Dodd-Frank Regulations: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Needs a Systematic Process to Prioritize Consumer Risks
Released: 2018-12-21T00:00:00

Letter

Background

CFPB’s Research, Markets, and Regulations Division has primary responsibility for CFPB’s efforts to monitor market developments and risks to consumers and to retrospectively assess rules. As shown in figure 1, the division is composed of the Office of Research, the Office of Regulations, and the following four offices (collectively known as the “Markets Offices”), which are focused on different consumer financial markets:

The Office of Card, Payment, and Deposit Markets monitors credit cards, deposit accounts, prepaid cards, and remittances, as well as other emerging forms of payment and related technologies, such as mobile payments and virtual currencies. It also monitors data aggregation services.

The Office of Consumer Lending, Reporting, and Collection Markets monitors debt collection, debt relief, and consumer reporting and scoring, as well as student, auto, and the small-dollar and personal lending markets.

The Office of Mortgage Markets monitors the mortgage markets, including originations, servicing, and secondary markets.

The Office of Small Business Lending Markets monitors credit to small businesses, including traditional lenders, specialty financing, and emerging technologies.

The four Markets Offices are responsible for collecting and sharing market intelligence, helping to shape CFPB policy (including through participation on rulemaking teams), and helping to inform the marketplace through research and outreach. The Office of Research is responsible for conducting research to support the design and implementation of CFPB’s consumer protection policies, including developing and writing any required cost-benefit analyses for rulemakings. Among other things, these offices research, analyze, and report on consumer financial markets issues. These offices also help inform the work of the Office of Regulations, which supports and provides strategic direction for CFPB’s rulemaking, guidance, and regulatory implementation functions.

The Markets Offices and the Office of Research contribute to CFPB’s efforts to address the Dodd-Frank Act requirement that CFPB monitor for certain risks to consumers in support of its rulemaking and other functions. This provision states that CFPB may consider a number of factors in allocating its resources for risk-monitoring efforts with regard to consumer financial products and the markets for those products, such as consumers’ understanding of a type of product’s risks, the extent to which existing law is likely to protect consumers, and any disproportionate effects on traditionally underserved consumers. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act gives CFPB authority in connection with such monitoring to gather information from time to time regarding the organization, business conduct, markets, and activities of covered persons or service providers from a variety of sources, including several sources specified in the act. Finally, this provision requires CFPB to issue at least one report of significant findings from its risk monitoring each calendar year.

The Office of Research has led CFPB’s efforts to address the Dodd-Frank Act requirement that CFPB conduct assessments of each significant final rule or order it adopts and publish a report of the assessment no later than 5 years after the rule or order’s effective date. Before publishing a report of its assessment, CFPB must invite public comment on whether the rule or order should be modified, expanded, or eliminated. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act provides CFPB authority to require covered persons or service providers to provide information to help support these assessments, as well as to support its risk-monitoring activities.

In addition to the Research, Markets, and Regulations Division, other CFPB divisions and offices conduct outreach to help inform CFPB policy making. For example, CFPB’s External Affairs Division facilitates conversation with stakeholders, such as Congress, financial institutions, state governments, and the public. In addition, in the Consumer Education and Engagement Division, the Office of Consumer Response manages the intake of and response to complaints about consumer financial products and services. All of the divisions report to the Director. In November 2017, the President designated a new Acting Director of CFPB, and in December 2018, the Senate voted to confirm a new Director of the bureau.

CFPB Monitors Consumer Financial Markets to Inform Policy but Does Not Systematically Prioritize Consumer Risks

CFPB Routinely Monitors Market Trends and Collects Targeted Information for Rulemaking and Other Purposes

To address the Dodd-Frank Act consumer risk-monitoring requirement, CFPB routinely monitors consumer financial markets through a variety of methods. It also conducts more targeted market monitoring to support rulemaking and other agency functions.

Routine Monitoring

CFPB collects and monitors routine market data and other market intelligence through a combination of internal and external data sources and outreach (see fig. 2). Markets Offices staff use information from these sources to analyze market trends and identify emerging risks that may require greater attention. Staff produce monthly and quarterly reports that summarize or analyze observed market developments and trends, and they distribute them bureau-wide.

CFPB internal data and research. Staff in CFPB’s Markets Offices use CFPB data and research to identify and monitor risks. For example, in our review of CFPB’s market intelligence reports from July 2016 through July 2018, we observed the following frequently cited internal CFPB data sources:

Consumer complaints submitted to CFPB. Markets Offices staff monitor consumer complaints to track trends and potential problems in the marketplace. For example, monthly mortgage trend reports we reviewed cited changes in total numbers of mortgage complaints, as well as in complaints related to private mortgage insurance, escrow accounts, and other mortgage-related topics.

Consumer Credit Trends tool. This tool is based on a nationally representative sample of commercially available, anonymized credit records. Markets Offices staff use this tool to monitor conditions and outcomes for specific groups of consumers in markets for mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, and student loans. For example, CFPB monthly auto market trend reports cited the tool as a source for information on changes in the volume of auto loans by neighborhood income.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. CFPB maintains loan-level data that mortgage lenders report pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. According to CFPB, Markets Offices staff use the data for their market monitoring, which can include analysis to determine whether lenders are serving the housing needs of their communities and to identify potentially discriminatory lending patterns.

External data and research. In addition to its internal databases, CFPB obtains external market data from a number of public and proprietary data sources. The market intelligence reports we reviewed included the following commonly cited external sources, among others: federal databases and research, such as the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit; publicly available information from sources such as industry websites, mainstream news publications, and publicly traded companies’ financial statements. proprietary data from sources such as data analytics services and credit reporting agencies.

Engagement with industry representatives. CFPB also gathers market intelligence from engagement with industry representatives. Market intelligence reports we reviewed cited several meetings with industry representatives and regular CFPB attendance at industry conferences. Representatives of two trade groups we interviewed told us that CFPB had sometimes proactively reached out to them regarding areas of potential risk. According to CFPB, in fiscal year 2018, Markets Offices staff conducted an average of about 50 meetings with industry per month and held intelligence-gathering meetings across various consumer financial markets throughout the year.

Engagement with consumer organizations. CFPB’s External Affairs Division, which is responsible for engagement with the nonprofit sector, facilitates most communication between Markets Offices staff and consumer organizations to help inform staff’s risk monitoring efforts. According to CFPB, between January and September 2018, staff from the External Affairs and Research, Markets, and Regulation divisions held an average of about four meetings per month with consumer organizations and nonprofit stakeholders, and Markets Offices staff said these meetings provided information useful in monitoring markets. Two of the three consumer organizations we interviewed noted that their communication with CFPB had decreased since late 2017. However, one group noted that external engagement has typically been greater when CFPB is going through a rulemaking and that rulemaking activity had slowed in the last year.

Advisory committees and other formal outreach. CFPB obtains information on consumer financial issues and emerging market trends from various advisory groups and other formal outreach. In 2012, CFPB established a consumer advisory board, in accordance with a Dodd-Frank Act requirement. It also established three additional advisory councils (community bank, credit union, and academic) to obtain external perspectives on issues affecting its mission. The groups, which include subgroups focused on various consumer financial market areas or issues, met regularly through 2017. CFPB dismissed the existing members of the consumer advisory board and community bank and credit union advisory councils in June 2018 and reconstituted the groups with new, smaller memberships that resumed meeting in September 2018. In addition, from July 2016 to mid-November 2018, CFPB solicited public input through public field hearings and town hall meetings on issues such as debt collection, consumer access to financial records, and elder financial abuse, among other issues.

Coordination with other regulators. CFPB engages with the federal prudential regulators and other federal and state agencies to inform its routine market-monitoring efforts. This engagement can occur through mechanisms such as working groups, task forces, and information- sharing agreements. For example, CFPB is a member of a working group of federal housing agencies, whose members share market intelligence and discuss risks they have observed in the mortgage markets. Markets Offices staff also receive quarterly, publicly available bank and credit union call report data through the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and the National Credit Union Administration, with which it has information-sharing agreements.

Targeted Monitoring

CFPB has supplemented its routine monitoring by conducting targeted research and data collection to inform rulemaking efforts, meet statutory reporting requirements, and learn more about a particular market for consumer financial products. As noted earlier, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes CFPB to collect certain data from covered persons and service providers.

Since July 2016, to support bureau rulemaking efforts, Markets Offices staff have augmented their routine monitoring with targeted use of supervisory data collected through CFPB’s examinations of covered persons and service providers. The Research, Markets, and Regulations Division has a formal information-sharing agreement with CFPB’s Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending Division. Under this agreement, staff in the Office of Small Business Lending Markets used supervisory information on common data terminology used by business lenders to inform recommendations on data elements that should be included in a potential small business data collection rule. In addition, as discussed below, Markets Offices staff reviewed aggregated and anonymized supervisory information from CFPB’s examinations of payday lenders for research that informed the November 2017 Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans Rule, also referred to as the Payday Rule.

In addition to rulemaking, CFPB has conducted targeted risk-monitoring activities to support certain statutory reporting requirements. For its mandated biennial credit card study, CFPB used its data-collection authorities under the Dodd-Frank Act to make four mandatory information requests to a total of 15 credit card issuers. According to CFPB officials, this study and other statutory reporting efforts—such as the bureau’s annual report on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—also support their market-monitoring efforts under the Dodd-Frank Act. CFPB notified the relevant federal and state regulators of its impending requests to the credit card issuers under those regulators’ supervision.

Finally, CFPB has sometimes engaged in targeted data collection to learn more about specific areas of potential consumer financial risk. In some cases, CFPB has used its Dodd-Frank Act data collection authority under Section 1022 to require a company to provide data. For example, to understand developments with respect to person-to-person payments, CFPB required a payment processing company to provide certain information regarding its system. In other cases, CFPB has obtained targeted data through voluntary agreements with other regulators. For instance, in January 2018, CFPB reached an agreement with the Federal Reserve to obtain supervisory data on bank holding companies’ and intermediate holding companies’ mortgage and home equity loan portfolios. According to CFPB officials, they plan to use the data to monitor trends and risks in the mortgage market and inform bureau policy making.

Monitoring of Consumer Risks Has Informed CFPB’s Rulemaking and Other Efforts

The market monitoring conducted by CFPB’s Markets Offices staff contributes to bureau rulemaking and other functions, such as supervision, guidance to industry, consumer education, and reporting.

Rulemaking. Since July 2016, CFPB’s market-monitoring efforts have informed certain rulemaking efforts. For example, Markets Offices analysis of the small-dollar lending market informed CFPB’s November 2017 Payday Rule, according to staff and the proposed and final rules. Staff said they had found that some borrowers were caught in a cycle of using payday loan products without the ability to repay the loans. Under the final rule, lenders for certain loans must reasonably determine up front that borrowers can afford to make the payments on their loans without needing to re-borrow within 30 days, while still meeting their basic living and other expenses. In addition, CFPB’s November 2016 Prepaid Accounts Rule reflected market-monitoring information and other research that staff helped collect on prepaid accounts. The rule incorporated findings from CFPB’s 2014 analysis of prepaid account agreements, which CFPB conducted to understand the potential costs and benefits of extending existing regulatory provisions—such as error resolution protections—to such agreements. Further, CFPB’s market intelligence reports we reviewed from 2017 and 2018 reflected Markets Offices staff’s communication with industry regarding a debt-collection rule—a topic that has been on CFPB’s public rulemaking agenda since 2013, based in part on market-monitoring findings.

Industry supervision and policy positions. Markets Offices staff’s market-monitoring findings have informed CFPB’s efforts to supervise institutions and communicate policy positions to industry participants. Staff assist the Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending Division in its annual risk-based prioritization process. In 2018, for example, staff provided information on market size and risk for more than a dozen market areas, which helped the supervision division prioritize its coverage of those market areas in its examination schedule. Markets Offices staff told us they also have met frequently with supervision staff to share issues identified through monitoring and determine whether supervisory guidance or related actions would be appropriate to address them. Further, according to CFPB, market-monitoring information supported bureau leadership’s public statements on selected market developments and informed policy documents, such as consumer protection principles on financial technology.

Consumer education. CFPB’s risk monitoring has informed its broader consumer education efforts. CFPB’s Consumer Education and Engagement Division provides financial education tools, including blogs and print and online guides on financial topics such as buying a home, choosing a bank or credit union, or responding to debt collectors. Markets Offices staff provided us with several examples of consumer education materials for which they had contributed subject-matter expertise since July 2016. Examples included a consumer advisory on credit repair services and blog posts on mortgage closing scams and tax refund advance loans.

Public reports. CFPB’s market-monitoring findings have informed several of its public reports since July 2016. According to CFPB officials, when Markets Offices staff identify risks they think could be mitigated by public communications to consumers, they work with the Consumer Education and Engagement Division, as well as other divisions, to publish relevant material. As noted earlier, the Dodd-Frank Act requires CFPB to issue at least one report annually of significant findings from its monitoring of risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services. CFPB officials stated that this requirement is addressed by the first section of CFPB’s semiannual reports to Congress, which discusses significant problems consumers face in shopping for or obtaining consumer financial products and services. CFPB officials further noted that other public CFPB reports include information related to risks to consumers and may also respond to the annual Dodd-Frank Act reporting requirement. For example, CFPB’s December 2017 biennial report on the consumer credit card market discussed credit card debt collection and persistent indebtedness faced by some consumers, among other consumer financial risks. In addition, CFPB’s quarterly consumer credit trend reports have discussed risks related to consumers financing auto purchases with longer-term loans.

CFPB Lacks a Systematic Bureau-Wide Process for Prioritizing Which Consumer Financial Risks to Address

CFPB currently lacks a systematic, bureau-wide process for prioritizing financial risks facing consumers—using information from its market monitoring, among other sources—and for considering how it will use its tools to address those risks. In 2015, CFPB initiated such a process, but CFPB officials said that the most recent round of this process was completed in 2017 and that its leadership has not yet decided whether to continue using the process. In a February 2016 public report, CFPB described this process (which CFPB refers to internally as “One Bureau”) for deploying shared bureau-wide resources to address some of the most troubling problems facing consumers. According to the report, through this One Bureau process, CFPB prioritized problems that pose risks to consumers based on the extent of the consumer harm CFPB had identified and its capacity to eliminate or mitigate that harm. The report identified near-term priority goals in nine areas where CFPB hoped to make substantial progress within 2 years. It provided evidence of the nature or extent of risks facing consumers and described how CFPB planned to use its tools—such as rulemaking, supervision, enforcement, research, and consumer education—to address the priority goals.

As part of the One Bureau process, CFPB created several cross-bureau working groups, which were focused on specific market areas and tasked with helping ensure progress toward CFPB’s near-term priority goals, among other responsibilities. The bureau revisited its stated priorities in June 2017 to guide its work through fiscal year 2018. However, officials said that while the working groups continue to facilitate communication, informal collaboration, and strategy-setting across the bureau, CFPB has not decided whether to engage in a third round of prioritization under the One Bureau process. The bureau was without a permanent Director from November 2017 until December 2018, when the Senate confirmed a new Director. CFPB officials told us that CFPB may revise its approach to prioritization under new leadership.

Federal internal control standards state that management should use quality information to achieve agency objectives, such as by using quality information to make informed decisions. In addition, the standards state that management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Through One Bureau, CFPB had a process to use the large amount of data and market intelligence it collected on consumer risks to make informed decisions about its bureau- wide policy priorities and how it would address them. CFPB has mechanisms in place for the Markets Offices to inform the work of individual divisions. For example, as noted, Markets Offices staff contribute to rulemaking efforts (including through participation on rulemaking teams) and to the annual setting of supervisory priorities. However, although the Markets Offices continue to collect market intelligence and contribute to cross-bureau working groups, CFPB currently lacks a process for systematically prioritizing risks or problems facing consumers and identifying the most effective tools to address those risks.

CFPB officials noted that the bureau issued 12 requests for information in early 2018 to seek public input to inform its priorities. Topics covered by these requests for public input have included the bureau’s rulemaking process and its inherited and adopted rules. In an October 2018 statement, CFPB announced that it expected to publish an updated statement of rulemaking priorities by spring 2019 based on consideration of various activities, including its ongoing market monitoring and its analysis of the public comments from the requests for information. However, this prioritization effort focuses on setting rulemaking priorities and does not incorporate all of CFPB’s other tools to respond to consumer financial risks.

While CFPB has continued to take steps to consider information to inform its policy priorities, a systematic, bureau-wide process to prioritize risks to consumers and consider how CFPB will use its full set of tools to address them could help to ensure that CFPB effectively focuses its resources on the most significant risks to consumers. This, in turn, could enhance CFPB’s capacity to meet its statutory consumer protection objectives.

CFPB Has Taken Steps to Meet Statutory Requirements for Retrospectively Assessing Significant Rules

CFPB Developed Criteria to Identify and Assess Relevant Rules

In two internal memorandums, CFPB documented an initial process for meeting the Dodd-Frank Act requirement to retrospectively assess significant rules or orders and issue reports of such assessments within 5 years of the rule or order’s effective date. According to CFPB officials, the bureau may modify the process for future work after it has completed its first three assessments. The assessments will be in addition to other regulatory reviews conducted by CFPB.

To determine which of its final rules were significant for purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act retrospective assessment requirement, CFPB created a four-factor test. In applying this test, CFPB analyzes the rule’s 1. cumulative annual cost to covered persons of over $100 million, 2. effects on the features of consumer financial products and services, 3. effects on business operations of providers that support the product or 4. effects on the market, including the availability of consumer financial products and services.

The memorandums recommended weighing the first factor more heavily and considering factors two through four cumulatively, so that high-cost rules tend to be considered significant. If a rule’s cumulative annual costs exceed $100 million, CFPB may consider the rule to be significant even if the cumulative effect from factors two through four is small. If the rule’s costs do not exceed $100 million, there must be a large cumulative effect from factors two through four for the rule to be considered significant.

After applying the test to nine rules in early 2017, CFPB determined that three were significant for retrospective assessment purposes:

Remittance Rule. This rule covers remittances, which are a cross- border transfer of funds.

Ability-to-Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM Rule). This rule covers consumers’ ability to repay mortgage loans and categories of mortgage loans that meet the ability-to-repay requirement (qualified mortgages).

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Servicing Rule.

This rule covers loan servicing requirements under RESPA.

CFPB staff told us that in the future they plan to apply the four-factor test to rules not already subject to an assessment within 3 years of the rules’ effective dates, pending new leadership’s review of the test. As of November 2018, staff told us they had not yet formally applied the test to any additional rules. However, they told us that they plan to apply the test to the TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule in 2019. If CFPB determines that the rule is significant, CFPB officials said they plan to complete an assessment in late 2020.

In addition to outlining the four-factor test, a March 2016 memorandum documented CFPB’s decision to generally focus any significant new data collection efforts on a rule’s effects on consumer and market-wide outcomes rather than effects on businesses. In the memorandum, CFPB noted that the objectives of many of its rules focus on improved consumer experiences and outcomes, such as reductions in loan-default risk and improved access to financial product information and credit. However, the memorandum also noted that CFPB would assess outcomes for businesses when data were available at minimal cost. In addition, the memorandum explained that CFPB would consider spending additional resources to collect data on business outcomes under certain conditions, such as when unfavorable outcomes for businesses could meaningfully affect significant numbers of consumers. Although CFPB stated in its March 2016 memorandum that it did not plan to formally assess the previously mentioned three rules’ costs or benefits to providers, it stated in its October 2018 Remittance Rule Assessment Report that it may reconsider that decision for future rule assessments.

In the March 2016 memorandum, CFPB also documented a decision to not make specific policy recommendations in the final reports for the retrospective assessments. CFPB expects the findings from its final assessment reports to inform its policy development process, through which it makes decisions about future rulemaking efforts. In the March 2016 memorandum, CFPB explained that separating the assessments from policy recommendations would keep the assessments focused on evidence-based descriptions. As previously described, CFPB also issued requests for information to obtain public input on effects of its inherited and adopted rules, in addition to the required retrospective assessments.

CFPB staff stated that they plan to use the lessons learned from the initial assessment process to inform their procedures for future assessments. According to CFPB, a future procedures document is to outline its process for the retrospective assessments required by the Dodd-Frank Act as well as for similar assessments CFPB may conduct pursuant to other statutes or executive orders.

CFPB Has Made Progress toward Completing Its First Three Assessments

For each of the three rules it determined to be significant, CFPB created detailed assessment plans and a timeline for completion (see table 1). Each plan defined which aspects of the rules the assessment would focus on; outlined the scope and methodology, including challenges for the assessment and potential limitations of methodology; and identified data CFPB planned to gather and compile, including CFPB’s own and third-party data, and explained how the data will be used to evaluate the effects of the rule.

CFPB issued requests for information between March and June of 2017 to collect public input on each assessment and created plans for incorporating the comments in each assessment report. As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, these requests solicited comments on modifying, expanding, or eliminating the rules. In addition, CFPB requested comments on the assessment plans and invited suggestions on other data that might be useful for evaluating the rules’ effects. In a document provided to us, CFPB described its preliminary plan to summarize comments received from the public and use the information received. CFPB staff told us they adjusted their research questions and data sources on all three assessments in response to comments. For example, based on comments, they added a question to an industry survey about a provision of the Remittance Rule and incorporated a new data source into the ATR/QM Rule and RESPA Servicing Rule assessments.

Other data sources used for the assessments include federal and state agencies, voluntary surveys of providers of consumer financial products, and loan data from servicers. For example, for the Remittance Rule assessment, CFPB sent a voluntary industry survey to 600 money transmitters, banks, and credit unions on how the rule has affected their business practices and costs, as well as potential problems in specific market segments. For the RESPA Servicing Rule assessment, CFPB conducted qualitative structured interviews with mortgage servicers to learn about changes servicers had to make in response to the rule.

CFPB published its Remittance Rule Assessment Report in October 2018. The report analyzed trends in the volume of remittance transfers, the number of providers, and the price of transfers. For example, CFPB found that declining remittance prices and an increase in the volume of remittances—trends that had begun before the rule’s effective date— continued afterward. However, CFPB was unable to conclude whether these trends would have changed without the rule. In addition, the report noted that new technology has increased access to remittances but has also complicated CFPB’s attempts to measure the effects of the Remittance Rule on consumers. The report also estimated the rule’s initial and continued compliance costs for businesses, estimating that they added between 30 and 33 cents for the one-time cost in 2014 and between 7 and 37 cents in continuing costs per remittance in 2017. In addition, the report summarized comments and information CFPB received from a request for information in March 2017.

Conclusions

In monitoring risks of financial products and services to consumers, CFPB has drawn from a wide range of sources, and its findings have informed its key consumer protection tools, such as rulemakings and consumer education materials. In 2016 and 2017, CFPB’s One Bureau process allowed it to consider the market information it collected to prioritize the most important risks to consumers and determine how to most effectively address those risks on a bureau-wide basis. However, CFPB has not yet decided whether to use the One Bureau process to reexamine its priorities and has instead relied on prioritization mechanisms that focus on its use of individual policy tools, such as its processes for setting rulemaking and supervision priorities. Putting a systematic bureau-wide prioritization process in place could help CFPB ensure that it focuses on the most significant risks to consumers and effectively meets its statutory consumer protection objectives.

Recommendation for Executive Action

The Director of CFPB should implement a systematic process for prioritizing risks to consumers and considering how to use the bureau’s available policy tools—such as rulemaking, supervision, enforcement, and consumer education—to address these risks. Such a process could incorporate principles from the prior One Bureau process, such as an assessment of the extent of potential harm to consumers in financial markets, to prioritize the most significant risks. (Recommendation 1)

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this product to CFPB for comment. We also provided the relevant excerpts of the draft report to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for their review and technical comments. CFPB provided oral and written comments, which are summarized below. CFPB’s written comments are reproduced in appendix I. In addition, CFPB and the Federal Housing Finance Agency provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had no comments.

In oral comments provided on November 29, 2018, CFPB’s Acting Deputy Director and other CFPB officials clarified the status of the One Bureau process. The officials clarified that while CFPB officials had previously told us that the One Bureau process was on hold, work on One Bureau priorities has continued with support from a set of cross-bureau working groups. The officials noted that CFPB had not yet determined whether to engage in another round of the One Bureau priority-setting process. In addition, in its written comments, CFPB highlighted the role of the cross- bureau working groups in its market monitoring and other efforts. In response to these comments, we made edits to clarify the status of the One Bureau process and describe the role of the cross-bureau working groups.

In its written comments, CFPB did not agree or disagree with our recommendation but stated that it will endeavor to improve its processes for identifying and addressing consumer financial risks. CFPB stated that it recognizes the importance of having processes in place to prioritize and address risks to consumers in the financial marketplace. CFPB cited examples of existing processes—such as its processes for setting its rulemaking agenda and supervisory priorities—that were designed to ensure that its risk monitoring informs its work. In the oral comments, CFPB officials expressed concern that the draft report’s characterization of a lack of a systematic process for prioritizing risks to consumers might suggest that CFPB entirely lacks processes in this regard. We note that the draft report described CFPB’s existing processes for setting rulemaking and supervisory priorities. While we agree that these processes help CFPB to prioritize work in these areas, we maintain that these processes do not reflect a systematic, bureau-wide process for prioritizing risks to consumers and determining how to most effectively address them. We made minor edits to the report to clarify that the process CFPB lacks is a bureau-wide process that considers how it will use its full set of tools to address risks to consumers. We maintain that having such a process would help to ensure that CFPB focuses its resources on the most significant consumer risks and is well positioned to meet its consumer protection objectives.

We are sending copies of this report to CFPB, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the appropriate congressional committees and members, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or clementsm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact above, John Fisher (Assistant Director), Lisa Reynolds (Analyst-in-Charge), Bethany Benitez, Joseph Hackett, Marc Molino, Jennifer Schwartz, and Tyler Spunaugle made key contributions to this report.