 Tuesday, July 18, 2006 ( 8:14 AM ) Andy Do Not Call is a hot topic. Perspectives were changing because of recent litigation over being added to a DNC list which may not have even existed in your bank because you didn't telemarket. But we can't lose site of the purpose of these associated laws, the Telemarketing Sales Rules, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and Do Not Call. They have teeth and a consumer protection purpose. Many bankers will believe that you only get fined when you grossly violate laws or do so repeatedly. Global Mortgage Funding Inc. may not agree. They're being sued in Florida because they made eight (yes, 8) calls over an 18 month period to Floridians who were on the DNC list. The penalty, $10,000 per call and the expense of the court case they're now involved in. They're alleged to have used a recorded message that would violate state laws there as well. Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Charles H. Bronson has gotten over $1.5 Million in judgments against companies violating the DNC rules. The Missouri Attorney General has also gotten $1.3 Million from businesses violating the DNC rules in his state. On a national basis last month, The FTC imposed a $1,138,551 judgment against Executive Financial Home Loan Corp and company officers for violating two key DNC provisions of the TSR. Some bankers were saying the TSR, TCPA and DNC rules either didn't apply to them or that it was under control. It may be time to re-evaluate that need for a risk assessment to ensure TSR and DNC compliance, and risk avoidance.
Thursday, July 06, 2006 ( 7:57 AM ) Andy Sometimes it helps to add arrows to your compliance quiver whether times are good or bad. Here are two recent "arrows" pertaining to HMDA. And these are not unique, just recent. File these away for your next Director's Audit Committee and mention that other banks have been cited for HMDA and that is why you appreciate the assets to do the job right. Compliance is not a cost center, it is profit preservation. Labe Bank, Chicago, Illinois consented and agreed to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $5,000 related to its inaccurate submission of the application and loan data for calendar year 2004 as required by HMDA. First Gaston Bank of North Carolina, Gastonia, NC consented and agreed to pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $6,000 related to its inaccurate submission of the application and loan data for calendar year 2004, as required by HMDA. Each bank probably spent two or three times this amount going back in file searches and revising their data. But these are the icing on the regulatory cake which nobody wants to eat. The lowest cost for HMDA is that which you pay to do it right the first time. This requires tools, training and quality control measures. # |
||
