NADA, House Committee Press CFPB On Lending Rules
Uncertainty on auto lending rules resulting from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s methodology behind consent orders issued to lenders found overcharging or otherwise misleading minority borrowers has prompted calls from the National Automobile Dealers Association and the House Financial Services Committee for a detailed explanation from the bureau on said methodology.
Automotive News reports complaints made by NADA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the auto finance industry and Congress regarding the CFPB’s enforcement of consumer protections, all citing a lack of clarity behind the enforcement, as NADA general counsel Andy Koblenz explained during a panel discussion at a conference held this week by the U.S. Chamber:
It’s almost like the cop standing by the side of the road, pulling people over for speeding. Someone says, “OK, I want to comply. What’s the speed limit?” And they say, “I’m not going to tell you. After the fact, I’ll look back and I’ll tell you whether you were speeding.” That’s not fair, and it’s ultimately going to drive credit out of the market.
In 2013, the bureau issued guidance upon findings of dealerships charging minority consumers higher dealer reserve than other similar borrowers, proclaiming the action a “disparate impact,” and thus, illegal discrimination.
The specific charge prompted the House Financial Services Committee to send a letter to CFPB director Richard Cordray requesting a thorough explanation on the bureau’s methodology for determining an occurrence of disparate impact, with answers due no later than March 13; the deadline passed with no response, and a subpoena may soon follow.
In defense, CFPB deputy director Steve Antonakes said the bureau has, and intends to use in full, five regulatory tools in fighting disparate impacts: rulemaking; consumer complaints; supervision and examination; enforcement; and consumer education. Further, the bureau itself has said in the past it has used proxies in determining legally protected classes in lending.
However, Capital One chief counsel Andy Navarette — whose employer refunded $140 million for alleged misleading marketing involving product add-ons for credit cards after the bureau issued a consent order to the lender — would like to see the CFPB make “a broader use of the rulemaking tool” in future decisions related to auto lending:
You have 5,000 auto lenders in this country. Tackling individual institutions via supervision or enforcement may change behaviors at those individual companies. But it’s not going to move markets in a way that actually produces consistent rules of the road for the industry.
Join the conversation
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- MRF 95 T-Bird Back when the Corolla consisted of a wide range of body styles. This wagon, both four door and two door sedans, a shooting brake like three door hatch as well as a sports coupe hatchback. All of which were on the popular cars on the road where I resided.
- Wjtinfwb Jeez... I've got 3 Ford's and have been a defender due to my overall good experiences but this is getting hard to defend. Thinking the product durability testing that used to take months to rack up 100k miles or more is being replaced with computer simulations that just aren't causing these real-world issues to pop up. More time at the proving ground please...
- Wjtinfwb Looks like Mazda put more effort into sprucing up a moribund product than Chevy did with the soon to be euthanized '24 Camaro.
- Wjtinfwb I've seen worse on the highways around Atlanta, usually with a refrigerator or washer wedged into the trunk and secured with recycled twine...
- Wjtinfwb Surprising EB Flex hasn't weighed in yet on it being the subject of a recall...
The more rules you set down the quicker the loopholes will start to appear. I appreciate the issue in the case that they're not sure when their gouging of customers and attempting to create profit-driven products far from their fundamental business practices are unethical and illegal but this is a sort of 'non-story' story. You have business lobbyists using a pro-business party to investigate activities of regulators after the regulator more or less did their job. The irony is palpable in so many ways....
"dealerships charging minority consumers higher dealer reserve than other similar borrowers, proclaiming the action a “disparate impact,” and thus, illegal discrimination." That was part of the housing market meltdown 2008 and subprime loans.