Friday, September 14, 2012

CFPB Should Drop APR Proposal

Sixteen trade groups, including ABA and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, urged the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to drop a proposal to create a new, higher “all in” annual percentage rate calculation that would include additional fees and charges. The APR measure is part of the CFPB’s massive proposed rule intended to combine and simplify mortgage disclosure requirements under the Truth in Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The trade groups noted that the CFPB’s own research shows that consumers confuse the APR with the note rate and it is of little value to them. “Simply adding additional fees to an unhelpful formulation that consumers do not use or understand will add significant costs and complications to the rulemaking effort, with no measurable benefit to the borrower,” they said.

The trade groups also pointed out that the APR is embedded in numerous other mortgage finance rules as a trigger for added compliance requirements, and it isn’t clear how the reconfigured APR would affect such rules. They emphasized that the Dodd-Frank Act doesn’t require wholesale changes to the APR and urged the CFPB to simplify the RESPA-TILA rulemaking by focusing only on elements needed to implement the statute’s requirements.

Finally, the trade groups asked the CFPB to publish a single version of Regulation Z that would reflect how it would be amended by all pending proposals. “This would improve our ability to provide input that CFPB will need before the comment periods close,” they said.

Read the letter.


  1. Great move!I really appreciate to you for this useful sharing.

  2. Where does CUNA stand on this?



The content is provided for educational purposes only, with the understanding that neither the authors, contributors, nor the publishers of this site are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other expert or professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Comments appearing in response to articles appearing on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the ABA. ABA makes no representations regarding the truth or accuracy of commentary or opinions that may be posted in response to the articles that appear on this website.

The inclusion herein of any link to a website, either in the text of an article or in a comment, does not denote any approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by the ABA, and ABA is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed on those linked websites or related commentary. This content is not licensed to third parties sites and is not affiliated with any third party site. Any reference to the author or this content on any third party site on the Internet is not authorized by the ABA.

It is the policy of the American Bankers Association to comply fully with all antitrust laws. Certain discussions should be considered off-limits, including those that contain competitively sensitive data such as price and cost information, or statements that could be construed as reflecting an attempt or desire to control or influence a particular market or markets. Future pricing or other prospective competitive information should never be shared.