CFPB's Monthly Report Focuses on Student Loan Products

The CFPB’s most recent monthly report on consumer complaints spotlights student loans. The report is a high level snapshot of trends in consumer complaints. The Report provides a summary of the volume of complaints by product category, by company and by state.

 

Complaint Volume by Product

• The three most complained of consumer products remain debt collection, credit reporting and mortgage.
• Student loans continue to reflect the highest increase in change from last year– a 325% increase when comparing January-March 2017 to the same period in 2016. The CFPB attributes this increase to the updating of its student loan intake form to include complaints after Federal student loan servicing in late February 2016, as well as an enforcement action initiated by the CFPB against Navient in January 2017.
• Student loan complaints showed the greatest month to month decrease after spiking in January 2017 after what appears to be a response to the Bureau’s enforcement action against Navient.

Highlighted Product: Student Loans

 

The Report’s spotlighted consumer product, student loans, reflects that the majority of student loan complaints arise from non-federal student loans.  Interestingly, however, the majority of complaints described arise from federal student loans. 

• With respect to federal loans, consumers complain about difficulty with receiving information regarding alternative payment plans and particularly, the failure of servicers to provide more beneficial payment repayment options like income-driven repayment plans. 
• Consumers with nonfederal consumer loans complained most about the misapplication of payments and inaccurate accounting of payments.
• Consumers in general also complained about credit reporting inaccuracies.

 

CFPB Issues its Annual Fair Lending Report and Sets its 2017 Agenda

The CFPB has issued its 2016 Fair Lending Report which provides a summary of the Bureau’s efforts in fair lending for 2016.  The Report also includes an indication of the Bureau’s fair lending priorities for 2017.  Here are the highlights:

·        A Risk Prioritization Approach. The Report confirms that the Bureau takes a risk-based prioritization approach to supervisory and enforcement.  Risk based prioritization considers several factors including cooperation with the Bureau’s special population offices, consumer complaints, tips and leads from advocacy groups, whistleblowers and other governmental agencies, supervisory and enforcement history and, of course, analysis of HMDA and other data.

·        2016 Fair Lending Activities.  The Report indicates that its 2016 focus was on mortgage and indirect auto lending, as well as credit card account management.  While the Bureau is expected to continue investigations in these three areas, it will also increase its focus on other segments of consumer credit.

·        2017 Fair Lending Priorities. Based upon this approach, the Bureau intends to increase its focus in the areas of redlining, mortgage and student loan servicing and small business lending.

·        Mortgage and Student Loan Servicing. The Report expresses concerns as to whether student loan and mortgage servicers are handling workouts and loss mitigation differently with customers based upon their race, ethnicity, sex or age.

·        Small Business Lending.  Dodd Frank charges the CFPB with ensuring that women owned and minority businesses have fair access to credit.  The CFPB intends to begin exercising small business lending supervisory authority to ensure fair access to credit.

·        Fair Lending Supervisory Observations.  The Report recaps examination observations which were previously provided by the CFPB in its 2016 Summer and Fall Supervisory Highlights and reported previously.

·        Redlining.  While we are not going to rehash all of the 2016 Supervisory Highlights, the Bureau’s observations as to redlining bear repeating. The Report indicates the factors considered by the CFPB is assessing redlining risk and provides the following laundry list:

o   Strength of the institution’s compliance management system including its underwriting policies and guidelines;

o   Unique attributes of the relevant geographic area, including population demographics, credit profiles and the housing market;

o   Lending patterns including applications and originations with and without purchased loans;

o   Peer and market comparisons;

o   The institution’s physical presence in the area (full service branches, ATM only branches, brokers and loan production offices, etc.) as well as the services offered;

o   Marketing;

o   Mapping;

o   CRA assessment area and market area more generally;

o   The institution’s lending policies and procedures record;

o   Additional, miscellaneous evidence (including whistleblower tips, loan officer diversity, testing, and comparative file reviews); and

o   An institution’s explanation for apparent disparate treatments.

·        Ongoing Investigations.  The Bureau’s ongoing investigations and referrals to DOJ include discrimination in mortgage and auto lending, as well as discrimination in credit card account management.

Based upon the Report and prior announcements regarding fair lending prioritization from the Bureau in the past several months, mortgage and student loan servicers should be re-examining their policies and procedures as to loss mitigation and workouts to ensure their practices are consistent with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and other fair lending mandates.

CFPB Hones Its Fair Lending Agenda for 2017

A recent blog post from the CFPB indicates it will focus its Fair Lending efforts in three directions in 2017.  According to the post, the CFPB will increase its focus on: (a) redlining; (b) mortgage and student loan servicing; and (c) small business lending. 

Redlining. The Bureau’s has shown a renewed interest in redlining claims in the past two years.  In 2017, the Bureau “will continue to evaluate whether lenders have intentionally avoided lending in minority neighborhoods.” 

Mortgage and Student Loan Servicing. The Bureau’s turn to the mortgage and student lending markets is likely to take up where its focus on auto lenders and credit card providers left off.  The Bureau has indicated it will determine “whether some borrowers who are behind on their mortgage or student loan payments may have more difficulty working out a solution with the servicer because of their race or ethnicity.”  Entities in these markets should pay close attention to the Bureau’s recent use of mystery shoppers in other fair lending investigations. 

Small Business Lending.  Finally, the Bureau’s focus on small business lending should come as no surprise.  Its last two rule making agendas have included small business lending. Currently, the CFPB’s efforts have been in the pre-rule making stages, but it would not be surprising to see their “research” include examinations results as they move towards developing proposed regulations.

CFPB Enters Consent Order with Wells Fargo Over Payment Allocation Procedures

The CFPB has entered into a Consent Order with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. asserting that it engaged in unfair and deceptive practices related to its student loan servicing practices. Specifically, the CFPB contended that Wells Fargo’s payment allocation and payment aggregation practices were unfair and deceptive and that it engaged in unfair practices related to credit reporting and late fees. Wells Fargo self-reported the issues to the CFPB and agreed to the consent order without any admission of liability.   The Consent Order requires Wells Fargo pay a $3.6 million monetary civil penalty, pay $410,000 in compensation to affected consumers and perform certain remedial acts.

According to the Consent Order, in 1999, Wells Fargo consolidated its monthly billing process such that it began grouping together consumers’ student loans serviced by Wells Fargo on one invoice when they shared the same due date. As a result, the consumer would receive one monthly billing statement which contained a single payment coupon. Wells Fargo, however, continued to treat each loan as a separate loan. Problems arose when a consumer made a partial payment and did not specify to which loan it should be applied. In those instances, Wells Fargo applied it first to any delinquent loans and then pro rata across the grouped loans. The net result was each of the grouped loans was delinquent and separate late charges were assessed on each loan. The CFPB took issue with the fact that Wells Fargo provided limited information to consumers about the potential consequences of making a partial payment and did not disclose to consumers that they could make a payment on any of the grouped loans and direct Wells Fargo to allocate the payment to that loan. Additionally, the CFPB took issue with the fact that Wells Fargo did not disclose to consumers its methodology for applying partial loan payments. The CFPB concluded that Wells Fargo’s “failure to disclose its payment allocation methodology to consumers and the ability to provide payment instructions on how to allocate payments, while allocating Partial Payments towards Grouped Accounts in a manner that maximized late fees incurred by many consumers, caused or was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers.” Consent Order, ¶ 23.

Additionally, in 2000, Wells Fargo began manually aggregating multiple payments made within a billing cycle, including any overpayments from the prior cycle. The CFPB found issues with the manual system which resulted in bank errors in reviewing and processing accounts. As a result, some consumers incurred erroneous late payments and had their accounts erroneously reported to the consumer reporting agencies. The CFPB concluded that Wells Fargo’s “failure to aggregate multiple Partial Payments submitted by consumers within the same billing cycle, where payments, if aggregated, would have satisfied the total amount due for the loan’s billing cycle, and its failure to refund or waive any resulting improper fees assessed, cause or was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers.” Consent Order, ¶ 46. Similarly, the CFPB found that Wells Fargo’s “failure to update or correct inaccurate credit reports for consumers who submitted multiple Partial Payments and Overpayments that, when they were aggregated…constituted an Eligible Payment, and whose student loan accounts, as a result of such aggregation, reflected receipt of an Eligible Payment, also caused or was likely to case substantial injury to consumers” and violated the FCRA. Consent Order, ¶ 47, ¶ 50-52.

The CFPB also found additional issues with Wells Fargo’s late fee assessment practices. Specifically, a system coding error "caused the daily late fee monitoring report to omit student loan accounts for consumers who made an Eligible Payment, inclusive of any amount in arrears, on the last day of the applicable Grace Period.” Wells Fargo self-reported this issue; however, the CFPB found that the erroneous late fees were never waived or refunded to the consumer.

As remediation, the CFPB required the bank to:

• Adopt and implement reasonable written policies and procedures concerning the accuracy and integrity of information concerning student loan accounts that is furnished to consumer reporting agencies;
• On or with all Repayment Schedules provided to a consumer before billing statements are sent on a grouping of consumer’s loans:
• A statement that the bank will accept partial statements;
• A statement and explanation of how partial payments will be allocated among grouped accounts in the absence of consumer instructions to the contrary, including examples; and
• A statement that the consumer can direct payments to any of the specific loans in the Grouped Accounts with clear instruction on how to do so, including examples.
• On or with each billing statement and on all consumer facing web pages:
• Clearly and prominently disclose the basic principles of the bank’s payment application and allocation methodologies, including those regarding partial payments; and
• A statement that the consumer can direct payments to any loan included within the consumer’s Grouped Accounts, along with instructions of how to do so and a description of the potential consequences.
• Correct all inaccurate credit reporting regarding consumers affected by the payment allocation and aggregation errors;
• Notify each affected consumer about this consent order and the potential that their credit was inaccurately reported and the actions taken by the bank to correct the same; and
• Unless instructed otherwise, the bank will continue to allocate partial payments for consumers with Grouped Accounts where all payments are current in a manner so as to maximize the number of loans within the Grouped Account on which a full payment can be made.

The Order will remain in effect for five years and additionally requires periodic reporting by the bank, as well as retention of certain records.


The Key Take-Aways for Banks of All Sizes?

• It is imperative to clearly disclose the methodology for application of payments and the implications of partial payments;
• Manual systems are fraught with error and the converse, automated systems need to be continually tested for errors;
• The Order is consistent with the recent guidelines issues by the CFPB and Department of Education, requiring student loan servicers to apply partial payments in a manner that satisfies the amount due on as many loans loans as possible unless the consumer directs otherwise; and
• The CFPB is very focused on credit reporting systems and policies.

CFPB Supervisory Highlights Hone in on Credit Reporting and Student Loan Servicing

The CFPB published its Winter Supervisory Highlights last week, highlighting examinations across various financial products that were conducted between September 2015 and December 2015.  The Report highlights key findings made by the CFPB and provides insight into the current focus of examiners.  The Report makes clear that the CFPB remains concerned with credit reporting issues involving depository accounts and that supervision of the student loan servicing market remains a priority.  The Report also makes clear that where there is no specific regulatory authority, the CFPB will fall back on its UDAAP (unfair and deceptive practices) umbrella to regulate as it deems necessary.  Good news for debt collectors and mortgage servicers, the primary focuses of the Report are credit reporting and student loan servicing. The CFPB noted the following issues worthy of mention:

CREDIT REPORTING DEPOSITORY ACCOUNTS

• Banks and Credit Unions continue to struggle with accurately furnishing information to nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies and specifically, with regard to depository accounts.  As we indicated in a prior blog post, the CFPB continues to be concerned with the furnishing and reporting of information related to deposit accounts.  The Report again emphasizes the need for banks and credit unions to implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information they are furnishing as to deposit accounts and promptly update information they determine is incomplete or inaccurate.
• The Report also indicates that examiners are concerned that specialty consumer reporting agencies are not adequately overseeing furnishers.

DEBT COLLECTION

• Debt collectors may want to review their data migration systems and employee training regarding cease and desist requests.  The Report notes that examinations found at least one debt collector who contacted consumers after receiving written cease and desist requests.  The report attributed the failure to data migration errors and from mistakes during manual data entry.
• The Report also noted that specific to student loan collection, their examiners found in at least one examination, debt collectors falsely threatening garnishment. 

STUDENT LOAN SERVICING

• As to student loan servicers, the Report makes clear that student loan servicing is going to be an emphasis for the CFPB in coming months.  According to the CFPB news release, “[t]he CFPB has made it a priority to police this market so that borrowers ae not treated unfairly or illegally dead-ended into default.” Significant to the Report:

o   The CFPB examiners found unfair practices in violation of Dodd Frank where one or more servicers auto defaulted both the borrower and the co-borrower if the other filed bankruptcy.  The CFPB concluded that the “auto-defaults were unfair where the whole loan due clause was ambiguous on this point because reasonable consumers would not likely interpret the promissory notes to allow their own default based on a co-debtor’s bankruptcy.”  Supervisory Highlights, p. 16 (10^th Ed. Winter 2016).

o   The CFPB identified issues with loan conversions, suggesting that interest rates were migrated inaccurately by some loan servicers.

o   The CFPB identified weaknesses with loan servicers’ policies and procedures for credit reporting.  Particularly, the CFPB examinations noted insufficient policies and procedures regarding record retention, internal controls, audits and testing, and technology to furnish information accurately to consumer reporting agencies.

Banks and credit unions should pay close attention to the volume of comments being provided by the CFPB concerning credit reporting and depository accounts.  This is the second consecutive Supervisory Highlight edition to note the issue and the CFPB has additionally issued a Compliance Bulletin this year on the subject.

CFPB’s Supervisory Highlights Reveals Continued Problems with the Servicing of Student Loans (Part 2)

The CFPB published its Fall Supervisory Highlights this week, highlighting examinations across various financial products that were conducted between May 2015 and August 2015.  The Report highlights key findings made by the CFPB and provides insight into the current focus of the examiners.  The current edition of Highlights indicates that problems continue with the servicing of student loans.

Aside from the credit reporting issues we highlighted in a prior post, the Report highlighted specific concerns:

• Examiners continue to be concerned with the issue of partial payments.  The Report notes that examined entities are “depriving consumers of an effective choice as to how to allocate” partial payments. Specifically examiners found that:
  • Servicers were allocating partial payments over multiple loans, leaving all loans delinquent, and not communicating the ramifications of this to affected consumers; and
  • Servicers failed to inform consumers that they could specifically direct how payments were to be applied.
• Examiners noted issues with the manner in which servicers’ systems were processing payments including malfunctions where automatically debit payments were being triggered prior to the due date
• Examiners also raised concerns with auto debited payments in instances where the due date fell on a date the bank was closed.  In these instances where the payment is not processed until the next business day, additional interest accrues.  The CFPB contends this gives rise to two unfair and deceptive practices by the servicer:
  • first, the CFPB is imputing upon the servicer a duty to notify consumers that this may occur; and
  • secondly, the CFPB is imputing a duty on the servicer if no notification is provided to the consumer, then the servicer must credit the payment back to the due date.
• Examiners also found that servicers in certain instances are making false representations to consumers in bankruptcy concerning whether or not their student loans will be discharged in bankruptcy.  The CFPB continues to note that student loans may be discharged if the debtor can establish an undue hardship.
   

The Report serves as a continued reminder that that CFPB is imposing additional duties toward consumers by servicers under the “guise” of unfair and deceptive practices.  The application of payments continues to be a focus for regulators and servicers should carefully examine their policies and procedures to ensure that a robust compliance management system is in place.

CFPB’s Fall Supervisory Highlights Reveal a Focus on Credit Reporting (Part 1)

The CFPB published its Fall Supervisory Highlights this week, highlighting examinations across various financial products that were conducted between May 2015 and August 2015.  The Report highlights key findings made by the CFPB and provides insight into the current focus of the examiners.  The current edition of Highlights reveals a heavy focus on credit reporting, and particularly the duties of furnishers of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Today’s post will focus on the credit reporting findings with future posts to focus on the findings with respect to debt collection, student lending, mortgage servicing and fair credit.

With regard to credit reporting, examinations across all products focused on the obligations of furnishers and their struggle to maintain effective compliance management systems. Examiners are still concerned with the adequacy of the policies and procedures adopted by furnishers to insure the accuracy and integrity of the information there are furnishing.  The Report highlights specific concerns particularly with the furnishing of information on deposit accounts, debt collection and student loans.

Key takeaways from the May through August examinations:

• Furnishers are not periodically reviewing and updating their policies and procedures as necessary.  The Report reminds covered entities of their obligations under Regulation V to conduct periodic evaluations of their own practices, consumer reporting agency practices of which they are aware, investigations of disputed information, corrections of inaccurate information, means of communications and other factors that may affect the accuracy or integrity of information furnished.

• The Report notes that examinations revealed issues with depository institutions who furnish information on deposit accounts, noting that while they had policies and procedures in place to insure accuracy of their reporting on credit accounts, many did not have similar policies and procedures in place to address furnishing information on deposit accounts.

• The Report indicates that furnishers are struggling with Regulation V’s requirements that consumers be provided with the notice of results of investigations of direct disputes.

• The Report indicates that furnishers are failing to correctly notify consumers of adverse action based in whole or in part on information contained in a consumer report.  Most notably, the Report indicates that furnishers are not providing the name, address and telephone number of the credit reporting agency that provided the information relied upon.

• Over multiple products the CFPB identified issues with the processes, policies and procedures for ensuring the proper handling of disputes. 

  • Particularly, with respect to deposit information, the CFPB noted that entities were not always distinguishing between FCRA disputes (either direct or indirect disputes as to credit reporting) and other complaints they receive.

  • The Report also noted that debt collectors were also struggling in this area and again emphasized that debt collectors are obligated to investigate disputes instead of simply, deleting the trade line.

  • As to debt collection, the Report also noted that examined entities were struggling with adopting adequate policies and procedures that distinguish between credit reporting disputes and disputes made under the FDCPA and the respective obligations required by each.

• The CFPB Report was perhaps harshest in the area of credit reporting when examining student loan servicers, noting a number of deficiencies with policies and procedures, and particularly:

  • Insufficient policies and procedures as to handle consumer dispute investigations

  • A lack of policies and procedures addressing internal controls regarding the accuracy and integrity of information reported and particularly,

    • a failure to implement procedures for verifying random samples of information provided to consumer reporting agencies; and

    • a failure to implement periodic reviews of certain practices, including investigations of disputed information and corrections of inaccurate information.

 The Report should be a wakeup call to depository institutions furnishing information to consumer reporting agencies concerning deposit accounts.  According to the Report, this may be an area that has not been a focal point for compliance officers previously but should be reviewed in light of the Report.   The Report also makes clear that all furnishers need to establish meaningful internal controls to continue to test the accuracy of the data furnished and its handling of disputes to insure they are being handled within the perimeters of Regulation V and its Interagency Guidelines regarding the accuracy and integrity of information furnished.  Additionally, furnishers should revisit their dispute policies and insure they are distinguishing between credit report disputes and other disputes and then implementing proper procedures for addressing each.

CFPB Likely to Issue Student Loan Servicing Rules: What Will They Look Like?

The CFPB has set its target on student loan servicing.  Last week, the CFPB issued a Report on Student Loan Servicing and, in conjunction with the Department of Education and Department of the Treasury, issued a Joint Statement of Principles on StudentLoan Servicing.  The Report is a likely foreshadowing of impending rules governing how student loans are serviced.  According to the Joint Statement, rulemaking is likely to focus on four guiding principles:

• Consistency
• Accuracy
• Accountability
• Transparency

The CFPB Report makes the case for regulation of the student loan servicing industry by observing that there are no consistent market-wide standards for student loan servicing.  According to the CFPB, industry wide regulation is needed because student loan debt is the second largest class of consumer debt and while other sectors of consumer debt are showing improvement, the student loan market continues to show elevated levels of distress.  Moreover, the CFPB notes (as it has in other sectors it exercises dominion over) that “a borrower typically has little or no control over which company services their loan.”  The CFPB Report goes on to summarize the comments the CFPB has received in response to the Request for Information that issued in May of this year.  The Report makes it likely that the CFPB will issue a proposed Rule concerning Student Loan Servicing despite the fact that the sector was not earmarked for regulation in the Agency’s Spring 2015 Rulemaking Agenda.

So what would rulemaking look like?  Based upon the CFPB’s Report, it is likely that any rulemaking for student loan servicing is likely to bear similarity to the mortgage servicing rules issued in 2013.  Specifically, rule making is likely:

• To provide uniform standards as to loan servicing across the industry;
  • To address servicers’ obligations to correct errors asserted by borrowers;
  • To require servicers to notify borrower prior to transfer to a new servicer;
  • To establish standards for payment processing
    • Establish time frame for processing payments;
    • Establish some standards as to how payments are applied, particularly where loans are prepaid and groups of loans have been packaged;
       
• To create standardized protocols or programs for alternative repayment programs (a variation on the mortgage loss mitigation rules);
  • To potentially decrease and simplify the number of repayment options available to borrowers;
  • To potentially mandate as loss mitigation Pay as You Earn and/or Income Based Repayment programs;
  • To require standardized notifications of repayment options;
     
• To require servicers to provide certain information regarding student loans to borrowers on a periodic basis and/or upon the borrower’s request;
   
• Impose additional vendor management obligations on lenders (both private and federal) and on servicers.
   

Student Loan Servicing May Soon Resemble Mortgage Servicing

The CFPB has issued a Request for Information (the “RFI”) seeking comments concerning student loan servicing issues and potential solutions.  Based upon the content of the RFI and the prepared remarks of Cordray, it is likely that student loan servicers can soon expect rules and regulations to be implemented which will largely resemble those adopted for mortgage servicers and the credit card industry.  

The Rationale:

In March, President Obama issued his “Student Aid Bill of Rights” in which he directed the Secretary of Education, in cooperation with the CFPB, to issue a report assessing the potential applicability of consumer protections in the mortgage and credit card markets to student loans and recommendations as to statutory and regulatory changes. According to the CFPB, student loans are now the second largest consumer debt product.  The theme from the CFPB is a common one- consumers do not pick their student loan servicers and therefore there is no market control over the service industry. Currently, there is no comprehensive regulatory scheme in place governing the servicing of student loans and the CFPB believes that many of the issues it has identified with the servicing of student loans are similar to those that the Bureau has seen in the mortgage servicing and credit card markets.  The RFI “is meant to find ways to put the “service” back into the student loan servicing market and help people avoid unnecessary defaults.” Prepared Remarks of CFPB Director Richard Cordray at the Field Hearing on Student Loans (May 14, 2015).

The RFI:

The RFI focuses on the following key areas:

1. Specific practices that create repayment problems – for instance, billing error dispute procedures and timely processing of payments;
2. The compensation practices between lenders and servicers – specifically, whether student loan servicers are compensated in such a way as to encourage good service; 
3. Transitions between servicers- particularly, whether adequate notice is provided to the consumer and whether adequate information is transferred between the prior and successor servicers;
4.  Whether there are protections in other markets, specifically mortgage servicing and credit cards, that should be adopted in the student loan servicing market; and
5.  Whether there is adequate information available in the market to determine whether servicers are being effective.

The Future Regulations:

The CFPB appears to be focusing in on the mortgage servicing and credit card market reforms that have been implemented since the inception of the CFPB.  “Loan servicing generally includes many common functions, irrespective of the underlying consumer financial product, including account maintenance, billing and payment processing, customer service, and managing accounts for customers experiencing financial distress.”  Request for Information Regarding Student Loan Servicing, Docket No. CFPB-2015-0021, p. 20.  It is therefore likely that student loan servicing reform will bear some similarities to reform in the mortgage servicing and credit card markets.

Some of the provisions being considered for implementation in the student loan servicing sector are:

• Notice of transfer of loan servicing- expect to see some sort of notice provisions implemented and potentially, a provision that will require where there is a transfer, some sort of grace period in which the successor servicer cannot treat a consumer’s payment as late if the consumer made the payment in a timely manner to prior servicer;

• Transfer of Information Between Servicers - some requirement that student loan servicers implement policies and procedures to facilitate a transfer of information during servicing transfers;

• Payoff Statements – a requirement that servicers provide payoff statements within some set period of receiving a request for payoff from a consumer;

• Error Resolution Procedures – the CFPB appears to be contemplating a provision similar to the Qualified Written Response requirement imposed on mortgage servicers;

•  Early Intervention with Delinquent Borrowers – there is likely to be some provisions put in place for early rehabilitation of delinquent account and potentially modification rules to prevent defaults;

•  Timely Posting of Payments – a requirement that payments be credited within a certain time of receipt;

• Periodic Billing Statements – a requirement that monthly billing statements be provided; and

•  Application of Payments – some provision as to how payments in excess of the minimum payment will be applied where there are multiple accounts.

Time Frame:

The deadline for comments is July 13, 2015.  It is therefore unlikely that any proposed rule will be published before 2016.