= Subscriber content; or subscribe now to access all American Banker content.

CFPB Ignores Complaint Data in Targeting Payday Lenders

When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau started releasing monthly consumer complaint data last year, Director Richard Cordray hailed the move, saying that "[c]onsumer complaints are the CFPB's compass and play a central role in everything we do. They help us identify and prioritize problems for potential action." Given these comments, it is increasingly difficult to understand the CFPB's justification for the rulemaking process for payday lending currently underway. The bureau is investing considerable time, energy and resources on payday lending in spite of the fact that consumer complaints about these short-term loans are remarkably low — lower than almost every other financial services product.

Specifically, the 12,193 complaints regarding payday loans make up just 1.5% of all complaints received by the CFPB. These are eclipsed by the 205,915 complaints about mortgages, 83,255 complaints about credit cards, 77,290 complaints about bank services and hundreds of thousands of complaints about other products. True, these industries have been targeted in formal rulemakings and enforcement actions, such as the "Qualified Mortgage" rule and the CFPB's recent moves against companies engaged in illegal practices. But in light of the relatively fewer payday loan-related complaints, the sweeping nature of the bureau's payday loan proposal unveiled in March runs counter to its argument that it uses the complaints as a guide. (The proposal has yet to be formally released for comment subject to a small business advisory panel review.)

Meanwhile, payday lending complaints received by the bureau are often lodged against unregulated institutions or phantom companies — not against state-licensed and regulated businesses that will have to follow the CFPB's rules. Members of the Community Financial Services Association of America are licensed and regulated in every state in which they do business, and must adhere to a strict set of industry best practices which provide important consumer protections. Rather than pursuing the true bad actors in the industry through its rulemaking, the bureau is unfairly lumping lawful, licensed businesses together with unscrupulous, illegal enterprises.

In addition to departing from its own self-described "compass," the CFPB is mismanaging the complaint data. American Banker recently reported that the CFPB's data is "riddled with errors and distrusted by some of its own employees." We've seen complaints about non-payday loan debt collection and other consumer products incorrectly categorized as payday loan complaints. Complaints about fraudulent operators and scammers have been inaccurately portrayed as complaints against licensed payday lenders. The bureau needs to ensure the integrity of its data and clean up these glaring and embarrassing errors.

The CFPB has relied on advocacy groups while casting aside research showing that short-term loans enhance the financial welfare of consumers who use them. In addition, recently released documents showed that small business owners providing feedback to the CFPB through the advisory panel process "stated that the proposals under consideration by the bureau were unnecessary and onerous" and that they "would be unable to continue operating" if the CFPB proposals were enacted. But absent changes in the bureau's approach, those concerns have appeared to fall on deaf ears.

Indeed, a 2015 Charles River Associates report commissioned by CFSA examined the impact of the CFPB's proposals and estimated that five out of six lenders would experience overall losses under the proposals, and rural lenders would be the most adversely impacted. The report found that if the bureau continues to embark on a rulemaking that is not supported by its own data, millions of Americans may be left without access to credit, businesses will close and thousands will lose their jobs.

Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and rely on short-term credit during financial emergencies. In fact, the FDIC estimates that 51 million Americans — a full 20% of American households — are underbanked and not served by traditional banking products. Many of these households turn to short-term credit when they are met with unexpected expenses, such as medical emergencies or car repairs, and have nowhere else to turn. Without the availability of a well-regulated short-term credit option in their communities, many consumers may be forced to turn to illegal, unregulated lenders and risk identity theft, unauthorized withdrawals from their bank accounts and other unlawful practices.

The CFPB was created to protect Americans from abusive practices. However, by forcing consumers into these inferior forms of credit, its proposals would leave many worse off. The CFPB should focus its efforts on the true problems in the financial marketplace rather than regulating out of existence financial products that work well for the vast majority of consumers who use them. Only then will the bureau live up to its name.

Dennis Shaul is the chief executive of the Community Financial Services Association of America, which represents nonbank lenders. He previously served as a senior advisr to former Rep. Barney Frank and as a professional staff member of the House Financial Services Committee.


(3) Comments



Comments (3)
It's really hard to square this claim: "Members of the Community Financial Services Association of America are licensed and regulated in every state in which they do business, and must adhere to a strict set of industry best practices which provide important consumer protections."

With Advance America's record. Advance America is a member of CFSA and has agreed to settlements with regulators in states including Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, Arkansas, and California.

Has anybody else had time to look at the settlement records for other CFSA members? Would be interesting to inform this debate.
Posted by California Reinvestment Coalition | Friday, February 05 2016 at 5:30PM ET
To teknoscribe's last point, the fallacy here is the assumption that people who use payday lenders would prefer to work with a standard bank. Another fallacy is that rational people would never choose to use payday lenders over a bank, thus anyone so choosing must be uneducated, at least financially, and saved from themselves by big government.

Payday customers, by and large, have made their choice, thus the difficulty in wiping out the industry through "education," even when that education is provided by the banks themselves in an attempt to garner CRA services credit by reaching out to LMI people and areas for that training. Payday customers walk into a payday lender facility, which is usually less intimidating to them, and are known by name and have their money quickly, i.e., they receive good customer service. It's simple, really.
Posted by RegGuy | Friday, February 05 2016 at 10:36AM ET
By all means, we should demand a fully sterilized data set before acting to curtail the action of loan sharks. The lobbyist doth protest a bit much, and it strains credibility. First, those in greatest poverty do not have much time or opportunity to file formal complaints with the CFPB (that is, if they are even aware of the bureau's existence). The flow of fallacy then becomes quite thick: the lines of business that receive the most complaints should receive the most attention (base rate fallacy), 12,000 complaints are not enough to warrant action (moving the goal posts), no action should be taken until we can be sure only bad actors are affected (nirvana fallacy), and then we get a fun bit of latent survivorship bias -- since some of the people who take out payday loans are not fully bankrupted in the process, the business model should be allowed to grow as much as the market will bear. This shotgun undermines the position, and brings the scent of red herring with it.

Perhaps the writer should spend some quality time in the neighborhoods these lenders serve, and collect some first hand accounts from those who would prefer an account with a standard bank, and terms they could afford to live with.
Posted by teknoscribe | Thursday, February 04 2016 at 9:28PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.