InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FFIEC publishes proposed extension of reporting obligations
On January 26, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) approved the OCC, Fed, and FDIC’s publication for public comment of a proposal to extend several information collection items for three years. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FFIEC last month put forth a similar three-year proposal on FFIEC 002 which affected the three Call Reports (FFIEC 031, 041, and 051). While this proposal includes those same four items, it adds two more: the Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101), and the Market Risk Regulatory Report for Institutions Subject to the Market Risk Capital Rule (FFIEC 102). The proposed changes include a new confidential report (FFIEC 102a) titled the Market Risk Regulatory Report that would “collect information necessary for the agencies to evaluate [an]… institution’s implementation of the market risk rule and validate a [bank’s] internal models used in preparing the FFIEC 102.” The revisions are related to the agencies’ capital rule proposal published on September 18, 2023. Comments are requested by March 25, 2024, and the revisions are planned to be effective as of September 30, 2025.
Agencies update the Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure
On December 28, 2023, the Fed, OCC, FDIC, and NCUA published a final rule amending the Uniform Rules of Practice and Procedure to recognize the use of electronic communications and enhance the efficiency and equity of administrative hearings. The agencies have implemented measures recognizing the role of electronic communications across all facets of administrative proceedings. Among other things, the final rule (i) defines “electronic signature” in the Uniform Rules; (ii) codifies permitting electronic service and filings for administrative actions; (iii) allows for remote depositions; (iv) includes Equal Access to Justice Act procedures based on the 2019 Administrative Conference of the United States Model Rule; (v) adds provisions on when parties must pay civil money penalties; (vi) adds specific provisions pertaining to the forfeiture of a national bank, federal savings association, or federal branch or agency charter or franchise due to certain money laundering or cash transaction violations; (vii) modifies the discovery rules to recognize electronic documents and allow for electronic production; (viii) establishes new rules for expert and hybrid fact-expert witnesses; and (ix) consolidates the Uniform Rules and Local Rules for national banks and federal savings associations.
Additionally, the OCC has revised its specific administrative practice and procedure regulations to harmonize rules for national banks and federal savings associations. Furthermore, adjustments were made to the OCC’s regulations on organization and operations to encompass service of process considerations.
The rule is effective April 1, 2024.
OCC announces CRA bank asset-size threshold adjustments for 2024
On December 26, 2023, the OCC announced revisions to the asset-size thresholds used to define small and intermediate small banks and savings associations under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Effective January 1, 2024, a small bank or savings association will mean an institution that, as of December 31 of either of the past two years, had assets of less than $1.564 billion. An intermediate small bank or savings association will mean an institution with assets of at least $391 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two years, and less than $1.564 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two years. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed and the FDIC also announced joint annual adjustments to the CRA asset-size thresholds used to define “small bank” and “intermediate small bank.”
FDIC proposes revisions to call reports
On December 27, 2023, the FDIC published its proposed revisions to the reporting forms and instructions for Call Reports and the FFIEC 002 report in a financial institution letter under the auspices of the FFIEC. Call Reports are also known as Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income, a set of financial reporting standards that banks in the U.S. must file with a regulatory agency. The proposed revisions are currently open for public comment until February 26, 2024.
The changes affect Call Reports FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051, as well as the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002). The FFIEC’s proposed changes encompass reporting on (i) loans to non-depository financial institutions, (ii) structured financial products, and (iii) long-term debt requirements. The proposed changes are found in more detail in the Federal Register, and state detailed revisions for each FFIEC form. The changes will go into effect on June 30, 2024.
Banking regulators update “small bank” definitions
On December 20, the Fed and the FDIC announced changes to the 2024 asset-size thresholds used to define “intermediate small bank” and “small bank” under the CRA. To qualify as an “intermediate small bank,” a bank must have assets of at least $391 million as of December 31 in both prior two calendar years, and less than $1.564 billion as of December 31 in either of the prior two calendar years. To qualify as a “small bank,” a bank must have had assets of less than $1.564 billion as of December 31 in either of the prior two calendar years. These increases are based on a 4.06% increase in the applicable consumer price index and the thresholds will take effect beginning January 1, 2024.
FDIC issues advisory on managing commercial real estate concentrations
On December 18, the FDIC issued an advisory to institutions with commercial real estate (CRE) concentrations. The advisory, among other things, reminds insured state non-member banks and savings associations (FDIC-supervised institutions) of the importance of “strong capital, appropriate credit loss allowance levels, and robust credit risk-management practices” when managing CRE concentrations. The advisory notes that “[r]ecent weaknesses in the economic environment and fundamentals related to various CRE sectors have increased the FDIC’s overall concern for state nonmember institutions with concentrations of CRE loans.” The FDIC said that “CRE investment property capitalization rates have not kept pace with recent rapid increases in long-term interest rates, which leads to concerns about general over-valuation of underlying collateral.” For institutions with concentrated CRE exposures, the agency “strongly recommended” that “as market conditions warrant, institutions with CRE concentrations (particularly in office lending) increase capital to provide ample protection from unexpected losses if market conditions deteriorate further.” The agency also outlined key risk-management measures for financial institutions with significant concentrations in CRE and real estate construction and development (C&D) to manage through changing market conditions: (i) “maintain strong capital levels;” (ii) “ensure that credit loss allowances are appropriate;” (iii) “manage C&D and CRE loan portfolios closely;” (iv) “maintain updated financial and analytical information;” (v) “bolster the loan workout infrastructure;” and (vi) “maintain adequate liquidity and diverse funding sources.”
Agencies extend Regulation O relief for some companies controlled by funds
On December 15, the Fed, FDIC, and the OCC announced the issuance of an interagency statement to further extend the “Extension of the Revised Statement Regarding Status of Certain Investment Funds and their Portfolio Investments for Purposes of Regulation O and Reporting Requirements under Part 363 of FDIC Regulations.” The original statement was issued on December 22, 2022, with an expiration of January 1, 2024. The new interagency statement effectively extends the prior no-action position (covered by InfoBytes here) until either January 1, 2025 or the effective date of amendments to Regulation O that addresses the treatment of extensions of credit by a bank to fund complex–controlled portfolio companies that are bank insiders.
The agencies noted that they will refrain from acting against banks extending credit to complex-controlled portfolio companies that would otherwise violate Regulation O, provided the company controls (directly or indirectly) less than 15 percent of the bank’s voting securities (or 20 percent under certain circumstances) and does not plan to place representatives or exercise a controlling influence over the bank. Additionally, the agencies will not pursue action against insured depository institutions for failing to report credit extensions that would violate Regulation O but fall under the interagency statement’s coverage. The agencies explained how credit extensions must be on “substantially the same terms as those prevailing for comparable transactions with unaffiliated third parties” and may not “involve more than normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features.”
FDIC Director McKernan suggests phasing ‘underdeveloped’ parts of Basel III
On December 12, a member of the FDIC Board of Directors, Jonathan McKernan, expressed concerns about its Endgame proposal’s reliance on Basel Committee decisions. In his speech at a conference on trading book capital, he highlighted the lack of explanation behind design choices, leaving banking regulators unable to justify or comprehend certain reform aspects. The board member added that the absence of rationale hindered public feedback and raised doubts about the reform’s legitimacy.
McKernan suggested an approach to defer less developed areas of the reforms while implementing uncontested aspects—acknowledging the proposal’s goal to address weaknesses in the trading book framework and citing concerns about specific design decisions. McKernan notes certain design decisions like the profit-and-loss attribution test and non-modellable risk factors. McKernan explained that the PLA attribution test assesses the alignment between a bank’s risk management and front office models. McKernan said that for both designs, there is very little public information on the Basel Committee’s threshold formulation and that they are based on simulated data, which is viewed as a preliminary estimate still under development. Finally, McKernan supported enhancing the regulatory capital framework but stressed the need to validate the rationale behind key design decisions in the Basel reforms.
FDIC releases semiannual update on Restoration Plan
On December 7, the FDIC released its semiannual update on the Restoration Plan for the agency’s Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the FDI Act) requires that the FDIC board adopt a Restoration Plan wherein the DIF balance falls below the statutory minimum reserve ratio by the required deadline. The FDIC detailed that after the first half of 2020 and the onset of Covid-19, insured deposit growth caused a steep decline in the reserve ratio—the ratio of the fund balance relative to insured deposit—so the FDIC initiated the Restoration Plan in September 2020 to restore the DIF reserve ratio to 1.35 percent by the anticipated deadline. In 2022, however, the FDIC revised the plan after recognizing the risk of not meeting the required minimum by the deadline. The Amended Restoration Plan (covered by InfoBytes here) raised deposit insurance assessment rates by two basis points for all insured depository institutions, effective from the first quarterly assessment period of 2023.
The FDIC reported that as of June 30, the DIF balance was $117 billion, and the reserve ratio decreased from 1.25 percent to 1.1 percent due to increased loss provisions, which is on track to meet the statutory threshold ahead of the September 30, 2028, deadline.
FDIC agrees to settle with CEO and board members after District Court dismissal
On December 7, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed a lawsuit brought by the FDIC against the chairman, president and CEO and board members of a state-chartered Louisiana bank after the parties reached a confidential settlement. In 2017, the State of Louisiana closed the bank and appointed the FDIC as the bank’s receiver. According to the DOJ’s press release, the bank’s former chairman, president and CEO was found guilty of 46 counts of bank fraud, conspiracy and other charges related to the bank’s collapse and has been sentenced to 14 years in prison and required to pay $214 million in restitution in August 2023. The FDIC also brought a civil action alleging that the bank’s chairman, president and CEO abused his incremental lending authority and the bank’s board loan committee approved improper credit extensions. The FDIC claimed it was entitled to recover $165 million from the bank in its capacity as its receiver: the loans consisted of $114 million for the bank’s chairman’s alleged commission of “gross negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty” and $51 million for the bank’s “gross negligence in approving other credit extensions.” More specifically, the bank’s chairman, president and CEO “recklessly” approved improper credit extensions, while the bank’s board loan committee violated “prudent business practices” by approving director loans.