InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC releases March CRA evaluations for 56 banks, three rated as “Needs to Improve”
On March 4, the FDIC released a list of state nonmember banks evaluated for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for March. The FDIC evaluated 56 banks with four ratings: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance. Of the 56 evaluations reported by the FDIC, three banks hold the lowest given ratings as “Needs to Improve.” Most banks were rated “Satisfactory,” and seven banks were rated “Outstanding.” According to the FDIC’s release, a copy of a bank’s CRA evaluation is available directly from the bank, as required by law, or from the FDIC’s Public Information Center.
House Financial Services Committee urges banking regulators to reconsider aspects of Basel III “Endgame” proposal
On March 5, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (NC-10), along with all Republican members released a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu, and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg recommending they each withdraw from the Basel III “Endgame” proposal and identify better objectives with justifications. The Republican members indicated that the proposal received an “unprecedented number of comment letters,” with more than 97 percent receiving a call for withdrawal, re-proposal, or general concern with the proposal’s elements. Further, the letter pointed out that the agency chairs themselves recognized there was an issue, as shown by the agencies’ comment period extension by more than 45 days. While the members noted a strong desire to change the capital rules for financial institutions, they also expressed frustration with the lack of transparency regarding the whole process: “There has been little clarity . . . with Congress or the American people as to when or how the agencies will release the information collected from the banks or seek comment[.]” The Committee’s letter concluded by stating how the proposal is flawed and called for greater clarity on how agencies plan to account for public comments.
OCC releases February CRA evaluations for 31 banks, one “Needs to Improve”
On March 1, the OCC released its Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) performance evaluations for last February. The OCC evaluated 31 national banks and federal savings associations under four ratings: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance. Of the 31 evaluations reported by the OCC, only one entity holds the lowest rating, a small bank in Indiana, which was rated “Needs to Improve.” Most entities were rated “Satisfactory,” and six entities were rated “Outstanding.” In an OCC FAQ regarding the implementation of the CRA, the OCC detailed how it evaluates and rates financial institutions by reviewing both the institution itself (such as its capacity, constraints, business strategies, competitors, and peers) and the community the institution it serves (such as its demographics, economic data, lending, investment, and service opportunities).
CFPB limits examiner term limits to five years after concurring with OIG recommendations
On February 26, the Office of Inspector General for the CFPB (OIG) released a report entitled, “The CFPB Can Enhance Certain Practices to Mitigate the Risk of Conflicts of Interest for Division of Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending Employees.” The report found that the CFPB’s Office of Supervision Examinations (OSE) does not have a formal policy that requires bank examiners to rotate assignments in a specified time frame, which increases potential conflicts of interest. The OSE examines banks to check for compliance failures in federal consumer financial law and is based out of four regional offices: New York (Northeast), Atlanta (Southeast), Chicago (Midwest), and San Francisco (West). The OIG argued that a formal policy adopted by the OSE would more effectively monitor examiner rotations, promoting “objectivity, cross-training, and broader expertise” and reducing the risk of regulatory capture – or subjecting the same regulated entity to the same examiner and subsequently risking independence and objectivity of exams. The OIG’s report posited two recommendations: (i) that the CFPB implement a formal examiner rotation policy; and (ii) that the CFPB track and document assignments for examiners and its members.
The OIG found that while some OSE offices have informal examiner rotation policies in place, there is no global system in place to track examiner assignments to ensure regular rotation. For example, OSE’s Northeast and West regional offices have written policies that require certain staff members to rotate every five years. However, the Southeast and Midwest offices do not have any written policies in place and stated having a “natural” turnover process based on needs and availability, among others.
The CFPB concurred with both OIG recommendations, stating that it will limit the time for lead examiners and field managers to five years and develop a tool for tracking these assignments.
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.
Fed’s Bowman speaks on current trends in banking regulation
On February 27, Michelle Bowman, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, gave a speech reflecting on the state of the broader U.S. economy and banking regulation in Tampa, Florida. Bowman highlighted the need for the Fed to focus on “efficiency in how we deliver on our safety and soundness goals.” On capital reform, Bowman noted that since the closure of the comment period for the Basel III “Endgame” reforms, the federal banking agencies have been reviewing the feedback and identifying areas of concern: she hopes that the agencies will take this opportunity to revise the proposal in a way that addresses the concerns raised by the public. After voicing her non-support for the recently adopted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) final rule, Bowman shared that while the new rule provided some positive changes, the changes are still “unnecessarily complex, overly prescriptive,” and have greater costs than benefits. Bowman highlighted that the final rule treats a wide range of community banks with more than $2 billion in assets as “large banks, and would have resulted in a “nearly tenfold increase in banks with a ‘Need to Improve’ CRA rating” if applied to the period from 2018 to 2020. On Regulation II and debit card interchange fees, Bowman noted that the comment period has been extended until May 12, adding that the proposed permanent decrease in debit card interchange fees will have “consequences for banks of all sizes.” Bowman ended with discussion on bank mergers, climate change, and liquidity.
OCC names Ted Dowd as Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel
On February 23, the OCC announced that Ted Dowd will serve as the Acting Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel for the agency while the OCC searches for a successor to Ben McDonough. Dowd is currently the Deputy Chief Counsel, a position he has fulfilled since 2018 where he oversaw the operations of all OCC district counsel offices. Under the new position, Dowd will oversee all legal aspects of the OCC, as well as support the agency’s activities in bank chartering, supervision, enforcement, and rulemaking, among others. This positional change will go into effect on April 8 when the current OCC Chief Counsel Ben McDonough begins a new position at another agency.
FFIEC highlights the importance of property valuation practices
On February 12, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) released a statement on examination principles related to ensuring fair and creditable residential property valuation practices among supervised institutions. The FFIEC underscored the necessity for institutions to comply with anti-discrimination laws and regulations, such as the ECOA and the Fair Housing Act, while also adhering to safety and soundness regulations outlined in statutes like the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. According to the statement, effective valuation review programs are essential for identifying and addressing deficiencies, ensuring compliance with appraisal regulations, and promoting fair lending practices. Through examination processes, both in consumer compliance and safety and soundness assessments, the FFIEC aimed to mitigate risks associated with valuation discrimination or bias.
Hsu notes a “trip wire approach” for FSOC review of payments, private equity systemic risk
On February 21, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu delivered remarks at Vanderbilt University, discussing banking and commerce, regulatory effectiveness, and financial stability. Hsu further discussed the “blurring of the line” between banking and private credit/equity, its relevance to different market crashes, and how it can create risk. Hsu mentioned the potential to fill a regulatory gap regarding payments.
Hsu highlighted that the FSOC’s recent analytic framework indicated vulnerable points that can commonly contribute to financial stability risks and discussed how FSOC may address the risks. The framework also established how the council determines whether a given nonbank should be under the Fed’s supervision and prudential standards (covered by InfoBytes here). In his speech, Hsu defines banking as “institutions that take deposits, make loans, and facilitate payments” and commerce as “everything else” including nonbank finance.
He added that the FSOC should use its macro-prudential tools to address risk and develop metrics and thresholds to identify when a payments or private equity firm may need an assessment of systemic risk. This “trip wire approach” would leverage the FSOC’s framework, moving a firm from the identification phase to the assessment phase of the FSOC’s analytic framework, and the assessment would inform if there was a need for FSOC response. Because of the rise in cash managed by nonbanks on behalf of consumers, Hsu said that could serve as a metric for the trip wire for payments-focused fintechs and other nonbank companies. “The standardization, scalars, and level at which an FSOC assessment would be triggered would be informed by public comment,” he added. Finally, Hsu highlighted how the trip wire approach offered a transparent and proactive method for identifying and addressing systemic risks before they escalate.
New York Fed Bank analyzes BNPL usage
On February 14, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (NY Fed) published a blog post evaluating different households’ use of buy now pay later (BNPL) products, which it generally described as “loans that are payable in four or fewer installments and carry no finance charges.” To understand BNPL usage and its relationship with consumers’ financial situations, the NY Fed conducted a study which revealed distinct usage patterns between the financially fragile and the financially stable.
The study revealed that financially fragile individuals, or individuals who have a credit score below 620, who have been declined for a credit application in the past year, or who have fallen 30 or more days delinquent on a loan in the past year, typically use BNPL to make frequent small purchases when compared to financial stable individuals. The study also found that using BNPL often leads to repeat transactions, indicating a potential trend towards repeat use of the product, particularly among those facing credit challenges.
The study also found that consumers’ motivations for using BNPL differ. Financially stable individuals often cite zero interest as a key advantage, while the financially fragile prioritize ease of access and convenience. The NY Fed summarized that BNPL usage among financially fragile individuals resembles using a credit card for medium-size, out-of-budget purchases, while financially stable users tend to make fewer purchases with a focus of avoiding interest on high-priced items. The NY Fed noted, however, that there is evidence of misunderstanding among users, such as the belief that BNPL helps build credit, concluding that “those with this view may be better off using a credit card.”