In the latest regulatory claim about what finance companies might be doing wrong, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau said this week that arbitration agreements restrict consumers’ relief for disputes with financial service providers by limiting class actions.
The Consumer Bankers Association and the American Financial Services Association quickly pushed back against the CFPB’s assertions, insisting that arbitration aids consumers.
CBA president and chief executive officer Richard Hunt made his point after phase two of the CFPB’s study on the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in connection with consumer financial products and services that was released on Tuesday.
“For nearly 90 years, arbitration has allowed consumers quick and easy access to an affordable option for dispute resolution,” Hunt said. “As a last resort, if legal recourse is necessary, arbitration has proven to be the best path forward because it is mutually beneficial to all parties — both consumers and lenders.
“We look forward to reviewing this study in its entirety, and we look forward to working with the CFPB to improve consumers’ understanding of the arbitration process and how it can benefit them,” Hunt continued.
The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to conduct a study of the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in consumer financial markets. The act also provides the CFPB with the sole authority to issue regulations on the use of these arbitration clauses if it believes doing so is in the public interest for the protection of consumers, and consistent with the results of the study.
In December of 2013, the CFPB released phase one of its study on the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in connection with consumer financial products and services.
The second segment that arrived this week didn’t bring support from AFSA president and CEO Chris Stinebert, either.
“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau criticizes arbitration agreements because they limit class actions. Yet arbitration offers consumers a quicker resolution than class actions, which can be stuck in the court system for years,” Stinebert said.
“Many, if not most, consumer finance arbitration agreements limit a consumer’s out-of-pocket costs to initiate arbitration, making it a cost-effective solution for consumers,” he went on to say.
Despite those assertions, the CFPB said its new report found that, in the consumer finance markets studied, very few consumers individually seek relief through arbitration or the federal courts, while millions of consumers are eligible for relief each year through class action settlements.
The bureau’s report also indicated that more than 75 percent of consumers surveyed did not know whether they were subject to an arbitration clause in their agreements with their financial service providers, and fewer than 7 percent of those covered by arbitration clauses realized that the clauses restricted their ability to sue in court.
“Tens of millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses, but few know about them or understand their impact,” CFPB director Richard Cordray said. “Our study found that these arbitration clauses restrict consumer relief in disputes with financial companies by limiting class actions that provide millions of dollars in redress each year. Now that our study has been completed, we will consider what next steps are appropriate.”
The CFPB acknowledged arbitration is a way to resolve disputes outside the court system. In recent years, regulators stated many contracts for consumer financial products and services have included a “pre-dispute arbitration clause” stating that either party can require that disputes that may arise about that product or service be resolved through arbitration instead of the court system.
Where such a clause exists, either side can generally block lawsuits, including class actions, from proceeding in court, according to the CFPB.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) mandates that the CFPB conduct a study on the use of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in consumer financial markets. The Dodd-Frank Act specifically prohibits the use of arbitration clauses in mortgage contracts. And it gives the Bureau the power to issue regulations on the use of arbitration clauses in other consumer finance markets if the Bureau finds that doing so is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers, and if findings in such a rule are consistent with the results of the Bureau’s study.
The bureau first launched a public inquiry on arbitration clauses in April 2012 and released preliminary research in December 2013.
The CFPB studied arbitration clauses in a number of different consumer finance markets including credit cards and checking accounts, which have the largest numbers of consumers.
Other segments of the CFPB’s report included:
• Tens of millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses: The CFPB’s research indicates that tens of millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses in the consumer finance markets studied. For example, in the credit card market, card issuers representing more than half of all credit card debt have arbitration clauses — impacting as many as 80 million consumers. In the checking account market, banks representing 44 percent of insured deposits have arbitration clauses.
• Consumers filed roughly 600 arbitration cases and 1,200 individual federal lawsuits per year on average in the markets studied: The CFPB’s review of case data from the leading arbitration administrator indicates that between 2010 and 2012, across six different consumer finance markets, 1,847 arbitration disputes were filed. More than 20 percent of these cases may have been filed by companies, rather than consumers. In the 1,060 cases that were filed in 2010 and 2011, arbitrators awarded consumers a combined total of less than $175,000 in damages and less than $190,000 in debt forbearance. Arbitrators also ordered consumers to pay $2.8 million to companies, predominantly for debts that were disputed. Between 2010 and 2012, consumers filed 3,462 individual lawsuits in federal court about consumer finance disputes in five of these markets. The Bureau analyzed all individual cases filed in four of these markets and a random sample of the credit card cases and found that of the relatively few cases that were decided by a judge, consumers were awarded just under $1 million.
• Roughly 32 million consumers on average are eligible for relief through consumer finance class action settlements each year: Bureau research found that millions of consumers are eligible for financial redress through class action settlements. Across substantially all consumer finance markets, at least 160 million class members were eligible for relief over the five-year period studied. The settlements totaled $2.7 billion in cash, in-kind relief, and attorney’s fees and expenses — with roughly 18 percent of that going to expenses and attorneys’ fees. Further, these figures do not include the potential value to consumers of class action settlements requiring companies to change their behavior. Based on available data, the Bureau estimates that the cash payments to class members alone were at least $1.1 billion and cover at least 34 million consumers.
• Arbitration clauses can act as a barrier to class actions: By design, arbitration clauses can be used to block class actions in court. The CFPB found that it is rare for a company to try to force an individual lawsuit into arbitration but common for arbitration clauses to be invoked to block class actions. For example, in cases where credit card issuers with an arbitration clause were sued in a class action, companies invoked the arbitration clause to block class actions 65 percent of the time.
• No evidence of arbitration clauses leading to lower prices for consumers: The CFPB looked at whether companies that include arbitration clauses in their contracts offer lower prices because they are not subject to class action lawsuits. The CFPB analyzed changes in the total cost of credit paid by consumers of some credit card companies that eliminated their arbitration clauses and of other companies that made no change in their use of arbitration provisions. The CFPB found no statistically significant evidence that the companies that eliminated their arbitration clauses increased their prices or reduced access to credit relative to those that made no change in their use of arbitration clauses.
• Three out of four consumers surveyed did not know if they were subject to an arbitration clause: The CFPB surveyed credit card consumers to analyze the extent to which they were aware of, and understood the implications of, arbitration agreements. Among those who said they understood what arbitration is, over three quarters acknowledged they did not know whether their credit card agreement contained an arbitration clause. Of those who thought they did know, more than half were incorrect about whether their agreement actually contained an arbitration clause. Among consumers whose contract included an arbitration clause, fewer than 7 percent recognized that they could not sue their credit card issuer in court.
The bureau indicated that it looked at nearly 850 consumer finance agreements to examine the prevalence of arbitration clauses and their terms. The CFPB also reviewed more than 1,800 consumer finance arbitration disputes filed over a period of three years and more than 3,400 individual federal court lawsuits. The Bureau also looked at 42,000 credit card cases filed in selected small claims court in 2012.
The CFPB went on to mention that it supplemented this research by assembling and analyzing a set of roughly 420 consumer financial class action settlements in federal courts over a period of five years and over 1,100 state and federal public enforcement actions in the consumer finance area. The CFPB also conducted a national survey of 1,000 consumers with credit cards concerning their knowledge and understanding of arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms.
“In our governing statute, Congress specified that the results of this arbitration study are to provide the basis for important policy decisions that the Consumer Bureau will have to make in this area. So people are right to be interested in digesting these results and considering how we intend to fulfill the objectives established by Congress,” Cordray said on Tuesday during his prepared remarks when the bureau released study results at a field hearing.
“At the Consumer Bureau, we are dedicated to a marketplace characterized by fair, transparent, and responsible business practices. We believe that strong consumer protection is an asset to honest businesses because it ensures that everyone is playing by the same rules, which supports fair competition and positive treatment of consumers,” he went on to say.
This week’s introduction of a Congressional measure to “reform and refocus” the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — changing the bureau’s structure from director led to a bipartisan five-person commission appointed by the president — received immediate cheers from eight different organizations representing banks, credit unions and finance companies.
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, chairman of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, outlined H.R. 1266 — the Financial Product Safety Commission Act of 2015 — after the U.S. House Financial Services committee welcomed CFPB director Richard Cordray, who shared the agency’s semiannual report during a hearing on Capitol Hill.
“As we approach the five-year anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, now is a good time to reflect on the bureau’s impact on the American consumer,” said Neugebauer, a Texas Republican. “Over the last several years, the bureau’s actions and record have proven it can’t function in a sustainable manner.
“Perhaps, more than any other Washington agency, the CFPB has demonstrated a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability,” he continued. “It has proven it is susceptible to political influence — bringing into question its independence.”
Neugebauer pointed out that current lawmaker and CFPB architect Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Rep. Barney Frank and President Obama originally supported a board leadership structure for the CFPB.
“This bill is not an attempt to weaken the CFPB,” Neugebauer said. “It is a push to strengthen the CFPB and ensure greater consumer protections for the American people. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and in Congress to move this much-needed bill forward.”
“The bureau has an important mission: to protect consumers,” he continued. “I support consumer protection, but we must ensure product choice, credit availability and cost of credit are considered before rushing to regulate.
“To better serve the American people, the Bureau must adopt a more balanced and consultative process to its rulemaking,” Neugebauer went on to say.
Soon after Neugebauer introduced the measure, American Financial Services Association president and chief executive officer Chris Stinebert reiterated a sentiment elaborated in a letter delivered to Neugebauer and signed by eight other organizations.
“AFSA applauds Rep. Randy Neugebauer, chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, for introducing the Financial Product Safety Commission Act of 2015, which calls for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be governed by a five-member bipartisan commission rather than a sole director,” Stinebert said.
“AFSA supports reforms to the CFPB’s governance that will encourage a dynamic consumer credit marketplace and promote access to affordable credit,” he continued.
“Being overseen by a commission will bring more accountability to the bureau, to the benefit of the American people,” Stinebert went on to say.
Wide-Ranging Support for Measure
Along with AFSA, the support letter was signed by seven other organizations, including:
— American Bankers Association
— Consumer Bankers Association
— Credit Union National Association
— Financial Services Roundtable
— Independent Community Bankers of America
— National Association of Federal Credit Unions
— U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The organizations pointed out that the CFPB’s “massive” jurisdiction includes an entire sector of American finance from banks and credit unions, to innumerable financial services companies of all sizes, including larger participants in the financial system, “ultimately touching all Americans.”
The groups continued by stating, “As trade associations representing those institutions supporting America’s consumers, we write to express our support for the legislation you introduced today that will ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau remains a strong and effective regulator whose mission is to protect consumers regardless of which political party is in the White House.
Like Neugebauer, the organizations state that a five-member commission as Congress originally intended will better balance consumer access to financial products with the need to ensure a fair marketplace. Back in 2009, the groups recapped that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then-House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, and Ranking Member Maxine Waters led passage of legislation in the House with strong Democrat support to create a five-member commission to oversee the CFPB, which the groups contend is nearly identical to what the Financial Product Safety Commission Act of 2015 proposes to do.
“A commission would serve as a source of balance and stability for consumers and the financial services industry by encouraging internal debate and deliberation, ultimately leading to increased transparency,” the organizations said. “Moreover, a commission will further promote CFPB’s ability to make bipartisan and reasoned judgments; will offer consumers the protection they deserve and the industry the certainty it needs, which in turn will help strengthen the economy; and will avoid the risk of politically motivated decisions, which could result in harm to consumers.
“In sum, the CFPB has tremendous authority to supervise a multi-trillion dollar industry, which as we have learned, can have incredible ramifications on our economy. As such, it is imperative the CFPB remain stable, be deliberative, and remain bipartisan — for the sake of the American consumer and the U.S. economy,” they went on to say.
Other Lawmakers Involved
Rep. Randy Neugebauer was joined by the following 20 original cosponsors:
— Rep. Sean Duffy
— Rep. Andy Barr
— Rep. Frank Guinta
— Rep. Bill Huizenga
— Rep. Scott Garrett
— Rep. David Schweikert
— Rep. Keith Rothfus
— Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer
— Rep. Steve Pearce
— Rep. Scott Tipton
— Rep. Roger Williams
— Rep. Dennis Ross
— Rep. Ann Wagner
— Rep. Bruce Poliquin
— Rep. Lynn Westmoreland
— Rep. French Hill
— Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick
— Rep. Robert Pittenger
— Rep. Mia Love
— Rep. Patrick McHenry
“The CFPB undoubtedly remains the single most powerful and least accountable Federal agency in all of Washington,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, another Texas Republican who now is Financial Services Committee Chairman. “When it comes to the credit cards, auto loans and mortgages of hardworking taxpayers the CFPB has unbridled, discretionary power not only to make those less available and more expensive, but to absolutely take them away.
“Consequently, Americans are losing both their financial independence and the protection of the rule of law,” Hensarling continued. “The bureau is fundamentally unaccountable to the president since the director can only be removed for cause. Fundamentally unaccountable to Congress because the bureau’s funding is not subject to appropriations. Fundamentally unaccountable to the courts because Dodd-Frank requires courts to grant the CFPB deference regarding its interpretation of Federal consumer financial law.
“Thus, the bureau regrettably remains unaccountable to the American people. That is why we need the CFPB on budget and led by a bipartisan commission; mere testimony is not the equivalent to accountability,” he went on to say.
Meanwhile, Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat and now ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, chastised Hensarling and other lawmakers who support this new measure to alter how the CFPB operates.
“Taking their strategy from Wall Street, predatory lenders and other bad actors in our financial system, the Republicans on this committee have advanced countless measures that would undermine the CFPB’s ability to protect consumers from deceptive marketing, unlawful debt collection, lending discrimination, illegal fees, and other unscrupulous activity,” Waters said.
“This includes legislation to destabilize CFPB’s leadership, end its autonomy, and tie its independent funding to the whims of the Congressional appropriations process. And it also includes a number of efforts designed to bog the bureau down in additional paperwork — whether through legislation or through threats of subpoenas,” she continued.
“I cannot imagine staff time and resources that the Bureau has spent responding to your frivolous requests at the expense of helping our nation’s consumers,” Waters went on to say. “But that’s precisely the Republican playbook. They want the CFPB to be wasting resources digging out from under a deluge of requests – so that the payday lenders, debt collectors and other predators can continue victimizing the American people unabated.
“(The Republican party) pretends to care about the huge challenges of income inequality and minority access to credit, vilifying this agency as “hurting the very people we are trying to help,” she added.
Chernek Consulting will conduct a one-and-a-half-day workshop titled, “Auto Dealer Subprime Sales Success,” that will feature presentations by Dealertrack Technologies, Automotive Dealership Institute (ADI), Equifax and more.
The training session is scheduled to begin on April 7 at the Marriott Hotel Perimeter Center in Atlanta.
According to Rebecca Chernek, president of Chernek Consulting, “The Corporation for Enterprise Development reported in January that the majority, or 56 percent, of consumers have subprime credit scores. This workshop is designed to help dealers navigate the growing subprime market to boost profits, build customer loyalty and limit their liability.”
Dealertrack Technologies senior director of market performance Jason Barrie — who also delivered one of the keynote sessions during the SubPrime Forum last fall at Used Car Week — will be on hand for Chernek’s event to deliver a unique perspective on how the subprime market has helped to fuel the industry’s recent success.
Barrie will discuss trends seen in both used-vehicle and subprime financing, share insights into how the in-store to online financing process has begun to transform the way consumers conduct their vehicle purchase and also review what’s in store for 2015.
Arzu Algan, chief financial officer and dean of education at ADI, will present five principles for success in “How to Establish a Successful Special Finance Department.”
Brandon Hardison, president of Champion Strategies will discuss how maintaining a certified used-vehicle inventory helps obtain bank approval in “Used Car Certification Requirements and the Subprime Market.”
In “Meeting Subprime Customers at the Door,” Chernek will provide techniques to guide dealership personnel in working with subprime customers — from landing them on the right car the first time out using credit interview techniques, to identifying and responding to credit flags and ensuring consistently seamless TOs.
“The process is designed to not only put customers at ease and limit errors,” Chernek said, “but also reduce the time the customer is in the dealership.”
Chernek also will discuss ways to develop better subprime bank relationships.
In “How to Read an Automotive Consumer’s Credit Report,” Jenn Reid, senior director of auto product marketing at Equifax, will explain what managers can learn about customers from their consumer report. Reid will discuss how to interpret the information in the file and why it’s important to move past the score to understand what the customer has to offer.
Rodney O’Rourke, director of agent development on the East Coast for LoJack, will discuss the history of LoJack, how to maximize finance compnay advances through valuable product offerings, identity theft policy and procedures and industry trends.
Kyle Walker, content product manager for Complí, will present “CFPB Enforcement — What your Dealership Needs to Know,” which will include instructions for establishing a dealership CMS.
Gregory Johnson with G Johnson Law will address the subprime compliance landscape in “Subprime F&I Compliance Issues under the TILA, ECOA, FCRA, UDTPA and CFA (Spot Deliveries, Acquisition Fees, Deferred Down Payments and More).”
To register for the workshop, call Chernek at (404) 276-4026 or go to www.ccilearningcenter.com/fi-subprime-sales-success.
When Consumer Portfolio Services reported a year-end earnings per share increase of more than 35 percent, chairman and chief executive officer Brad Bradley not only highlighted that performance, but also how the company is preparing to answer questions from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Bradley reiterated how CPS previously acknowledged that the two federal agencies are investigating the finance company in the same manner as several other operations that specialize in subprime auto financing are being reviewed. CPS already made modifications and paid a penalty after the Federal Trade Commission handed out an enforcement action last year in connection with the company’s collection practices.
“The regulatory market obviously is continuing to be more interesting by the day, and so we have spent an awful lot of time, particularly in the collection front, training everyone in terms of all the different compliance areas,” Bradley said when CPS conducted its most recent conference call with investors.
“I think we are way ahead of the curve, but nonetheless, it is the process of really making sure everything we do is compliant across the board. Because whether regulatory people look around, we want everything where it’s supposed to be,” he continued. “And so we spent a lot of time with retraining and more training and listening to calls to make sure everything is being done the right way.”
Bradley also mentioned how CPS is working to ensure the dealers in its network also are abiding by what federal regulators mandate. CPS is ramping up the effort in light of the CFPB on the lookout for disparate impact happening in auto financing.
The CPS boss explained that the finance company currently has between 8,000 and 10,000 dealers in its network for vehicle installment contract originations. Each quarter, the company calls on dealers to make sure they are compliant, and at last check, the company found less than a dozen showed any signs of disparate impact issues.
Bradley said the check-up is done to see if “there might be some disparate impact in the way they make car loans. If so, we cut them off our program and put them into a rehabilitation program at which point if they can complete that and demonstrate that there have been some changes so they can re-enter our program.
“Those kind of things I think can put us in a very strong position in terms of where we sit with all the CFPB stuff that’s coming down the pike,” Bradley continued.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice investigation is connected more with what happens to those vehicle installment contracts after they’re originated and packed together in securitizations for the investment community, according to Bradley. Again, the top CPS executive is confident the company can navigate any questions DOJ might have, especially since CPS seems to adhere the protocol set by the industry.
“What’s a little interesting about that is as one can imagine, the investors buying those loans or the bonds, the ABS bonds, are pretty used to buying a very standardized format,” Bradley said. “And so all of the companies, including ourselves, follow those formats, and so we are all doing it basically the same.
“I think given the mortgage comparison — unfair, unkind or untrue that it may be — I think the government wants to make sure that we are not doing what the mortgage folks did, which is putting out a bunch of loans that aren’t going to be able to be paid,” he continued. “I won’t bother anyone with a long list of why the auto industry is nothing like the mortgage industry, with a small exception that all of our bonds are and as everyone else in our industry paid great to a very significant recession unlike the mortgage folks.
“And so we, I, and the rest of our industry would stand on that,” Bradley went on to say. “But even so, we will be participating in the DOJ investigation along with everyone else. And it’s very hard to say more on that subject than we already have.”
Latest Company Performance
Consumer Portfolio Services reported fourth-quarter earnings of $8.0 million, or 25 cents per diluted share. Those figures are up from $6.5 million, or 21 cents per diluted share, in the fourth quarter of last year, representing a 19-percent increase in earnings per diluted share.
The company’s full-year earnings for 2014 came in at $29.5 million, or 92 cents per diluted share, as compared to earnings of $21.0 million, or 67 cents per diluted share, for 2013. The gain represented a 37-percent spike in earnings per diluted share.
Officials indicated Q4 revenue jumped $16.9 million or 25.4 percent to $83.5 million, up from $66.6 million for the fourth quarter of 2013. They acknowledged total Q4 operating expenses rose by $14.0 million or 25.4 percent to $69.1 million, climbing from $55.1 million a year earlier.
Looking at pretax income, CPS posted a 24.4 percent increase year-over-year in the fourth quarter, generating a rise from $11.5 million to $14.3 million.
For the year, CPS’s total revenues came in at $300.3 million, up from $255.8 million in 2013. Officials pointed out that 2013 revenues included $10.9 million from a gain on cancellation of debt.
Excluding that gain, the company calculated 2014 revenues increased $55.4 million or 22.6 percent over the prior year.
CPS’ total 2014 expenses climbed from $218.6 million to $248.0 million. But the company mentioned that in 2013 its operating expenses included a provision for contingent liabilities of $7.8 million.
Excluding the provision for contingent liabilities, the company’s operating expenses for 2014 increased $37.2 million or 17.7 percent compared to the prior year period.
CPS determined its 2014 pretax income came in at $52.2 million, up from $37.2 million.
During the fourth quarter, CPS purchased $264.4 million of new contracts compared to $279.3 million during the third quarter of 2014 and $173.4 million during the fourth quarter of last year.
The company's managed receivables totaled $1.644 billion as of Dec. 31, an increase from $1.519 billion as of Sept. and $1.231 billion as of the close of 2013.
CPS reported that its annualized net charge-offs for Q4 stood at 6.44 percent of the average owned portfolio as compared to 5.57 percent a year earlier.
The company’s delinquencies greater than 30 days (including repossession inventory) were 7.18 percent of the total owned portfolio, up from 6.87 percent as of the end of 2013.
As previously reported during December, CPS closed its fourth term securitization transaction of 2014 and its 15th transaction since April 2011.
In the senior subordinate structure, a special purpose subsidiary sold five tranches of asset-backed notes totaling $267.5 million. The notes are secured by automobile receivables purchased by CPS and have a weighted average effective coupon of approximately 3.07 percent.
That transaction has initial credit enhancement consisting of a cash deposit equal to 1.00 percent of the original receivable pool balance. The final enhancement level requires accelerated payment of principal on the notes to reach overcollateralization of 4.00 percent of the then-outstanding receivable pool balance.
Officials highlighted the transaction was CPS’ third consecutive senior subordinate securitization to receive a triple-A rating on the senior class of notes.
“We are pleased to report another successful year in 2014,” Bradley said. “In addition to record pre-tax earnings, our new contract purchases grew 24 percent compared to 2013 and our total managed portfolio grew 34 percent to over $1.6 billion.
“We recorded our third consecutive year of earnings growth and continued our strategy of deleveraging our balance sheet by repaying over $49 million in residual and corporate debt without refinancing,” he added.
Eight dealer, financial services and pro-business organizations delivered another strong message to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to address the bias and error found in the method the CFPB uses to determine whether unintentional disparate impact exists in an indirect auto finance company’s portfolio.
In asking for thee specific modifications in a letter to CFPB director Richard Cordray, these organizations insisted the bureau has used — and continues to use — this methodology to support allegations of discrimination, despite its flaws.
Since 2013, letter authors explained CFPB has urged financial institutions to change how they compensate dealers for arranging financing, based on the bureau’s allegation that dealer reserve poses a risk of disparate impact. However, a November study by Charles River Associates (CRA) found that the CFPB’s analysis overstates the impact on minorities, and cast doubt on many of the bureau’s findings.
In light of these findings, the coalition called on the CFPB in a letter to revisit its enforcement approach.
“The associations request that the bureau conduct a thorough review of the CRA study, provide a public response to its findings and recommendations, and correct any bias in its testing methodology, before pursuing further dealer mark-up discrimination claims through supervisory or enforcement action.”
Signatories of the letter include the American Financial Services Association, American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, Financial Services Roundtable and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Offering their full support of what was shared in the letter were the National Automobile Dealers Association, the American International Automobile Dealers Association and the National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers.
In the letter to Cordray, officials recapped that CRA found the bureau’s application of the Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) proxy methodology creates significant measurement error, which results in overestimations of minorities in the population by as much as 41 percent.
In its own white paper on the method it uses to proxy for race — published prior to the CRA study — the CFPB acknowledged the overestimation (which it found to be 21 percent), but never indicated how, if at all, it has corrected for this discrepancy.
“Given such high error rates, proxy analysis has limited application to compliance monitoring and is unjustifiable for use when asserting legal violations or liabilities,” officials said in the letter to Cordray.
In light of the situation, AFSA, ABA, CBA, FSR, the U.S. Chamber as well as the dealer associations asked the CFPB to make a public response, addressing:
1. Portfolio level analysis of aggregated contracts sourced from dealers with different operating models, cost structures, pricing policies, locations and competitive landscapes. These factors, along with the seasonality of auto sales and financing, are major factors that must be corrected for in an analysis at the portfolio level.
2. Implementation of economic controls to adjust for legitimate business factors such as new, used, trade-in, options, insurance and warranties. Failure to consider business factors for observed disparities increases the potential of reaching erroneous conclusions.
3. The bureau must address and adjust for the bias within the BISG methodology and its overestimation of individuals within protected classes.
By law, auto finance companies are prohibited from inquiring into or considering a consumer’s race or ethnicity. In order to estimate the background of consumers for pricing comparison purposes, the CFPB uses a proxy that is based on a statistical analysis of the consumer’s last name and residence.
“The CFPB’s own study of its proxy methodology revealed that it is subject to significant error,” officials said in their letter.
The CRA study, based on 8.2 million vehicle contracts originated in 2012 and 2013, showed that the CFPB’s method overestimates minorities by as much as 41 percent – further calling into question the reliability of the CFPB’s testing method. The CFPB has not indicated that it has made any corrections for these error rates.
“We share the bureau’s commitment to combating illegal discriminatory treatment in the vehicle finance market,” the letter said. “This common goal is best achieved when fair lending standards are evidence-based, applied using analytically sound and transparent methods and predicated on accepted legal foundations.”
The dealer associations pointed out what they called the “flaws” in the CFPB’s methodology have not stopped dealers from developing procedures to address the CFPB’s concerns about the risk of discrimination in auto financing.
Last year, NADA, AIADA, and NAMAD jointly released the NADA Fair Credit Compliance Policy & Program, which provides a dealer with an optional mechanism for ensuring that its credit pricing is established in a consistent manner and is based exclusively on legitimate business considerations.
NADA president Peter Welch noted the program is modeled on — and fully adopts — a Department of Justice fair credit compliance program that the agency required dealers to implement in prior enforcement actions.
With that plan available, Welch spoke for the dealer associations in backing up the latest message the financial services organizations delivered.
“Discrimination in the market simply cannot be tolerated,” Welch said. “However, in light of the rigorous peer-review that has cast significant doubt on the CFPB’s findings, the bureau should change course — or at least hit the pause button — and address these new concerns. We applaud the courage of these organizations for speaking up.”
The ability for federal regulators such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to use disparate impact theory to hand out enforcement actions against finance companies that provide auto financing could be reduced or even eliminated, depending on how the Supreme Court rules before summertime heat reaches Washington, D.C.
During the Vehicle Finance Conference hosted by the American Financial Services Association, attorneys and company executives kept watch on smartphones and tablets on Wednesday because oral arguments took place in front of the Supreme Court that could narrow the scope of discrimination claims made under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) by leveraging disparate impact.
Legal experts from AFSA and other firms contend that if disparate impact no longer can be used in FHA matters, it would be prohibited in cases regarding the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which is a regulatory tool often associated with the policing of auto financing.
While holding his laptop on stage and pouring over emails from colleagues and other sources, Severson & Werson chairman Mark Kenney attempted to give conference attendees an assessment of what happened during the hour-long oral argument session at the Supreme Court. The specific case pits the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs versus the Inclusive Communities Project to determine whether FHA encompasses claims for disparate impact.
The Pacific Law Foundation (PLF) joined many other organizations arguing that FHA only prohibits intentional discrimination. PLF officials contend the threat of being sued under a theory of disparate impact encourages private and public decision makers to act on the basis of race. The theory of disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons along the lines of a protected trait. Although the protected traits vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws include race, color, religion, national origin, and gender as protected traits, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.
PLF went on to mention that Justice Antonin Scalia observed in his concurrence in Ricci versus Destefano, a disparate impact provision not only permits but affirmatively requires race-conscious decision making when a disparate impact violation would otherwise result.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that race-conscious decision making is presumptively unconstitutional. Therefore, any law that requires, or even encourages private or public entities to act on the basis of race is also presumptively unconstitutional,” PLF officials said.
During AFSA’s conference, Kenney focused much of his assessment of the oral arguments on how Scalia approached the proceedings.
“By piecing together bits and pieces of this oral argument, we are reading tea leaves,” Kenney said. “In the first part of the oral argument, Scalia came out very aggressive against the Texas counsel arguing against disparate impact.
“In the second half of the argument, he went after the other side as he often does, asking counsel that if we allow legislation that supposedly prohibits disparate impact, doesn’t that leave businesses and government enterprises to create quotas, which themselves run afoul of the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” Kenney continued.
“The FHA allows prosecution based on disparate impact claims but that in and of itself is a violation under the equal protection clause of the Constitution,” he went on to tell the scores of attendees gathered in San Francisco ahead of a host of other industry events such as the National Automobile Dealers Association Convention.
“They could not get to that second bigger question unless they found that the FHA allows disparate impact. It may be where they’re going. The clever argument is that there is disparate impact analysis out there but you can’t use it because it’s unconstitutional to achieve a bigger result. We don’t know,” Kenney added.
Before discussing Wednesday’s Supreme Court proceeding, Kenney recapped why this case could alter how agencies such as the CFPB operate in the auto finance space. The bureau used disparate impact theory in late 2013 against Ally Financial to level an enforcement action, which included total penalties approaching $100 million.
“As in the FHA context, the CFPB has been saying that even if you have no intention of wanting to discriminate, if you’re engaged in supposedly neutral activities like buying paper that’s as the result of an automobile financing negotiation which includes a dealer mark-up and regulators can conduct statistical analysis to show that racially protected group pay higher markups than non-protected groups, that has a disparate impact,” Kenney said.
“The hope was the Supreme Court would say, in the FHA, there is no disparate impact analysis. It’s not in the statute. And then by extension, the language is very similar in ECOA so you can’t have it there, either,” he continued.
The Supreme Court is expected to make its ruling on this disparate impact case sometime before its current decision-making session ends in June. Typically, the court takes anywhere from two to five months to make a final decision. But AFSA executive vice president Bill Himpler, who joined Kenney for a regulatory update, thinks a decision might come sooner because “the justices have been weighing in on this issue for a long time.”
Himpler also pointed out that CFPB director Richard Cordray has argued on multiple occasions that the FHA and ECOA are “two separate statutes and not related so regardless of what the Supreme Court says.”
But Kenney left AFSA attendees with a clear message, saying, “The CFPB is hanging on this one just as much as this association is.”
Given the drumbeat of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its increasing influence on dealership F&I practices and consumer finance, Automotive Compliance Consultants emphasized that dealership professionals must be fully equipped to understand and comply with regulations.
Automotive Compliance Consultants president Terry Dortch pointed out that one such regulation specified by the CFPB is the use of a compliance management system (CMS).
“There is an unfortunate misconception that a CMS is software or some other ‘easy’ compliance technology,” Dortch said. “It is not, so lenders and the auto and powersports dealers they do business with should not be mystified.
“Instead, a CMS, according to CFPB, is a process to ensure a dealer’s compliance with consumer protection regulations. Usually, a proper CMS is a defined process for auditing, inspecting, and documenting lending and F&I practices so they conform to federal consumer finance laws,” Dortch continued.
Dortch and the Automotive Compliance Consultants expert staff will discuss CMS and other consumer lending topics at the American Financial Services Association’s 19th annual Vehicle Finance Conference this week in San Francisco.
“The regulations change rapidly — and the CFPB is always causing ripples that often cause lenders and dealers to shudder over their potential impact to their businesses and how they service consumers’ finance needs. Continuing education is so recommended for any party engaged in automotive retailing and finance,” Dortch said.
“We invite AFSA attendees to discuss the ins-and-outs of a compliance management system that will cover all facets of dealership consumer finance requirements,” he added.
For information, contact Dortch at terry_dortch@compliantnow.com or visit www.compliantnow.com.
Along with revamping its tire-and-wheel coverage plan, F&I program provider RoadVantage recently unveiled a Web-based compliance management system (CMS) that can help dealers ensure their practices are compliant with standards set by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
RoadVantage explained that according to the CFPB, elements of an effective compliance program include written policies and procedures, verifiable training on policy and compliance, monitoring and corrective action measures to ensure accordance with policies, a track-able complaint resolution system, and periodic review, revision and written reports via independent and third-party audits.
“The CFPB has stated that it expects to see a Compliance Management System in place in every supervised entity,” RoadVantage chief executive officer Garret Lacour said. “The RoadVantage CMS offers a straightforward, effective way for dealers to address this need.”
Created by attorneys specializing in dealership defense, the Web-based RoadVantage CMS is a comprehensive solution that can addresses these elements through four major components:
— Policy management
— Online compliance training
— Complaint resolution system
— Third-party compliance audits
“The recent industry events involving the CFPB mean it’s more important than ever for dealerships to ensure they have a compliance system in place,” said compliance expert Gil Van Over, president and founder of gvo3 and Associates, a nationally recognized compliance consulting firm. “The RoadVantage CMS offers the framework to help dealerships ensure they are meeting CFPB requirements.”
RoadVantage senior vice president of sales Randy Ross added, “Dealerships are looking for a turnkey compliance solution that integrates with existing practices and enables dealers to easily evaluate and demonstrate compliance.
“Because the RoadVantage CMS is an online tool, it offers a convenient way to foster compliance,” Ross went on to say.
For more details, visit RoadVantage online at www.roadvantage.com.
RoadVantage Outlines New True Coverage Offering
In other company news, RoadVantage also unveiled on Monday a solution called True Coverage, what officials described as a fresh approach to F&I that can simplify contract language and reduce the exclusions that typically cause claims headaches for dealerships and their customers.
With True Coverage, RoadVantage’s Tire & Wheel programs now can streamline complex contracts and eliminate several exclusions that often create problems for dealers and agents, including construction zones, metal plates on the road, tire pressure monitoring sensors, snow tires, car washes and more.
“True Coverage is an exciting development in automotive ancillary product coverage,” said Charles Brown, an independent agent and owner of Superior Automotive Co. “This can considerably reduce dealer service headaches by covering what customers already expect to be covered. It’s another example of how RoadVantage is raising the bar.”
RoadVantage has applied True Coverage to its entire product line including the Vantage Preferred multi-option bundles, which also include coverage for hail damage, cosmetic damage to hubcaps, aftermarket wheel coverage with no surcharges, cosmetic damage on chrome wheels with no limits, replacement for wheels with cosmetic damage, and a replacement-only program for tires.
“This type of coverage is not available in the industry today,” Lacour said. “With True Coverage, we’ve taken the bold steps to streamline complex contracts and remove the exclusions that commonly cause problems.
“True Coverage is another advancement in our continuing quest to provide the best customer experience available in the industry today,” Lacour went on to say.
Condor Capital is no longer originating and servicing vehicle installment contracts for dealers who cater to subprime customers in New York or more than two dozen other states.
Just before the holiday, the New York Department of Financial Services submitted a final consent judgment to be approved by the Empire State’s court system to settle the department’s lawsuit against Condor Capital that first sprouted last spring.
New York Superintendent of Financial Services Benjamin Lawsky sent the order against, Condor, a subprime auto finance company based in Long Island, and its sole shareholder, Stephen Baron.
Among other violations, Lawsky claimed the defendants deceptively retained millions of dollars owed to vulnerable borrowers and overcharged them for interest in violation of the Truth in Lending Act.
Under the terms of the final consent judgment, Condor and Baron will make full restitution plus 9 percent interest to all aggrieved customers nationwide, which officials estimated to be $8 to $9 million.
Furthermore, Baron and Condor Capital are ordered to pay a $3 million penalty and admit violations of New York and federal law.
Following a sale of its remaining loans in a manner that ensures appropriate consumer protections, NYDFS said Condor Capital will surrender its licenses in all states, which include:
—Alabama
—California
—Colorado
—Connecticut
—Florida
—Georgia
—Iowa
—Illinois
—Indiana
—Kansas
—Kentucky
—Maine
—Maryland
—Michigan
—Minnesota
—Missouri
—Mississippi
—North Carolina
—Nebraska
—New Jersey
—Ohio
—Oklahoma
—Oregon
—Pennsylvania
—Tennessee
—Texas
—Virginia
—Washington
—West Virginia
Lawsky highlighted the lawsuit against Condor and Baron was the first legal action initiated by a state regulator under section 1042 of the federal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which empowers state regulators to bring civil actions in federal court for violations of Dodd-Frank’s consumer protection requirements.
“We will not tolerate companies that abuse New Yorkers and other customers — particularly vulnerable subprime borrowers who can least afford it,” Lawsky said.
“This case demonstrates that the Dodd-Frank Act provides a powerful new tool for state regulators to pursue wrongdoing and obtain restitution for consumers who were abused,” he continued.
“We hope other regulators across the country will consider taking similar actions when warranted,” Lawsky went on to say.
NYDFS first filed a complaint and obtained a temporary restraining order against Condor and Baron on April 23.
The state’s court system granted the NYDFS’ motion for a preliminary injunction and appointed a receiver on May 13.
Officials indicated the Receiver will remain in place until Condor’s loan portfolio is sold, the penalty and restitution are paid, and Condor has surrendered all of its licenses.
As of Dec. 19, the receiver has paid more than $5 million in restitution.
As part of the final consent judgment, officials explained Condor admitted to violations of Dodd-Frank, the Truth in Lending Act, the New York Banking Law, and the New York Financial Services Law.
Furthermore, officials added Baron admitted to violating Dodd-Frank by providing substantial assistance to Condor’s law violations.
NYDFS charged that Condor concealed from its customers and the department the fact that thousands of its customers had refundable positive credit balances (such money owed by Condor to a customer as a result of an overpayment of the customer’s account).
Officials determined Condor retained these positive credit balances for itself and maintained a policy of failing to refund positive credit balances except when expressly requested by a customer.
“Condor did not notify its customers when positive credit balances remained in their accounts at the conclusion of their loans,” NYDFS officials said.
“Furthermore, Condor programmed its website to terminate customers’ access to their account information once their loans were terminated, even if the customers had positive credit balances in their accounts,” the continued.
In addition, the agency asserted that Condor represented to the New York State Comptroller that it had no unclaimed property when in fact Condor was required to report its customers’ positive credit balances to the Comptroller.
And NYDFS said the company committed other violations associated with contract terms.
Officials said Condor also violated the Truth in Lending Act by calculating the interest it charged its customers based on a 360-day year and applying the resulting daily interest rate to its customers’ loan accounts each of the 365 days during the year. They explained this practice resulted in a difference in its customers’ APR in excess of the one-eighth of 1 percent tolerance permitted under the Truth in Lending Act.
“Even more egregiously, after being informed by regulators that this practice violated the Truth in Lending Act, Condor on multiple occasions attempted to add an additional one-eighth of 1 percent interest back to customers’ accounts,” officials said.
NYDFS pointed out one other compliance area where Condor Capital failed to meet regulatory protocols.
Officials claimed Condor also endangered the security of its customers’ personally identifiable information. Among other information security lapses, they discovered Condor left stacks of hard-copy customer loan files lying openly around the common areas of Condor’s offices.
“Condor also failed — despite repeated directives from the department — to adopt basic policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that its information technology systems (and the customer data they contain) were secure,” NYDFS officials said.
NYDFS noted the final consent judgment submitted to the court requires Condor’s CEO to pay damages to any customer who the department determines suffered identity theft as a result of Condor’s mishandling of their private information.
As SubPrime Auto Finance News reported last spring, the company’s website indicated Condor Capital was founded in 1994 by a management team with more than 50 years of auto financing experience.
According to Condor’s most recent annual report filed with NYDFS, at the end of 2013, Condor held more than 7,000 loans to New York customers with total outstanding balances of more than $97 million. That reported showed Condor’s 2013 loan portfolio contained aggregate outstanding loans of more than $300 million nationwide.
For the year, Condor reported net after-tax income of approximately $7 million on operating income of approximately $68.7 million, DFS said.
As a part of the last SubPrime News Update of the year before the Cherokee Media Group team breaks for the holidays, the publication wanted to share a rundown of the top 10 stories that generated the most reader interest in 2014.
Not surprisingly the majority of these leading stories had a connection to a significant regulatory development with agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice.
1. SubPrime Auto Finance Executive of the Year Winner Named
CARY, N.C. — SubPrime Auto Finance News has revealed the recipient of this year’s SubPrime Auto Finance Executive of the Year award, an honor sponsored by Black Book Lender Solutions.
The accolade is going to Ian Anderson, president of Westlake Financial Services, which reached $2 billion in total receivables earlier this year.
Sparked by the some of the best months in company history this summer, Westlake’s portfolio now has that total receivables figure connected to more than 270,000 customer accounts.
2. Credit Acceptance Subpoenaed by Justice Department
SOUTHFIELD, Mich. — Another day, another finance company acknowledges it has received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Credit Acceptance Corp. posted a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission stating the company that specializes in subprime auto financing received a civil investigative subpoena from the Justice Department pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.
The subpoena is directing Credit Acceptance to produce certain documents relating to subprime automotive finance and related securitization activities.
3. CPS to Pay $5.5M to Settle FTC Charges
WASHINGTON, D.C., and IRVINE, Calif. — The Federal Trade Commission said that Consumer Portfolio Services will pay more than $5.5 million to settle charges that the subprime auto finance company used “illegal tactics” to service and collect consumers’ loans, including collecting money consumers did not owe, harassing consumers and third parties, and disclosing debts to friends, family and employers.
According to regulators, CPS agreed to refund or adjust 128,000 consumers’ accounts constituting more than $3.5 million and forebear collections on an additional 35,000 accounts to settle charges the company violated the FTC Act.
The FTC also indicated CPS will pay another $2 million in civil penalties to settle FTC charges that the company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)’s Furnisher Rule.
4. CFPB Allegations Against American Honda Finance
TORRANCE, Calif. — First, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice delivered notices to Toyota Motor Credit Corp., alleging discriminatory practices regarding vehicle financing.
Now, American Honda Finance revealed it also received the same allegations from these federal regulators.
In documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, officials from the CFPB and DOJ sent a letter to Honda’s captive finance company saying they have authorized enforcement actions alleging discrimination in automobile loan pricing to certain borrowers by dealers and alleging the loan pricing disparities were caused by AHFC’s business practices related to dealers.
5. Pelican Auto Finance’s Plan to be a Top Subprime Player
CHADDS FORD, Pa. — Pelican Auto Finance is using what executives describe as a “crawl-walk-run approach” to growth in the deep subprime auto financing world. And they want to start running to the point where the company’s portfolio ranks among the top five institutions nationwide, blending together a business strategy of being an indirect lender for franchised and independent dealers to tap as well as a purchaser of paper from buy-here, pay-here operators.
“Right now we have significant capitalization behind us,” Pelican chief executive officer Troy Cavallaro told SubPrime Auto Finance News.
“I think a year from now we’re going to be well positioned to be one of the top four lenders in the deep subprime space,” Cavallaro continued. “I understand that Westlake’s portfolio is well over a $1 billion and Credit Acceptance’s portfolio is well over $1 billion. We don’t expect to get there in the next 12, 18 or 24 months. But we think we can position ourselves to be the No. 4 or No. 5 deep subprime lender in the nation. That’s our goal is to get there.”
6. Dodd-Frank Power Triggers Action Against NY Lender
NEW YORK —The Dodd-Frank Act provided the foundation for more regulation of auto financing by federal regulators. Now a state-level agency is leveraging Dodd-Frank to seek orders against a New York-based subprime lender.
Benjamin Lawsky, who is New York’s Superintendent of Financial Services, obtained a temporary restraining order in federal court against Condor Capital Corp., a subprime auto lender headquartered on Long Island, and its owner, Stephen Baron.
Lawsky explained a DFS investigation uncovered that allegedly Condor has engaged in a longstanding scheme to steal millions of dollars from its customers — among other unfair, abusive, and deceptive practices.
7. Investment Firm to Merge Flagship Credit Acceptance & CarFinance Capital
CHADDS FORD, Pa., and NEW YORK — The investment firm that oversees two subprime auto finance companies — Flagship Credit Acceptance and CarFinance Capital — announced that it is merging the two operations together.
Officials from the alternative asset management unit of Perella Weinberg Partners explained the combined company now will total assets in excess of $2 billion.
“Since forming Flagship and CarFinance, we have been pleased with the performance and strong execution of both companies,” said David Schiff, partner at Perella Weinberg Partners and portfolio manager of the asset based value strategy. “Together, the two companies will create a top-tier independent auto finance company with enhanced scale, lower cost of capital, superior cost controls and more efficient access to the capital markets.”
8. Report: 6 Finance Companies Subpoenaed in NY
NEW YORK — Regulatory investigations of auto finance companies are piling up as now reportedly the New York Department of Financial Services is joining the fray.
An online report citing an anonymous source indicated New York state’s financial services regulator subpoenaed the captive arms of Ford, Honda, Nissan and Volkswagen as well as Santander and TD Bank.
A person familiar with the matter told Reuters the developments are part of a probe of possible consumer abuses in subprime auto lending.
9. Department of Justice Subpoenas GM Financial
FORT WORTH, Texas — As the company completed a property purchase to house more personnel, General Motors Financial said in a regulatory filing that the company has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
According to the paperwork posted with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Justice Department officials served GM Financial with a subpoena on July 28.
Company officials said the subpoena directs them to produce certain documents relating to their and their subsidiaries’ and affiliates’ origination and securitization of subprime auto loan contracts since 2007 in connection with an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice in contemplation of a civil proceeding for potential violations of Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989.
10. Latest House Bill Aims at Curbing CFPB’s Authority
WASHINGTON, D.C. — During the same week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau “strongly urged” companies to make credit scores more readily available, a bill passed through the U.S. House aimed at limiting the authority of the bureau, which the measure’s author called, “a dangerously powerful and dangerously unaccountable agency.”
As currently constructed, Rep. Sean Duffy, a Wisconsin Republican who authored H.R. 3193 — known as the Consumer Financial Freedom and Washington Accountability Act — indicated the bill would accomplish four objectives.
SubPrime Auto Finance News gratefully thanks all subscribers, advertisers and industry partners for their support, interest, readership and feedback throughout the year.
Regular updates on industry trends, analysis and more will return on Jan. 2.
In the meantime, happy holidays and best wishes for a great 2015.
Best regards,
Nick Zulovich
Editor, SubPrime Auto Finance News
