behind the methodology used. The CFPB response acknowledged that ECOA fair lending analysis is more complex than mortgage lending analysis given the absence of data similar to that collected in the mortgage context under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Director Cordray also posited that the use of proxies for unavailable data is a widely accepted mathematical and systematic approach in various arenas, including for marketing in the auto industry itself. According to Director Cordray, the CFPB uses both surnames and geographic location as proxies for unavailable characteristics. The proxy analysis is then conducted through publicly available data from the Social Security Administration and Census Bureau.
Notwithstanding the information provided regarding the CFPB’s methodology for analyzing potential discrimination within the auto finance industry, it appears that both Members of Congress and industry participants remain skeptical of the accuracy of such an approach and continue to call for increased transparency from the CFPB regarding its due diligence in creating this proxy methodology and disclosure of the methodology itself. Opponents also question the manner in which the guidance was released and absence of public hearings or public comment periods. The most recent Republican letter raised these precise issues and requested a response from the CFPB within 30 days.