auto dealer in black and red logo
MenuMENU
SearchSEARCH

CFPB Methodology Flawed, New Study Concludes

A new study released by the American Financial Services Association finds bias and high error rates in the CFPB's proxy methodology for determining disparate impact.

by Staff
November 19, 2014
2 min to read


WASHINGTON A comprehensive study of more than 8.2 million auto financing contracts found that the disparity alleged by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) between the amount of dealer reserve charged to minorities and non-minorities is not supported by data.

The study, “Fair Lending: Implications for the Indirect Auto Finance Market,” was commissioned by the American Financial Services Association (AFSA) and conducted by Charles River Associates. It examined the proxy methodology used by the CFPB and found significant bias and high error rates.  

“The AFSA’s results are much lower than what the CFPB alleges as problematic in the marketplace, because the association’s study factored in complexities of the automotive market that the CFPB did not consider, and errors associated with the CFPB methodology,” AFSA President & CEO Chris Stinebert said. “The interplay between factors such as geography, new versus used, length of loan, down payment, trade-in vehicle, credit score and competitive factors, such as meeting or beating a competing offer, is evidence of a dynamic market.”

Central to the study was an examination of the Bayesian Improved Surname Geocoding (BISG) proxy methodology used by the CFPB to determine disparate impact to legally protected groups.

BISG estimates race and ethnicity based on an applicant’s name and census data. The AFSA’s study calculated BISG probabilities against a test population of mortgage data, where race and ethnicity are known. Among the findings:

When the proxy uses an 80% probability that a person belongs to an African American group, the proxy correctly identified their race less than 25% of the time.      

Applying BISG on a continuous method overestimates the disparities and the amount of alleged harm and provides no ability to identify which contracts are associated with the allegedly harmed consumers.

“Alleged pricing discrepancies between minorities and nonminorities for auto financing rates are simply not supported by data,” Stinebert said. “We have reviewed our study results with the CFPB and look forward to continuing our work with the bureau to address the issues we raised and to ensure consumers have access to affordable credit.”

Originally posted on F&I and Showroom

More Compliance

two cars on a billboard, No Hidden Fees
ComplianceMay 1, 2026

Dealer Ads and the FTC

The agency has made it clear in recent enforcement actions and warnings, in auto retail and other industries, that advertised prices must include all nonoptional costs to the consumer.

Read More →
Complianceby StaffFebruary 4, 2026

AAMS Training and Mosaic Compliance Services Merge

The strategic combination is intended to expand technology-driven compliance solutions for the automotive industry.

Read More →
ComplianceOctober 6, 2025

The Jurisprudence of Pricing

Legal concept helps makes sense of California’s recently passed version of the failed federal CARS legislation.

Read More →
Ad Loading...
ComplianceJuly 17, 2025

Trump 2.0 and Enforcement Priorities

The upshot is don’t relax, because regulation indeed continues.

Read More →
Blue and white Automotive Service Professionals logo presented over a blue background with various wrench tools.
Fixed Opsby StaffJune 11, 2025

June Is Automotive Service Professionals Month

Observance is opportunity to thank technicians for their crucial role in auto retail.

Read More →
Complianceby StaffJanuary 30, 2025

Cox Automotive Releases Compliance Guide

New edition walks auto dealers through relevant regulations for 2025.

Read More →
Ad Loading...
Complianceby StaffDecember 24, 2024

Trump 2.0 and Retail Automotive

Administration’s plans should generally bode well for the industry.

Read More →
Complianceby StaffOctober 17, 2024

CARS Rule Update: 5th Circuit Oral Arguments Recap

In this video, Jim Ganther of Mosaic Compliance Services, recaps the key takeaways from the oral arguments in the critical CARS Rule case, including potential outcomes and what dealers should do to stay ahead of compliance changes.

Read More →
ComplianceSeptember 19, 2024

State of the CARS Rule, Part 3

The players in the automotive industry should coordinate their responses to this pending regulation.

Read More →
Ad Loading...

The Future of Car Dealer Documents

Where forms, documents, agreements and contracts could be in 50 years.

Read More →