National Consumer Law Center: Bank Regulators' Proposal on Third-Party Relationships Silent on Predatory Rent-A-Bank Lending, Posing Risks for Banks, Consumers
The
"Federal bank regulators should make crystal clear that banks may not facilitate non-bank's end-run around state consumer lending laws. Bank regulators must put an end to ongoing rent-a-bank schemes," said National Consumer Law Center Associate Director
"This guidance was proposed to support banks in reducing risk, but, as written, it could increase risk. If, in its final version, the guidance remains silent on rent-a-bank schemes, it could encourage this predatory practice - which threatens to harm both consumers and banks," said
"If it remains silent on harmful bank partnerships, this guidance could not only abdicate its responsibility, but also subvert consumer protections at the state and federal levels. This would echo the failures of federal regulators in the runup to the 2008 Financial Crisis which was largely driven by product risks," said
The groups' letter states, in part:
"There are many legitimate purposes of bank partnerships with third parties, but assisting a third party in the violation or evasion of state laws is not one of them . . . . The core of our concerns with rent-a-bank schemes is that they facilitate predatory, unaffordable credit. Rent-a-bank relationships are especially risky to banks and harmful to consumers when they enable lending above the Military Lending Act's (MLA) fee-inclusive 36% interest rate cap (MLA 36% APR). Lending above those rates violates the laws of a significant number of states and poses a number of other risks, including greater risk of (i) violating the MLA itself; (ii) predatory lending, consequent harms, and violation of other prohibitions against unfair, deceptive or abusive practices, including debt collection abuses associated with unaffordable loans; (iii) fair lending issues; (iv) litigation risk and risk that the scheme may be found unlawful, with the bank potentially responsible for conspiring to assist an attempted evasion of usury laws, given the greater disparity between permissible state interest rate limits and the loans made through the scheme; and (v) reputation risk when a bank attempts to enable a third party to offer a product it would not offer directly to its own customers and that is illegal across the country, often using underwriting guidelines it would not approve for its own customers."
The letter, more broadly, highlights the harms and risks that high-cost lending through rent-a-bank schemes cause consumers and urges the


Opinion: Sen. McConnell Is Wrong, Banks Won’t ‘Snoop’ On Purchases
M Split Corp. Monthly Dividend Declared for Class I Preferred Shares
Advisor News
- Your client’s $3 million portfolio doesn’t tell you their insurance needs
- How life insurance can provide liquidity for wealthy families
- Retirement providers turn to digital engagement to retain assets
- Looking out for clients with diminished mental capacity
- House panel advances CLEAR Forms Act backed by IRI
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- AM Best downgrades A-Cap insurers amid financial and regulatory troubles
- Lawsuit claims Delaware Life hid billions in insurer-linked investments
- AM Best to Deliver Presentation at 2026 ACLI Annual Conference
- Global Atlantic Announces Launch of ForeLifetime Income, a New Fixed Index Annuity
- A-Cap strikes back with lawsuit accusing SC regulators of sloppy process, leaking secrets
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News