Mortgage & Lending regulatory updates from United States.
We track 27 Mortgage & Lending updates from United States regulators, published by CFPB, OCC and Federal Reserve. The archive covers 7 policy statements, 5 guidance notes and 4 reports. Most recent update: November 2026. Coverage runs from 2025 to 2026.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today issued version 1.0 of the “Homeownership Counseling” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook.
Why this matters
The document is an OCC Comptroller's Handbook booklet that replaces a 2011 version and explains how examiners should assess existing homeownership counseling requirements under 12 USC 1701x(c)(5). That makes it guidance on applying existing rules rather than a rule or policy change.
PRESS RELEASE | NOVEMBER 5, 2026 Federal Bank Regulatory Agencies Release 2025 Small Business, Small Farm, and Community Development Lending Data WASHINGTON—The federal bank regulatory agencies, as members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), today released data on small business, small…
Why this matters
The document is a press release announcing the publication of FFIEC aggregate lending data under the Community Reinvestment Act, which is a statistical report. It concerns bank small business and farm lending, so Banking & Credit is the primary sector.
Interim final rule; request for comments. The NCUA Board (Board) is amending its regulations governing member business loans and commercial lending. This interim final rule eliminates an outdated, transitional provision that is no longer necessary. This action is necessary to reduce regulatory complexity and improve…
Why this matters
The document is an NCUA interim final rule (91 FR 69495) that removes and reserves § 723.9, a transitional provision covering pre-2017 waivers for borrowing relationship limits and ongoing enforcement constraints under part 723 (member business loans and commercial lending).
On October 28, 2026, the FOMC voted 10-2 to maintain the federal funds target range at 3.75% to 4.00% while continuing its ample-reserves operating framework. The decision is operationally significant for banks, broker-dealers, lenders, asset managers and other firms exposed to short-term rates because inflation remains elevated, two voting members preferred a 25-basis-point hike, and market commentary points to a meaningful possibility of further tightening at the December meeting.
Key dates
2026-10-28
FOMC statement released; target federal funds range maintained at 3.75% to 4.00% and ample-reserves policy continued.
Suggested considerations
Compliance and risk teams may wish to record the October 28, 2026 target range of 3.75% to 4.00% and the 10-2 vote in regulatory change-management and market-risk records.
Firms should consider reviewing interest-rate, basis, liquidity and funding-risk limits against scenarios involving a further 25-basis-point increase, including a possible December 2026 hike suggested by independent market commentary.
Banks and other lenders may wish to assess the effect of persistently elevated rates on borrower affordability, refinancing risk, delinquency assumptions, fair-lending monitoring and customer communications.
Treasury and finance teams should consider validating the treatment of the unchanged policy rate in transfer-pricing, liquidity-stress, valuation, hedge-accounting and capital-planning models.
Broker-dealers, asset managers and leveraged funds may wish to reassess margin, collateral, redemption-liquidity and counterparty exposures under higher-for-longer rate scenarios.
Compliance teams should consider monitoring the forthcoming FOMC implementation note and subsequent Federal Reserve communications for any operational details affecting reserve management or money-market conditions.
Firms should consider documenting the distinction between this policy decision and a new regulatory rule: the statement contains no new prudential ratio, disclosure, reporting or customer-protection requirement.
What changed
The FOMC made no change to the federal funds target range, which remains 3.75% to 4.00%, and did not announce a change to its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system. The statement upgraded its description of economic activity to expanding at a strong pace and characterized productivity growth and capital investment as strong or robust, while stating that inflation remains elevated. The Committee emphasized that it will assess additional information in determining the policy stance needed to return inflation to its 2% goal. Lisa D. Cook and Beth M.
Compliance impact
The direct compliance impact is low because the statement imposes no new binding obligation or firm-level threshold. The principal consequence is indirect: continued elevated funding costs, possible further tightening, and increased interest-rate, liquidity, credit, valuation and consumer-affordability risks that firms may need to reflect in existing risk-management and conduct frameworks.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) reported on the performance of first-lien mortgages in the federal banking system during the second quarter of 2026.
Why this matters
This is a standard quarterly reporting release from the OCC presenting aggregate mortgage performance metrics (delinquency rates, foreclosures, modifications) for mortgages held by national banks.
Speech At “Housing Affordability 2026: A Community Development Summit,” hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Why this matters
This is an informational speech by Federal Reserve Governor Michael S. Barr delivered at a community development summit. It provides policy context and regulatory signals regarding housing affordability, the role of the Community Reinvestment Act, low-income housing tax credits, and the Fed's dual mandate.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Justice, and Federal Housing Finance Agency are rescinding the "Interagency Statement on Special…
AI Analysis
On August 25, 2026, the OCC and six other federal agencies rescinded the 2022 Interagency Statement on Special Purpose Credit Programs and OCC Bulletin 2022-3. The rescission removes that guidance as a reference point and emphasizes that special purpose credit programs must not discriminate on prohibited bases under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Regulation B, and, where applicable, the Fair Housing Act.
Key dates
2026-04-22
The CFPB published a final rule amending Regulation B provisions concerning special purpose credit programs, including new restrictions applicable to programs offered or participated in by for-profit organizations.
2026-07-21
The CFPB's Regulation B amendments became effective. For-profit special purpose credit programs offered or participated in on or after this date must comply with the amended requirements, including the prohibition on using race, color, national origin, or sex as a common eligibility criterion.
2026-08-25
The seven agencies rescinded the 2022 interagency statement and OCC Bulletin 2022-3, effective immediately. Creditors should no longer rely on those issuances or related guidance.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to inventory special purpose credit programs, marketing, eligibility criteria, underwriting policies, written plans, and monitoring practices that were developed or supported by the 2022 interagency statement, OCC Bulletin 2022-3, or related guidance.
Firms should consider reassessing any program that uses race, color, national origin, or sex as a common eligibility criterion, particularly for credit extended on or after July 21, 2026, against 12 CFR 1002.8 as amended.
For-profit creditors may wish to confirm that each written special purpose credit program plan contains evidence of need, explains why the relevant class would not receive credit under the organization's ordinary creditworthiness standards, and supports any eligibility characteristic used by the program.
Compliance teams may wish to remove rescinded guidance from policies, procedures, training materials, legal inventories, product governance documents, and examiner-facing materials, while retaining records needed to explain prior program design and implementation.
Firms should consider reviewing program communications and applicant data practices for potential discrimination or misleading reliance on the rescinded statement, including communications suggesting that protected-class distinctions are broadly authorized.
Banks and credit unions may wish to brief fair-lending, legal, product, underwriting, marketing, and model-risk stakeholders and document the governance decision regarding whether each program should be amended, suspended, or continued under current law.
What changed
The 2022 interagency statement and OCC Bulletin 2022-3 are rescinded, effective immediately, and creditors are instructed not to rely on those issuances or related guidance. The rescission does not eliminate the statutory or regulatory framework for special purpose credit programs under ECOA and Regulation B, including 12 CFR 1002.8; rather, it clarifies that those programs remain subject to applicable fair-lending prohibitions. The agencies specifically identify the prior version of Regulation B referenced by the 2022 statement as having been amended.
Compliance impact
The rescission creates a meaningful fair-lending and product-governance risk for creditors whose special purpose credit programs relied on the withdrawn guidance, although it does not itself create a new statutory prohibition or abolish Regulation B's special purpose credit program provisions. Regulatory and litigation exposure may increase where a program uses prohibited characteristics, lacks the documentation required by amended 12 CFR 1002.8, or treats the rescinded statement as a safe harbor.
On 2026-08-14, the CFPB ceased discretionary publication of unverified consumer complaint narratives and associated data visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database. The change reduces public-facing reputational exposure from individual allegations, but it does not reduce firms’ obligations to collect, investigate, and provide complete, accurate, and timely complaint responses because the CFPB will continue using complaint information for supervision, interagency sharing, and certain disclosures.
Key dates
2026-08-14
The CFPB announced and implemented the cessation of discretionary publication of complaint narratives and associated visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database; previously published narratives remain subject to proactive FOIA Reading Room disclosure.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to continue treating CFPB complaints as supervisory and potential enforcement inputs, notwithstanding the removal of narratives from the public database.
Firms should consider maintaining controls that support complete, accurate, and timely responses to CFPB complaints, including documented investigation, escalation, remediation, and quality-assurance procedures.
Complaint-management owners may wish to monitor whether the removal of public narratives affects internal trend analysis and should preserve their own historical complaint records and supporting evidence.
Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider reviewing previously published complaint narratives concerning the firm in the CFPB FOIA Reading Room and assessing whether existing disclosure, litigation, reputation, and remediation processes remain appropriate.
Firms should consider retaining evidence supporting complaint responses because complaint information may continue to be shared with prudential regulators, the FTC, and federal or state agencies, and may remain accessible through FOIA.
Management may wish to avoid interpreting the change as a basis for reducing complaint-governance staffing, monitoring, root-cause analysis, or board and senior-management reporting.
What changed
The CFPB will no longer publish consumer-submitted complaint narratives or related data visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database. The Bureau characterizes publication of these materials as discretionary rather than statutorily required and states that the materials are unverified, potentially misleading, and not necessarily evidence of legal violations.
Compliance impact
The publication change is primarily a transparency and reputational-risk development rather than a new binding obligation for firms. Regulatory risk remains material because the CFPB will continue collecting and monitoring complaints, evaluating the completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of company responses, sharing information with other regulators, and making certain information available through FOIA.
Notice of proposed rulemaking. The Board invites comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking (proposal) to modernize the regulatory framework applicable to mutual holding companies (MHCs), primarily through proposed revisions to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), which governs the formation, operations, activities, and…
AI Analysis
On 2026-08-04, the Federal Reserve Board issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to modernize the regulatory framework for mutual holding companies by amending Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) and the capital rule in Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217). The proposal is intended to reduce regulatory burden, facilitate capital raising (including via mutual capital certificates), and streamline mutual-to-stock conversions for savings and loan holding companies in mutual form.
Key dates
2026-08-04
Publication of the Federal Reserve Board notice of proposed rulemaking ‘Regulatory Modernization and Relief for Mutual Holding Companies’ in the Federal Register (91 FR 49490; FR Doc. 2026-15774) amending Regulations Q (12 CFR part 217) and MM (12 CFR part 239).
2026-10-05 Deadline
Comment deadline for submitting responses to the Federal Reserve Board on the proposed amendments to Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26).
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams at mutual holding companies and savings and loan holding companies may wish to review the proposed amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), particularly the sections on dividend waivers, mutual-to-stock conversion processes, post-conversion restrictions, chartering requirements for subsidiary holding companies, and updated model charters and bylaws, to assess operational and governance impacts.
Firms planning or contemplating mutual-to-stock conversions should consider comparing their current conversion documentation, use of FR MM-PS, FR MM-OC and FR MM-OF forms, and liquidation account methodologies with the proposed streamlined forms, corrected liquidation account calculations, and revised rules on stock pricing, repurchases, offers and sales, employee stock ownership plan financing and benefit plans.
Institutions that issue, or are considering issuing, mutual capital certificates should review the proposed Appendices B and C to Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217) to evaluate whether their existing or planned instrument terms align with the model key terms for qualification as Common Equity Tier 1 or Additional Tier 1 capital, including permanence, loss-absorption, distributions and redemption features.
Subsidiary holding companies of thrift mutual holding companies may wish to analyze the proposed elimination of the federal charter requirement and related changes to Subpart C of Regulation MM to determine chartering options, corporate structure implications, and any needed updates to organizational documents and regulatory commitments.
Governance and legal teams at MHCs could review the proposed revisions to membership rights, proxy processes, postal mail requirements, voluntary dissolution, and the model charter and bylaws in Appendices A, C and D to Regulation MM, with a view to aligning internal policies and corporate governance frameworks with the modernized regime once finalized.
Risk and capital management functions at bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies and state member banks should consider evaluating capital planning assumptions and buffers in light of the clarified eligibility of mutual capital instruments as regulatory capital under Regulation Q, and identify any systems or reporting changes that may be required if the proposal is adopted.
All affected firms may wish to prepare internal impact assessments and, where appropriate, draft comment letters addressing specific elements of Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26), including any perceived risks around conflicts of interest, reduced accountability, or adjustment costs noted in the economic analysis.
Compliance monitoring teams should plan to track the rulemaking through the comment close date and subsequent Federal Reserve actions so that, if the proposal is finalized, implementation plans can be developed for policy updates, staff training and revisions to regulatory reporting and capital instrument documentation.
What changed
The NPR proposes targeted amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) governing mutual holding companies (MHCs), including eliminating certain dividend waiver requirements that currently apply to MHCs and their subsidiary holding companies, and revising post-conversion restrictions to reduce burdens following mutual-to-stock conversions.
Compliance impact
Compliance impact is moderate but potentially structural, as the proposal recalibrates capital recognition for mutual instruments and significantly streamlines the regulatory and documentation framework for mutual holding company operations and conversions. The Board’s economic analysis highlights expected benefits in access to capital and reduced compliance costs, balanced against risks of conflicts of interest and accountability concerns that firms will need to address in governance and control frameworks.
PRESS RELEASE | JULY 13, 2026 Agencies Issue Guidance on Lending to Individuals Not Legally Authorized to Work in the United States WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration (collectively, the agencies) today…
AI Analysis
The FDIC, OCC, and NCUA issued joint guidance reminding supervised institutions that lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States may present elevated credit risk and should be addressed through safe-and-sound underwriting and monitoring. The guidance matters because it reinforces existing obligations under TILA/Regulation Z and ECOA/Regulation B, and signals increased supervisory attention to borrower capacity to repay and employment stability.
Key dates
2026-06-08
CFPB issued the Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status referenced by the agencies
2026-07-13
FDIC, OCC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance on lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that capacity-to-repay analysis captures employment-authorization-related income instability.
Firms should consider whether credit policy, risk grading, and portfolio monitoring procedures explicitly address elevated repayment uncertainty for non-work-authorized borrowers.
Institutions may wish to reassess documentation and verification controls for income, employment, and supporting records in light of the agencies' stated focus on safe-and-sound lending.
Teams should consider whether fair-lending, TILA, and ECOA controls are aligned with the CFPB's June 8, 2026 statement and the interagency guidance.
Risk and finance functions may wish to evaluate whether allowance, concentration risk, and credit-loss assumptions need updating where exposure to this borrower segment is material.
What changed
The publication does not create a new lending ban or a new standalone rule. Instead, it restates that institutions should identify, measure, monitor, and control the credit risks associated with borrowers who are not legally authorized to work in the United States through underwriting practices that assess willingness and capacity to repay according to the credit terms. The guidance specifically links this issue to the CFPB's June 8, 2026 Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status and reminds creditors of obligations under the Truth in Lending Act as implemented by Regulation Z,...
Compliance impact
The agencies describe the issue as a credit-risk and safety-and-soundness matter, so the immediate impact is heightened supervisory scrutiny rather than a new prohibition. Institutions with meaningful exposure to affected borrowers may face criticism if underwriting, monitoring, and documentation do not clearly reflect the stated risks.
On July 13, 2026, following the President's Executive Order on "Restoring Integrity to America's Financial System," the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) issued guidance reminding supervised financial…
AI Analysis
The OCC, FDIC, and NCUA issued interagency guidance on July 13, 2026 reminding supervised institutions to apply existing safe-and-sound credit risk management practices when lending to borrowers who are not legally authorized to work in the United States. The guidance does not create a new lending ban, but it signals heightened supervisory focus on underwriting, account management, credit classification, allowance analysis, and consumer compliance for these borrowers.
Key dates
2026-07-13
OCC, FDIC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance
2026-06-08
CFPB issued its Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status, referenced by the guidance
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that repayment capacity, source of repayment, and overall financial condition are assessed consistently for borrowers whose work authorization is uncertain.
Firms may wish to test whether account management, credit classification, and allowance methodologies adequately capture elevated credit risk linked to employment authorization uncertainty.
Institutions may wish to review consumer compliance controls for alignment with TILA, Regulation Z, ECOA, and Regulation B when evaluating applicants affected by immigration or work-authorized status.
Risk and compliance teams may wish to update portfolio monitoring, concentration analysis, and documentation standards so that the identified credit risk factors are reflected in governance and reporting.
Community banks may wish to verify that loan policy language and examiner-facing documentation clearly show how these risks are being identified, measured, monitored, and controlled.
What changed
The publication is guidance, not a new rule or statute, and it reinforces existing expectations rather than imposing a new legal prohibition. It states that lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States may present elevated credit risk because their ability to generate income, maintain employment, and remain financially stable may be more uncertain.
Compliance impact
The practical impact is moderate to significant for consumer and retail lending programs because the agencies are signaling that work-authorization uncertainty is a relevant credit-risk factor and a consumer-compliance consideration. The publication could increase supervisory scrutiny of underwriting rationale, documentation quality, and treatment of affected borrowers, especially where institutions cannot show that these risks are consistently incorporated into controls.
PRESS RELEASE | JUNE 30, 2026 Agencies Release List of Distressed or Underserved Nonmetropolitan Middle-Income Geographies WASHINGTON — Federal bank regulatory agencies today released the 2026 list of certain geographies where certain bank activities are eligible for Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) credit. Under the…
Why this matters
This is an informational press release announcing the 2026 list of distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies eligible for CRA credit consideration.
Agencies release list of distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies
Why this matters
This is an informational press release announcing the 2026 list of distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies eligible for CRA credit consideration.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency today issued the "Lending and Loan Portfolio Risk Management" booklet of the Comptroller's Handbook.
Why this matters
The OCC Bulletin 2026-29 announces the issuance of a revised 'Lending and Loan Portfolio Risk Management' booklet that rescissions and combines multiple prior guidance documents.
The 2025 HMDA Loan Application Register data can be found on the FFIEC's HMDA Platform.
Why this matters
The document announces the availability of 2025 HMDA Modified LAR data on the FFIEC platform. It is a data publication, not a rule, consultation, or guidance, so it fits 'report'. The only substantive subject is mortgage lending data disclosure, which maps to Mortgage & Lending and Reporting & Disclosure.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the senior team from the Division of Corporation Finance responsible for advising division Director James Moloney on all matters the division has before the Commission. These include rulemaking…
Why this matters
This regulatory update from the SEC announces senior leadership changes in the Division of Corporation Finance, which oversees corporate disclosure and rulemaking.
CFPB and Justice have withdrawn a joint statement linked to a creditor’s consideration of an individual’s immigration status under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
AI Analysis
On January 12, 2026, the CFPB and DOJ withdrew their October 2023 joint statement concerning creditors’ consideration of immigration or citizenship status in credit decisions. The withdrawal confirms that ECOA and Regulation B do not impose a general prohibition or additional limitation on considering such information, while the prohibition on using it to discriminate on a prohibited basis remains unchanged.
Key dates
2023-10-12
CFPB and DOJ issued the joint statement concerning fair lending and credit opportunities for noncitizen borrowers; it was published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2023.
2026-01-12
CFPB and DOJ withdrew the October 2023 joint statement. The withdrawal was published at 91 FR 1138 and became effective on this date.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to identify underwriting, eligibility, pricing, servicing, and adverse-action processes that reference immigration, citizenship, visa, residency, or work-authorization status.
Firms should consider documenting the legitimate credit, repayment-risk, creditor-rights, remedies, or legal-compliance rationale for collecting or using immigration-related information, rather than treating the withdrawal as an unrestricted authorization to use the information for any purpose.
Firms may wish to reassess policies adopted in response to the 2023 joint statement, while preserving controls designed to prevent intentional discrimination or unjustified disparate treatment based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age.
Compliance teams may wish to test whether immigration-related variables or proxies produce inconsistent eligibility, pricing, or servicing outcomes across protected groups and whether decisioning documentation supports the stated legitimate purpose.
Firms should consider retaining existing fair-lending governance, adverse-action notice, data-quality, model-risk, and complaint-monitoring controls because the withdrawal does not amend ECOA or Regulation B or eliminate consumer rights.
California creditors and other firms operating under state or local fair-lending laws may wish to separately assess obligations that are not displaced by the federal withdrawal, including potentially broader state civil-rights protections.
What changed
The nonbinding October 2023 joint statement is withdrawn effective January 12, 2026; no new statutory or regulatory obligation, safe harbor, or mandatory underwriting standard is created. The agencies state that creditors may consider immigration or citizenship status, including when assessing creditworthiness, financial risk, creditor rights and remedies regarding repayment, or compliance with other laws.
Compliance impact
The practical impact is primarily interpretive and supervisory rather than a new compliance burden: firms may have greater flexibility to consider immigration or citizenship status for legitimate underwriting and creditor-rights purposes, but ECOA and Regulation B’s prohibition on discrimination on a prohibited basis remains in force. The agencies state that firms may continue operating under the withdrawn statement without penalty, and independent commentary characterizes the change as a reversal of disparate-impact-oriented guidance rather than a material change to binding law.
The CFPB and the FRB are announcing the dollar thresholds used to determine whether certain consumer credit and lease transactions in 2026 are subject to certain protections under Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) and Regulation M (Consumer Leasing).
AI Analysis
The CFPB and Federal Reserve increased the 2026 Regulation Z and Regulation M coverage threshold from $71,900 to $73,400, reflecting a 2.1% CPI-W increase. For transactions consummated or entered into from January 1 through December 31, 2026, consumer credit transactions and consumer leases with amounts at or below $73,400 generally receive the applicable TILA or CLA protections, while specified exceptions remain covered regardless of amount.
Key dates
2025-12-15
The CFPB and Federal Reserve announced and issued the final threshold amendments based on the 2.1% CPI-W increase as of June 1, 2025.
2026-01-01
The $73,400 Regulation Z and Regulation M thresholds became effective.
2026-12-31
The stated $73,400 thresholds apply through the end of the 2026 calendar year, subject to the applicable transaction-date rules.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to update underwriting, product-classification, and regulatory-coverage logic so that transactions of $73,400 or less are treated as within the applicable Regulation Z or Regulation M framework for the relevant 2026 transaction date.
Firms should consider reviewing transaction-value calculations, including the total contractual obligation for consumer leases, to confirm that threshold determinations are made using the applicable regulatory definitions and the amount in effect at consummation.
Lenders and lessors may wish to test disclosures, notices, document generation, and exception handling for transactions close to $73,400, including boundary cases and rounding controls.
Compliance teams should consider retaining the prior $71,900 threshold for transactions governed by the 2025 threshold and applying $73,400 only to transactions covered by the 2026 period.
Mortgage and private education lending teams should consider confirming that their systems do not incorrectly treat the $73,400 threshold as an exemption, because those Regulation Z categories remain covered regardless of loan amount.
Firms may wish to document the annual CPI-W-based threshold change in regulatory inventories, procedures, monitoring scripts, and quality-assurance testing. Independent commentary from Sheppard Mullin characterized the change as an inflation-driven update to the exemption amount rather than a substantive change to TILA or CLA coverage, which supports focusing implementation on system and classification controls.
What changed
Effective January 1, 2026, the Regulation Z exemption threshold under 12 CFR 1026.3(b) and the Regulation M exemption threshold under 12 CFR 1013.2(e) increased to $73,400 from $71,900. The adjustment is based on the annual percentage increase in CPI-W as of June 1, 2025, reported as 2.1%, and is reflected in Regulation Z comment 3(b)-3.xvii and Regulation M comment 2(e)-11.xvii. Regulation Z and Regulation M generally apply to covered consumer credit transactions and consumer leases at or below $73,400; transactions above that amount are generally outside the relevant coverage.
Compliance impact
The update is a routine but binding annual adjustment that can change whether borderline consumer credit and lease transactions receive federal disclosures and other protections. Misclassification may result in failure to provide required Regulation Z or Regulation M disclosures and related exposure under TILA or the Consumer Leasing Act, although the agencies describe no new substantive obligations beyond applying the revised threshold.
The CFPB, FRB, and OCC are announcing that the 2026 threshold for higher-priced mortgage loans that are subject to special appraisal requirements will increase from $33,500 to $34,200.
Why this matters
The announcement confirms a binding change to the dollar threshold (from $33,500 to $34,200) in the appraisal requirements for higher-priced mortgage loans, effective January 1, 2026, and is therefore classified as a final rule.
Washington, D.C.—Today, the CFPB made changes to how the Supervision Division conducts exams. Previously, under the leadership of Director Chopra and Biden’s Director of Supervision Lorelei Salas, a former Soros activist who was put on leave in February 2025, this division was the weaponized arm of the CFPB.
AI Analysis
On November 21, 2025, the CFPB announced a substantially narrower and more collaborative approach to supervision examinations, including a requirement that examiners read a “Humility in Supervision Pledge” at the start of each review. For the 2026 examination cycle, the Bureau says it will provide advance notice, limit requests to defined priority-market scopes, emphasize pattern-and-practice violations involving tangible consumer harm, and prefer supervisory remediation over referral to Enforcement where feasible; independent commentary generally reads this as a meaningful change in examination posture rather than a relaxation of underlying legal obligations.
Key dates
2025-11-21
CFPB announced the Humility in Supervision Pledge and stated that examiners would read it to supervised entities at the beginning of examinations.
2026-01-01
The pledge applies to the CFPB’s 2026 examination cycle, including the announced focus on priority markets, tangible and identifiable consumer harm, and narrower examination scopes.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to map their 2026 CFPB examination readiness materials to clearly identified products, statutory and regulatory requirements, and documented consumer-harm risks, with particular attention to servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
Firms should consider maintaining a concise examination scoping pack that identifies relevant business lines, applicable federal consumer financial laws, prior findings, consumer-impact metrics, and information that can be produced without unnecessary overcollection.
Supervised entities may wish to designate personnel to validate the scope and priority areas when advance examination notice is received and to document any requests that appear unrelated to the stated scope.
Firms should consider preserving written records of discussions concerning supplemental information requests, scope changes, Matters Requiring Attention, and any proposed self-reporting or supervisory remediation.
Compliance teams may wish to continue preparing for enforcement-quality examinations because the pledge does not limit the CFPB’s statutory authority or eliminate potential liability for violations, consumer harm, disclosure failures, or unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.
Entities experiencing examination activity inconsistent with the pledge may consider escalating the matter through CFPB supervisory channels, while avoiding reliance on the pledge as a defense against substantive compliance deficiencies.
What changed
The CFPB stated that 2026 examinations will focus on pressing consumer threats, particularly issues affecting service members, their families, and veterans, and matters within the Bureau’s statutory authority. The Bureau will seek to avoid duplicative supervision where states or other regulators are already performing substantially the same work. Supervised entities are expected to receive advance notice of scheduled examinations, clearer expectations, and requests limited to the defined scope and identified priorities.
Compliance impact
The publication signals lower-intensity, more targeted CFPB supervision and a greater likelihood that qualifying issues will be handled through Supervision rather than Enforcement, but it creates no safe harbor and does not reduce firms’ obligations under the Consumer Financial Protection Act, federal consumer financial laws, or applicable disclosure requirements.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today published a concept release soliciting public comment on how to improve current SEC rules governing residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and certain aspects of asset-backed securities (ABS) generally…
Why this matters
This regulatory update from the SEC is focused on improving rules governing residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and certain aspects of asset-backed securities (ABS).
Today, in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) November 12, 2021 lawsuit against FirstCash, Inc., and nineteen subsidiaries alleging violations of the Military Lending Act (MLA), the parties reached a settlement and jointly filed a stipulated final judgment and proposed order, which if entered by the…
AI Analysis
The CFPB and FirstCash, Inc. and 19 subsidiaries resolved litigation alleging that pawn loans made since October 3, 2016 to MLA-covered servicemembers and dependents exceeded the 36% Military Annual Percentage Rate cap, required arbitration, and omitted required disclosures. The entered judgment requires $5 million for consumer redress, a $4 million civil penalty, and continuing compliance through either an MLA-compliant product or a regulatory safe harbor for identifying covered borrowers.
Key dates
2016-10-03
Beginning of the period for which the CFPB alleged FirstCash made MLA-covered pawn loans exceeding the 36% cap and used noncompliant agreements and disclosures.
2021-11-12
The CFPB filed its lawsuit against FirstCash, Inc. and 19 subsidiaries alleging Military Lending Act violations.
2025-07-11
The parties filed the stipulated final judgment and proposed order, and the court entered the judgment resolving the lawsuit; the order imposed $5 million in redress, a $4 million civil penalty, and prospective MLA compliance requirements.
2025-07-22
The CFPB terminated the 2013 Cash America consent order after determining that the predecessor had fulfilled its obligations, including paying a $5 million penalty and providing consumer redress.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams at creditors offering potentially MLA-covered consumer credit should consider mapping every product, including pawn loans, against the definition of consumer credit and testing whether fees and charges are included in the 36% Military Annual Percentage Rate calculation under 32 C.F.R. § 232.3(i).
Firms should consider implementing documented procedures to determine covered-borrower status before or at account opening, using the Department of Defense database or another permitted method under the safe harbor in 32 C.F.R. § 232.5(b), and retaining the required evidence and timing records.
Legal and product teams may wish to review loan agreements, disclosures, and servicing scripts for mandatory arbitration provisions and for all MLA disclosures required by 32 C.F.R. § 232.6, including the applicable payment-obligation and covered-borrower notices.
Affected lenders should consider identifying loans made to servicemembers and covered dependents from October 3, 2016 onward, assessing potential MAPR, disclosure, and arbitration exposure, and evaluating remediation where historical controls were inadequate.
Governance functions may wish to assign ownership for MLA compliance across underwriting, point-of-sale systems, branch operations, vendor management, complaint handling, and internal testing, with escalation for products that cannot reliably screen covered borrowers.
Firms should consider reviewing the judgment and any applicable CFPB redress procedures before calculating restitution, and should avoid treating the termination of the predecessor’s 2013 consent order as relief from the separate FirstCash obligations.
What changed
The July 11, 2025 stipulated final judgment, entered by the court the same day, requires FirstCash and its subsidiaries to set aside $5 million to provide full redress in connection with thousands of unlawful pawn loans and pay $4 million to the CFPB victims relief fund. Going forward, the defendants must comply with the Military Lending Act, 10 U.S.C. § 987, and its implementing regulation, 32 C.F.R. part 232, including the 36% MAPR limit, the prohibition on mandatory arbitration, and required disclosures.
Compliance impact
The action demonstrates substantial enforcement and remediation risk for nonbank consumer-credit providers that fail to identify covered borrowers or calculate MAPR correctly, even where the product is a pawn loan rather than a conventional installment loan. Consequences include consumer restitution, civil penalties, contract and arbitration enforceability concerns, operational controls remediation, and possible scrutiny of predecessor, subsidiary, and affiliated-entity practices.
The CFPB is announcing that it will not prioritize enforcement or supervision actions with regard to entities that are currently outside the stay imposed under Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB, No. 24-40705 (CA5).
AI Analysis
On 2025-04-30, the CFPB announced that it would not prioritize supervision or enforcement of the Section 1071 small-business lending provisions of Regulation B against entities outside the Fifth Circuit’s stay in Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB, No. 24-40705. The announcement provided practical enforcement relief but did not vacate, amend, or legally suspend the rule for all covered institutions; the CFPB subsequently withdrew the policy statement on 2025-05-12, and later rulemaking changed the compliance framework.
Key dates
2025-02-07
The Fifth Circuit stayed the Section 1071 rule pending appeal in Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB and tolled compliance deadlines only for the case’s plaintiffs and intervenors, subject to further court modification.
2025-04-30
The CFPB published the policy statement announcing that it would not prioritize enforcement or supervision against entities outside the Fifth Circuit stay.
2025-05-12
The CFPB withdrew the policy statement as part of its broader withdrawal of policy statements, interpretive rules, advisory opinions, and other guidance.
2025-06-18
The CFPB issued an interim final rule extending Section 1071 compliance dates for all regulated entities by approximately one year; the earliest revised date for the highest-volume tier was July 1, 2026.
2026-05-01
The CFPB issued a final reconsideration rule revising Regulation B subpart B and extending the revised framework’s general compliance date to January 1, 2028.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to avoid treating the 2025-04-30 announcement as a formal repeal, exemption, or safe harbor, and should document the distinction between enforcement prioritization and continuing statutory or regulatory obligations.
Covered lenders should consider preserving existing Section 1071 governance, data mapping, recordkeeping, and implementation work where proportionate, while assessing whether the 2026 final reconsideration rule changes the applicable scope, data points, procedures, or implementation timetable.
Firms should consider identifying whether they are plaintiffs, intervenors, or members of an association covered by the Texas Bankers Association stay, because the original court order did not apply uniformly to all covered institutions.
Compliance teams may wish to monitor the CFPB’s Section 1071 rulemaking, the status of Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB, and subsequent Federal Register amendments rather than relying on the withdrawn policy statement as current guidance.
Lenders should consider retaining an audit trail for any decision to pause, scale, or continue implementation, including legal analysis of the applicable rule version, court orders, CFPB amendments, and operational or fair-lending risks.
Covered institutions may wish to assess whether existing small-business application and demographic-data processes could support future reporting, because the CFPB’s enforcement posture did not eliminate potential litigation, examination, state-law, fair-lending, or reputational exposure.
What changed
The CFPB stated that it would deprioritize enforcement and supervision of the Small Business Lending Rule against entities not covered by the court-ordered stay, citing limited resources and the perceived unfairness of treating similarly situated institutions differently. The statement did not create a formal exemption, alter Regulation B, remove Section 1071 data-collection and reporting obligations, or expand the Fifth Circuit’s stay, which initially tolled compliance dates only for the plaintiffs and intervenors in Texas Bankers Association v. CFPB.
Compliance impact
The announcement materially reduced near-term CFPB examination and enforcement risk for entities outside the court stay, but it did not itself eliminate binding Section 1071 obligations or prevent private, state, or other regulatory scrutiny. Its practical value was temporary because the statement was withdrawn on 2025-05-12 and the rule was subsequently amended through further CFPB rulemaking.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will not prioritize enforcement or supervision actions for entities that do not satisfy future deadlines to submit registration information under the regulation titled "Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders".
AI Analysis
On April 11, 2025, the CFPB announced that it will not prioritize enforcement or supervision actions against entities that miss future registration deadlines under 12 CFR part 1092, including the April 14 and July 14, 2025 deadlines. The announcement is enforcement-prioritization relief rather than a repeal, amendment, or formal suspension of the regulation; independent commentary characterizes the rule as remaining technically operative while the CFPB considers rescinding or narrowing it.
Key dates
2024-07-08
The final rule was published at 89 Fed. Reg. 56028.
2024-09-16
The final rule became effective.
2025-01-14 Deadline
Initial implementation deadline for larger participant CFPB-supervised covered nonbanks under 12 CFR 1092.206(a)(1).
2025-04-11
The CFPB announced its policy of not prioritizing enforcement or supervision actions for failures to meet future registration deadlines under 12 CFR part 1092.
2025-04-14 Deadline
Implementation registration deadline for other CFPB-supervised covered nonbanks under 12 CFR 1092.206(a)(2).
2025-07-14 Deadline
Implementation registration deadline for all other covered nonbanks under 12 CFR 1092.206(a)(3).
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams may wish to document whether the entity is a covered nonbank and whether any agency or court order meets the covered-order criteria in 12 CFR 1092.201, including the requirement that the order be a final public order identifying the entity and imposing obligations based in whole or in part on specified consumer-law or UDAAP violations.
Firms should consider preserving an inventory of potentially covered orders, registration data, and supporting legal analyses even if they elect not to file while the CFPB's prioritization policy remains in effect.
Covered entities may wish to assess whether filing by the applicable date remains preferable for licensing, supervisory, litigation, diligence, or reputational reasons, rather than treating the announcement as a definitive exemption.
Compliance teams should monitor for a proposed rulemaking, final rule, formal withdrawal, or further CFPB communication that changes the status or scope of 12 CFR part 1092.
CFPB-supervised registered entities should continue evaluating the separate annual written-statement requirements in 12 CFR 1092.204 and should not assume that the announcement eliminates obligations other than the future registration-deadline enforcement priority described.
Firms may wish to record the policy statement as an enforcement-risk and resource-allocation development, not as a statutory safe harbor against other CFPB, state, or private-party consequences for underlying consumer-law violations.
What changed
The CFPB stated that it will not prioritize enforcement or supervision actions concerning failures to submit registration information by future deadlines under the Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders, codified at 12 CFR part 1092. The stated policy covers, among other entities, nonbanks subject to the implementation deadlines in 12 CFR 1092.206(a)(2) and 12 CFR 1092.206(a)(3). The CFPB will instead focus enforcement and supervision resources on pressing threats to consumers.
Compliance impact
The immediate impact is reduced CFPB examination and enforcement prioritization risk for missed registration filings, but the policy does not expressly remove the legal requirements in 12 CFR part 1092 or prevent action by other regulators. Severity is therefore moderate for covered nonbanks: filing urgency is reduced, but coverage analysis, order tracking, underlying consumer-law compliance, and readiness for a possible rulemaking remain material.
The published data contain loan-level information filed by financial institutions and modified to protect consumer privacy.
Why this matters
The document announces publication of 2024 HMDA Modified LAR data, which is a data release and therefore a report. It concerns mortgage lending and the public disclosure of loan-level data by HMDA filers, which are mainly banks and credit unions. It imposes no obligation or deadline, so urgency is null.
The Bureau will keep its enforcement and supervision resources focused on pressing threats to consumers, particularly servicemen and veterans.
AI Analysis
On March 28, 2025, the CFPB announced that it would not prioritize supervision or enforcement involving penalties or fines under the Payment Withdrawal and Payment Disclosure provisions of the Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans Regulation after those provisions became operative on March 30, 2025. The announcement is an enforcement-prioritization position, not a repeal, amendment, exemption, or formal delay of the rule; independent commentary emphasizes that state regulators may still enforce the requirements and that the CFPB may later propose to narrow the rule.
Key dates
2025-03-28
The CFPB announced that it would not prioritize supervision or enforcement involving penalties or fines under the Payment Withdrawal and Payment Disclosure provisions and said it was considering a rulemaking to narrow the rule's scope.
2025-03-30
The Payment Withdrawal and Payment Disclosure provisions of the Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans Regulation became operative after litigation-related delays.
Suggested considerations
Firms should continue treating 12 C.F.R. §§ 1041.7 and 1041.9 as operative unless and until a legally effective amendment changes them.
Compliance teams may wish to preserve controls that prevent additional payment-transfer attempts after two consecutive failed transfers for insufficient funds unless a new authorization satisfying the rule is obtained.
Firms should review pre-withdrawal, post-failure, and other payment-related notices for compliance with the applicable content, timing, and delivery requirements in 12 C.F.R. § 1041.9.
Lenders may wish to document the CFPB announcement separately from their formal compliance risk assessment, because the announcement describes enforcement priorities rather than a legal exemption or limitation on private, state, or other applicable enforcement exposure.
Firms should assess state attorney general and state regulator exposure, including the possibility of enforcement under the Consumer Financial Protection Act and applicable state consumer-protection laws.
Compliance teams may wish to monitor any CFPB notice of proposed rulemaking, Federal Register publication, litigation, and subsequent effective-date activity before changing production controls.
Covered lenders should retain evidence of payment-attempt logic, consumer authorizations, notices, exceptions, and records required by the rule so that supervisory or state inquiries can be addressed.
What changed
The CFPB stated that it would deprioritize enforcement and supervision actions concerning penalties or fines associated with the rule's Payment Withdrawal and Payment Disclosure provisions. The operative rule continues to restrict a covered lender from attempting additional payment withdrawals after two consecutive failed attempts caused by insufficient funds unless the consumer provides a new authorization, and it requires specified payment-related notices, including notices before certain withdrawals and after two consecutive failed attempts.
Compliance impact
The practical impact is reduced near-term CFPB examination and penalty risk for covered payment and disclosure provisions, but not elimination of the underlying obligations or broader enforcement exposure. The rule remains operative, and independent commentary indicates that state regulators and state attorneys general may continue to pursue violations; a future CFPB proposal would require separate notice-and-comment rulemaking before changing the rule.
On March 28, 2025, the CFPB announced that it was jointly seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) from its November 7, 2024 stipulated judgment against Townstone Financial, including return of the $105,000 civil money penalty. The Northern District of Illinois denied the motion on June 12, 2025, holding that the parties had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances required to vacate the judgment; therefore, the settlement and its compliance obligations remain in force.
Key dates
2020-07-15
The CFPB filed its enforcement action against Townstone Financial and Barry Sturner alleging unlawful redlining-related conduct.
2024-11-07
The Northern District of Illinois entered the stipulated final judgment and order, including a $105,000 civil money penalty and restrictions concerning Equal Credit Opportunity Act compliance.
2025-03-26
The CFPB and Townstone jointly filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from and vacatur of the stipulated final judgment and order.
2025-03-28
The CFPB publicly announced its request to vacate the Townstone judgment, dismiss the case, and return the penalty.
2025-06-12
The Northern District of Illinois denied the joint motion, finding that the parties had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for Rule 60(b)(6) relief; the judgment therefore remained in effect.
Suggested considerations
Compliance teams at mortgage lenders may wish to treat the Townstone stipulated final judgment entered on November 7, 2024 as remaining operative unless and until a court orders otherwise; the June 12, 2025 denial means the announced vacatur did not change the firm's obligations.
Firms may wish to continue monitoring fair-lending risk using application, approval, origination, pricing, geography, marketing, and servicing data, while documenting legitimate business explanations for geographic or demographic disparities.
Mortgage lenders and brokers may wish to review marketing, community outreach, loan-officer activity, branch and office locations, underwriting practices, and public-facing statements for potential discouragement or differential treatment under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B.
Firms with CFPB consent orders may wish to avoid assuming that a change in CFPB leadership or enforcement priorities permits unilateral suspension, modification, or refund of settlement obligations; any such relief generally requires the relevant court or other legally authorized process.
Legal and compliance teams may wish to preserve records supporting fair-lending analyses and governance decisions, including data definitions, screening methodology, model limitations, qualitative review, escalation decisions, and communications concerning public statements or marketing content.
Industry participants may wish to distinguish the CFPB's litigation position in Townstone from a binding change to redlining standards: the publication did not repeal, amend, or narrow the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Regulation B, the Fair Housing Act, or applicable supervisory expectations.
What changed
The CFPB publication announced a proposed litigation step, not a new regulation, supervisory requirement, or generally applicable enforcement policy. The joint motion alleged that the prior redlining investigation and settlement were materially flawed, including alleged reliance on mortgage application and origination disparities, analysis of Townstone's public statements, and infringement of First Amendment rights. The motion sought to vacate the stipulated final judgment and order, dismiss the case, and return the $105,000 penalty.
Compliance impact
The immediate compliance impact is limited because the publication did not create a new obligation and the court denied the requested vacatur. The case remains significant as a fair-lending and enforcement-governance signal: the CFPB's prior redlining theory involved statistical disparities and alleged discouragement, while the court's ruling reinforces that an agency cannot readily undo a final consent judgment based solely on changed leadership, changed policy priorities, or alleged litigation error.