InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Senator Warren pens letter to banking regulators to check on their regulatory commitments following 2023 bank failures
On March 10, Senator Warren (D-MA) released a letter to Federal Reserve Vice Chair Michael Barr, FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg, and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu (the bank regulators) seeking information on any progress with their commitments to strengthen bank regulatory standards following the 2023 banking issues. Warren urged the bank regulators to reinstate the rules for banks with assets between $100 and $250 billion, including liquidity requirements and capital stress tests, that were rolled-back with the 2018 enactment of the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act” (EGRRCPA). She concluded her letter by posing several questions, including asking what efforts the bank regulators are taking to strengthen rules, when these rules are expected to be announced or implemented, how many banks will be subject to these rules, if the implementation process would include a comment period, and if lobbying by large banks against the Basel III capital rule has weakened the bank regulators’ resolve to strengthen rules for banks with more than $100 billion in assets. Sen. Warren has asked for a response by March 25.
GAO report calls for FDIC, Fed to fix bank supervision issues
On March 6, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report to congressional requesters, including Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, regarding the Fed and FDIC’s communication of supervisory concerns related to the 2023 banking issues and the agencies’ procedures for escalating concerns. The report found that while both regulators generally met their requirements for communicating concerns, the Fed’s escalation procedures lacked clarity and specificity, which could have contributed to delayed enforcement last year.
The GAO recommended that the Fed revise its escalation procedures to be more precise and include measurable criteria. The Fed agreed with the recommendation and acknowledged that clearer examination procedures could help in addressing supervisory concerns more promptly. For the FDIC, the GAO recognized that the FDIC already updated its escalation procedures in August 2023 and will intend to implement further revisions to respond promptly. The GAO report also suggested that Congress amend the FDI Act to incorporate noncapital triggers related to unsafe banking practices before they affect capital.
FDIC orders bank to plan termination of relationships with “significant” fintech partners
Recently, the FDIC released a consent order against a Tennessee bank as part of its release of January Enforcement Decisions and Orders. The FDIC stated that within sixty days of the effective date of the consent order, the bank must “submit a general contingency plan to the Regional Director… [on] how the [b]ank will administer an effective and orderly termination with significant third-party FinTech partners,” as part of its Third-Party Risk Management program for the bank. The Program must assess and manage the risks posed by all fintech firms associated with the bank. It will include policies related to due diligence and risk assessment criteria that are appropriate to the products and services provided by the fintech partner. The bank must also engage an independent firm for completion of a comprehensive Banking-as-a-Service Risk Assessment Report.
The bank further consented, without admitting or denying any charges of unsafe or unsound banking practices, to board supervision of the bank’s management and approval of the bank’s policies and objectives, qualified management, the Regional Director’s prior consent for new or expanded lines of business that would result in an annual 10 percent growth in total assets or liabilities, and a comprehensive strategic plan.
Agencies issue 2023 Shared National Credit Program Report
On February 16, the FDIC, Fed, and OCC issued the 2023 Shared National Credit (SNC) Report, which found that while large, syndicated bank loans generally have moderate credit quality, there appears to be a trend of declining credit quality stemming from higher interest rates and tighter profit margins in certain industries. The report found that credit risk remains high in leveraged loans and specific sectors like technology, telecom, healthcare, and transportation. Also, the real estate and construction sector showed mixed trends.
House Democrats urge agencies to finalize Basel III Endgame rule
On February 16, the Ranking Member for the House Committee on Financial Services, Maxine Waters (D-CA), and 41 other House Democrats sent a letter to the FDIC, Fed, and OCC regarding the Basel III Endgame and the proposed rule which would impose higher capital requirements. The letter urged the agencies to finalize the rule, highlighting the purpose of capital requirements “to shield banks from unexpected losses, preventing their failure, while serving as a source of funding that banks use…” The letter commended the agencies for providing the public with almost six months to comment and argued the endgame rule’s impact on access to credit is low. The letter also noted that the expected funding impact on a large bank’s average lending portfolio is expected to increase by just 0.03 percent, which it describes as “insignificant” compared to Fed interest rate increases. The letter specifically urged the heads of the agencies to finalize the rules this year “to ensure we have a banking system that will promote stable economic growth.”
Trade associations sue OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve on their Proposed Rules for the CRA
On February 5, a group of trade, banking, and business associations filed a class-action complaint for injunctive relief against the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC (the Agencies) for their enforcement of the new rulemaking (the Rule) implementing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). The plaintiffs argued that the Rule creates a “wholesale and unlawful change” to a successful fifty-year-old statute. After listing several problems, the plaintiffs requested the Court to “enjoin, hold unlawful, vacate, and set aside” the Rule; additionally, plaintiffs requested the Court declare that the Rule violates the CRA and the Administrative Procedures Act.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Rule was approved by the Agencies on October 24, 2023, published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2024, and would take effect on April 1, 2024. The plaintiffs state that the new regulatory rules are “extraordinarily and unnecessarily complex” since they require a “staggering” 649 pages. (An FDIC Vice Chairman was quoted as labeling the rules as “by far the longest rulemaking the FDIC has ever issued.”) In detail, the plaintiffs support their claims by pointing out the Rule creates different performance tests that differ “radically” from the previous regulatory framework, e.g., the Retail Lending Test is a two-part test, and that each of these tests includes “multiple sub-parts and sub-parts of sub-parts” that create complexity in the Rule. Banks will be given two years (until January 1, 2026) to comply with the Rule. Plaintiffs argue that banks must act immediately, citing the OCC’s own words that the estimated compliance costs are over $90 million during the first year.
The plaintiffs argue the Rule violates the APA by exceeding the Agencies’ statutory authority by “assessing banks on their responsiveness to credit needs outside of their geographic deposit-taking footprint” (Count I), and by issuing a rule that is arbitrary and capricious by failing to give reasonable notice of the areas and products that will be assessed and the market benchmarks against which performance will be evaluated; failing to conduct an adequate cost benefit analysis; and failing to consider the implications of the Rule (Count II).
OCC and FDIC announce their CRA evaluations
On February 2, OCC and the FDIC released their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) evaluations. The OCC disclosed a list of evaluations of national banks, federal savings associations, and insured federal branches of foreign banks that became public in January 2024. Out of the 18 evaluations, six were rated “outstanding,” nine were rated “satisfactory,” and three were rated as “needs to improve.” The evaluations can be accessed on the OCC’s website, including a searchable list of all public CRA evaluations. Simultaneously, the FDIC released its list of state nonmember banks that were evaluated for CRA compliance in November 2023. Out of 57 evaluations, 56 were rated as “satisfactory” and one bank was rated as “outstanding.”
Federal bank regulatory agencies seek comment on interagency effort to reduce regulatory burden
On February 6, the FDIC, Fed, and OCC initiated a series of requests for public comment aimed at reducing regulatory burden on supervised institutions. This effort is mandated by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996, which required a review of regulations every 10 years. The agencies have divided regulations into 12 categories, with the first round focusing on three categories: Applications and Reporting, Powers and Activities, and International Operations. The public has 90 days to comment on the regulations in these categories. Over the next two years, the agencies will seek public feedback on more, remaining categories to identify regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome. Additionally, outreach meetings will be held to allow interested parties to provide direct input on regulatory requirements. Further details about these meetings will be shared as they are finalized.
House Committee calls for new quantitative analysis from Basel III “Endgame” original proposal
On January 31, the House Financial Services Committee issued a press release after holding its hearing on “Federal Banking Proposals Under the Biden Administration,” which invited two leaders from trade organizations, a lawyer, and a business school professor. The Committee’s main takeaway was that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking from July 2023, as released by the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC, provides “little quantitative analysis” of the potential economic impacts (covered by InfoBytes, here). This Notice initially opened the comment period for the Basel III “Endgame” meant to revise the capital requirements for large banking organizations.
The Committee took the position, through bipartisan agreement, that the Biden Administration “must withdraw” its Basel III “Endgame” implementing proposal and replace it with one that offers a sound and objective economic analysis that is not skewed by politics but supported by data. The Committee supports its position that the Notice provides a “paltry” economic and regulatory analysis by noting that it devotes only 17 out of 1087 pages to the analysis. The press release cited comments from various congressional members, some of whom raised concerns about the proposal’s potential impact on homebuyers and mortgage lending, and the proposal’s potential to disincentivize financing for renewable energy projects. Finally, the Committee linked several members’ comment letters over the past few months.
FDIC issues December 2023 enforcement actions
On January 26, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in December 2023. During that month, the FDIC made public 12 orders consisting of “four orders of termination of deposit insurance; three orders terminating consent orders; two consent orders; one order terminating supervisory prompt corrective action directive; one order of prohibition from further participation; one order to pay a civil money penalty (CMP); and one Decision and Order to Prohibit from Further Participation and Assessment of Civil Money Penalty.”
Included is a consent order with a Mississippi-based bank for alleged Bank Secrecy Act violations, along with violations of a previous consent order from 2020, imposing a $600,000 civil money penalty. Also included is a consent order with a Kentucky-based bank, alleging the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices and violations of law or regulation” relating to, among other things, the Bank Secrecy Act. The bank neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed to create a written plan to recover its losses from the bank’s relationship with a third-party loan program, to reduce the bank’s risk position in the program, and to stop granting any extensions of credit through adversely classified or criticized loans related to the third-party loan program. The consent order additionally requires the bank’s board to assess the sufficiency of the bank’s allowance for credit losses (ACL), ensuring the establishment of an appropriate ACL and to uphold and accurately report it. Specifically, “management shall review updated credit risk metrics and loss data for the third-party loan programs referenced in the ROE and ensure appropriate provisions to the ACL relative to this information.”