Should the ARM Industry Follow Banks’ Lead in Fighting Back Against Increased Regulation?

Image courtesy of stockimages / freedigitalphotos.net

Dave Camp, a Republican Michigan lawmaker who was elected to Congress in 2012, received a great deal of support from banks during the 2012 elections.  However, the chair of the House Ways And Means Committee has recently turned his back on his supporters and proposed a bank tax to be collected from U.S. banks. Rep. Dave Camp’s proposal would increase taxes on banks in such a way that would threaten the bottom line of major equity players, causing his high finance donors to balk at the proposal.   

In a 2010 speech before the Tax Council, Camp stated, "I aim to launch and fight the tax reform battle once again.  And I am well aware that this might ruffle those who have used the tax code to benefit particular industries or activities at the expense of economic efficiency, simplicity, and fairness."  With their feathers truly “ruffled,” Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and other banks have joined forces to lobby against the tax burden that would directly affect the banking industry. 

For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Goldman Sachs refused to attend a fundraiser held in March for the National Republican Congressional Committee due to Rep. Camp’s tax proposal.  After being pressured by banks to publicly denounce the tax plan, 54 Republican lawmakers signed a letter to Rep. Camp expressing their concerns about the tax.   

The concerted effort to join forces and fight increasing taxation and regulation that could harm the industry’s bottom line is something ARM insiders should take notice of.  As can be seen in the case of banks, if the ARM industry makes a concerted effort to protest regulation—including pressuring lawmakers and withholding political contributions—would it see the same success?  The question is: how much will the industry suffer before we begin fighting back? 

Local Municipalities Are Finding Creative Ways to Collect on Unpaid Accounts

Image courtesy of khunaspix / freedigitalphotos.net

Due to decreasing federal monies allocated to cities and towns across the nation, a recent trend in the ARM industry is the acquisition of accounts from a municipality, as collection regulations allow municipalities to outsource their collections accounts.  However, the municipality is still responsible for supervising the collection process to ensure that all rules are followed and that citizens’ rights are protected in the process. 

These collections accounts can originate from multiple sources: overdue library books; court fees that are delinquent; parking tickets that have not been paid; and of course, municipal taxes that are delinquent.  In fact, most municipal accounts are based on collections of the latter category.    

There are creative ways that local municipalities can increase the effectiveness of their collections practices.  For example:

• The town of Norfolk, Virginia has recently begun garnishing residents’ state income tax returns to collect on unpaid parking tickets. 

• New Haven, Connecticut has made use of mobile infrared technology to scan license plates and check the owner’s municipal debts.  During the first six months of this creative approach, the city was able to collect $1 million dollars of money that was owed to it. 

• San Francisco, California decided to focus on corporations with a large number or drivers (for example, UPS) who owed money for parking violations.  In their collections attempts, they billed these companies monthly for infringements and booted the vehicles when the money wasn’t paid.  As a result, the city collected $1.5 million dollars in money that was owed.    

• Augusta County, Virginia hires third-part collections agencies to collect on unpaid library dues.  The result was approximately $100,000 collected—a number which represents more than half of the annual library budget for acquiring new materials. 

• Ohio’s Portage and Cuyahoga Counties use third-party collections agencies to collect on their unpaid accounts, but charge the agency fees to the debtor.  This program has also been highly successful in assisting the counties seeking to balance their operating budgets.  

Can cities use debt collectors to collect on municipal debt?

The Big Wait for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Next Move

The Consumer Financial Protection bureau has placed the topic of debt collection at the forefront of their priorities as soon as the period of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ends.  What this means for the debt collection industry is that 2014 might become one of the most important years for the collection industry since the FDCPA was passed in 1977.

Some of the changes announced by the agency include increased regulations for debt collection practices.  These regulations could include restrictions placed on the originating creditors, as well as better accuracy on forms or documents that are shared between collection parties, debt buyers and settlement companies.  The potential also exists for updated rules on the limit and scope of communication that must transpire between a collection agency or collection attorneys and a debtor, including communication via text messaging. 

The biggest changes, according to senior CFPB officials, will likely occur for creditors that both originate -and collect on debt.  Currently, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act only places restrictions on third-party collectors.  These changes proposed this year by the CFPB could affect first-party creditors in much the same way that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act affects current third-party collectors.  It could also give the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the authority to supervise larger debt collectors that are not affiliated with a bank; although banks are also under fire for their current debt collection practices, as well. 

This past July, American Banker interviewed Paul Joseph, the director of business development for McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, a debt collection firm.  In that interview, Joseph stated: “You can't ignore this.  It's a freight train.  I have no doubt they're going to eventually come after everything [with regard to consumer debt].” If his conclusions are true, the ARM industry might be in for a rude awakening when the dust settles and the new regulations are in place.  

Notice from the Feds: Banks Will Be Held Responsible for Third-Party Collection Service Providers Used

At the end of 2013, the Federal Reserve Board released a reminder for all banks and banking institutions that they are held responsible for the actions of all third-party providers and collections agencies they hire, including ARM companies.  The statement advised all banks to take risk management measures seriously when considering the use of third-party collections, as a failure to collect according to increasing Federal regulatory procedures could hurt the reputation and financial well-being of larger companies. 

Also included in the issued guidelines were definitions of what the Federal Reserve Board considers to be a “service provider.”  In its definition, the FRB lists a service provider as any entity that enters into a contract with the financial institution in order to provide business functions or services for that financial institution.  With this definition, ARM firms would be clear-cut service providers, as would collection attorneys or collection agencies hired by larger banking institutions.  Other service providers might be firms offering accounting, loan review, compliance services, auditing and risk management assessments.

By holding financial institutions accountable for the actions of third-party ARM companies and collection attorneys, the Federal Reserve Board has taken an unprecedented move to encourage ARM businesses, collection agencies and collection attorneys to follow all compliance guidelines related to debt collection and legal action.  The loss of reputation and potential fines incurred by a larger financial institution means that they will be seeking only the most informed, professional ARM companies to provide third-party debt collections services.  It just makes better financial and business sense to play by the rules, particularly in the process of collecting on consumer debt. 

This guidance applies to all member banks of the Federal Reserve System, including savings and loan companies and nonbank subsidiaries.  Encouraging banks to closely monitor their ARM vendors keeps debt collection practices in line with new tighter Federal guidelines for collecting.  

How do I know if my ARM vendor will play by the rules?