Protocol | Fintech

A Trump-era fintech backdoor for high-interest loans is under scrutiny

The Trump administration's "True Lender" rule allowed predatory lending by rent-a-banks, advocates say. Overturning it will create confusion for fintechs, the rule's backers argue. The House is set to review it.

​Sen. Sherrod Brown

Sen. Sherrod Brown is seeking reforms to banking rules that affect fintechs.

Photo: Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Members of Congress and consumer advocates are pushing for rollback of a Trump-era "True Lender" rule that supporters say has made consumer lending more competitive and critics say is just a new avenue for predatory lending.

For fintech lenders, much is at stake: The rule allowed bank-fintech partnerships, also known as marketplace lending arrangements, to flourish. A tighter regulatory regime may force some to rethink their product offerings or even their business models.

A House committee is expected to discuss the measure soon at a hearing. The measure recently passed the Senate.

At issue is an October rule change at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that clarified that a fintech company or other nonbank could partner with a chartered bank (the "true lender" in the rule) to make loans as long as the bank's name is on the loan agreement. That bright-line test is something the proposed rollback would eliminate — which would create more uncertainty on who the "true lender" is, some in the banking industry say.

The bright-line test under the OCC rule also meant that the banks and their fintech partners could lend at interest rates above a state's interest rate caps, advocates say. The banks, which are actually loaning the money, can do this by "exporting" interest rates from their home states, which is legal under the National Banking Act. (Forty-five states and D.C. have interest rate caps. The median interest rate cap for a two-year, $2,000 loan is 31% APR, according to the National Consumer Law Center.)

Advocates point to numerous examples of online lenders and others partnering with banks to offer interest rates above 100% APR, with some up to 200%.

"The rule says that as long as the bank's name is on the loan agreement, that triggers federal law that preempts state interest rate limits," said Lauren Saunders, associate director at the National Consumer Law Center.

In April, D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine sued OppFi, alleging that the startup charged interest rates of up to 198% and used deceptive marketing. D.C. has a 24% interest rate cap. Racine last year also sued Elevate, another online lender.

In New York, a restaurant owner borrowed $67,000 at a 268% APR from World Business Lenders and its bank partner Axos Bank of Nevada — one of the states without an interest rate cap.

Last year, online lenders Avant and Marlette settled with Colorado's attorney general in a suit that alleged they charged interest rates above the state's 36% cap. The companies, which had lended through banks WebBank and Cross River Bank, agreed to not lend above the state's 36% limit and to pay for Colorado consumer protection efforts and other education programs.

The debate over whether online lenders are actually banks is occurring as a parallel issue has arisen for another type of fintech — neobanks — which have been challenged on whether they can even call themselves banks. Chime recently had to drop the use of the word "bank" from its marketing after a settlement agreement with California regulators.

If this True Lender rule change passes, online lenders would not be able to use the OCC rule as a defense, potentially making it harder to offer these loans.

"The real consequence of not having a bright-line test is you are subject to a patchwork of judicial decisions," said Crystal Kaldjob, a partner at Morrison & Foerster. She believes that the Colorado settlement could become a model for how the issue is regulated in states.

The "true lender" change is being conflated with interest rates, said OppFi's Jared Kaplan. "Banks have a right to lend nationally based on their state domicile, full stop," he said. "This has nothing to do with rates. This has all to do with who is the lender in the transaction."

Banks also have similar relationships working with partners who are mortgage companies and personal and installment lenders, Kaplan said.

Asked about the D.C. case, he said, "We're incredibly confident in the way we work with banks. We look forward to a successful resolution there."

Kaplan doesn't expect the passage of the bill to affect OppFi, as the OCC will revert back to the pre-October way it defined a "true lender." He said OppFi's bank partners are in control of the loans: "No questions asked."

But OppFi offers an example of fintech business models that may come under scrutiny. Several days after its bank partners make the loans, OppFi acquires participation rights in those loans — meaning it buys a portion of profits in the loans.

How these deals are structured has often been a key part of how courts determine who the "true lender" is, said Kaldjob. Online lenders typically go out and find the customers and manage the relationship with the customer, though the bank is actually funding the loans.

Some courts view the bank as the "true lender," while others view the online lender as having "predominant economic interest" as the "true lender." The factors that determine this include:

  • Whether the nonbank pre-funds the loan, which essentially means the nonbank funds the loans;
  • The length of time that a bank holds the loan before selling it;
  • And whether the fintech buys some or all of the loan after a holding period.

The American Bankers Association and other banking groups oppose the bill, saying that using the Congressional Review Act to pass this replacement rule will make it harder to make changes later.

The White House supports the change and eight state attorneys general sued in January to overturn the rule.

House Financial Services committee chair Maxine Waters has expressed support for the bill. But some House Democrats are pushing back against it, according to the American Prospect.

Neither a true borrower nor a true lender be

The reason that fintechs like OppFi exist is that traditional banks aren't filling a massive need for these types of smaller, short-term loans for people with lower credit scores, Kaplan said. "Traditional banks rely on FICO credit score" to underwrite, he said. "They don't understand how to figure out creditworthiness based on alternative data techniques like cash flow."

OppFi is offering loans to people who can't get loans at a bank and would otherwise go to a payday lender, tribal lender or auto-title lender, which all charge much higher interest rates and hidden fees, Kaplan said.

Big banks generally don't want to do these smaller loans because they say they can't make money on them. However, U.S. Bank recently began offering small loans with an APR of about 70.7%.

The proposed lender-rule rollback does not address interest rates directly, its advocates acknowledge, but it makes sky-high interest rates harder to offer by addressing the definition of who the lender is in the fintech-bank relationship.

Actually changing the interest rate caps, or prohibiting exporting of interest rates, would require changing the National Banking Act, a big legislative lift. The proposed change more narrowly addresses the "true lender" rule. Sen. Sherrod Brown has said he plans to introduce a broader bill addressing interest rates.

"This rent-a-bank problem highlights the need for a national interest rate limit that includes banks," said NCLC's Saunders.
Protocol | Workplace

Productivity apps can’t stop making money

ClickUp had one of the biggest Series C funding rounds ever. Here's how it matches up to the other productivity unicorns.

ClickUp made $400 million in its series C funding round.

Photo: ClickUp

Productivity platform ClickUp announced a milestone today. The company raised $400 million, which is one of the biggest series C funding rounds in the workplace productivity market ever. The round, led by Andreessen Horowitz and Tiger Global, put the private company at a $4 billion valuation post-money.

In case it's not clear: This is a massive amount of money. It shows how hot the productivity space is right now, with some predicting the market size could reach almost $120 billion by 2028. In a world of hybrid workers, all-in-one tool platforms are all the rage among both startups and productivity stalwarts. Companies everywhere want to escape tool overwhelm, where work is spread across dozens of apps.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

If you've ever tried to pick up a new fitness routine like running, chances are you may have fallen into the "motivation vs. habit" trap once or twice. You go for a run when the sun is shining, only to quickly fall off the wagon when the weather turns sour.

Similarly, for many businesses, 2020 acted as the storm cloud that disrupted their plans for innovation. With leaders busy grappling with the pandemic, innovation frequently got pushed to the backburner. In fact, according to McKinsey, the majority of organizations shifted their focus mainly to maintaining business continuity throughout the pandemic.

Keep Reading Show less
Gaurav Kataria
Group Product Manager, Trello at Atlassian
The Supreme Court of the United States
Photo: Angel Xavier Viera-Vargas

If a company resolved a data breach in the past, does it need to disclose the potential negative fallout of that breach as a risk to investors later on? In a new petition asking the Supreme Court to take up the question, Alphabet is arguing emphatically: no. And it's using the ol' "the past is history, tomorrow's a mystery" defense.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Workplace

Facebook’s hiring crisis: Engineers are turning down offers

"All of you are now starting to experience that major imbalance between supply and demand — and it doesn't feel good," a recruiting leader wrote in an internal memo.

Here are all the Facebook Papers stories
Image: Getty Images, Protocol

Facebook cannot find enough candidates to meet engineering demand, especially in the Bay Area, and has struggled and failed to meet early 2021 recruiting goals, according to a detailed internal memo outlining recruitment strategy and hiring pains.

The company also failed to meet hiring goals in 2019, which frustrated CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and it built an ad-hoc team of leaders to create an emergency plan to address the painful shortage, according to disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Frances Haugen's legal counsel. A consortium of news organizations, including Protocol, has reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.

Keep Reading Show less
Anna Kramer

Anna Kramer is a reporter at Protocol (Twitter: @ anna_c_kramer, email: akramer@protocol.com), where she writes about labor and workplace issues. Prior to joining the team, she covered tech and small business for the San Francisco Chronicle and privacy for Bloomberg Law. She is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she studied International Relations and Arabic and wrote her senior thesis about surveillance tools and technological development in the Middle East.

Theranos trial reveals DeVos family invested $100 million

The family committed "on the spot" to double its investment, an investment adviser said. Meanwhile, the jury lost another two members, with two alternates left.

Betsy DeVos' family invested $100 million in Theranos, an investment adviser said.

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Lisa Peterson, a wealth manager for the DeVos family, testified in Elizabeth Holmes's criminal fraud trial Tuesday, as prosecutors continued to highlight allegations about how the Theranos CEO courted investors in the once-high-flying blood-testing startup.

An email presented by the defense revealed that the family committed to doubling their investment in Theranos to $100 million "on the spot" during a 2014 visit to company headquarters.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Latest Stories