InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Updates Guidance on Federal Branch Supervision and Enforcement Action Policies and Procedures
On October 27, the OCC issued Bulletin 2017-46, updating guidance related to federal bank branch supervision and licensing. The OCC issued a revised version of its “Federal Branches and Agencies” booklet, which clarifies the process for reviewing and evaluating license conversion applications by a state-licensed branch or agency operated by a foreign bank to a federal branch or agency. Bulletin 2017-46 also replaced the 2014 agency paper entitled, The OCC’s Approach to Federal Branch and Agency Supervision. The paper outlines the OCC’s framework and considerations related to (i) the regulatory approach and supervision process for large and complex federal branches and agencies (not community banks), and (ii) the general overview of the filing requirements for applications, notices, and licenses, as well as the review and decision process.
On October 31, the OCC issued Bulletin 2017-48 to update its policies and procedures regarding bank enforcement actions. The updates are designed to provide more clarity and consistency in the implementation, communication and monitoring of enforcement actions. In particular, the updates are intended to, among other things, better describe the relationship between violations, concerns identified in matters requiring attention, and enforcement actions, emphasize communication with bank management and personnel and OCC supervisors, and enhance standard processes for tracking and resolving corrective actions. The updates are effective December 1, and are reflected in its “Bank Supervision Process,” “Community Bank Supervision,” “Federal Branches and Agencies Supervision,” and “Large Bank Supervision” booklets of the Comptroller’s Handbook.
OCC to Host Workshop for Bank Directors in December; FDIC, CFPB Announce Webinar to Discuss Financial Education Resources
On October 23, the OCC announced it will host a workshop December 4-6 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for directors, senior management team members, and other key executives of OCC-supervised national community banks and federal savings associations. The “Building Blocks for Directors” workshop will (i) focus on the duties and cores responsibilities of directors and management; (ii) discuss major laws and regulations; and (iii) provide insight on the examination process.
Also on October 23, the FDIC and CFPB announced they will co-host a webinar on November 15 to discuss financial education resources designed to help people with disabilities make informed financial decisions. Topics of discussion will include recent enhancements to the FDIC’s Money Smart curriculum and the CFPB’s Your Money, Your Goals toolkit.
OCC Issues Updates to Risk Management Principles
On October 20, the OCC released modifications to its risk management principles for new, modified, or expanded financial products and services (collectively, new activities). Bulletin 2017-43 rescinds OCC Bulletin 2004-20 and section 760 of the Office of Thrift Supervision Examination Handbook. The Bulletin provides guidance on risks in the following categories: strategic, reputational, credit, operational, compliance, and liquidity. The Bulletin also outlines the main components of an effective risk management system, such as the need for:
- “adequate due diligence and approvals before introducing a new activity”;
- “policies and procedures to properly identify, measure, monitor, report, and control risks”;
- “effective change management for new activities or affected processes and technologies”; and
- “ongoing performance monitoring and review systems.”
According to the OCC, the sophistication of a bank’s risk management system should be commensurate with the bank’s size, complexity, and risk profile. Further, “bank management and boards of directors should understand the impact of new activities on banks’ financial performance, strategic planning process, risk profiles, traditional banking models, and ability to remain competitive.”
OCC Issues Updated List of Permissible Activities for Banks and Federal Savings Associations
On October 13, the OCC issued an update to its list of permissible activities for national banks, federal savings associations, and operating subsidiaries that are engaged in “the business of banking.” Activities Permissible for National Banks and Federal Savings Associations, Cumulative updates the list of permissible activities for banks, reflects precedent not previously included or issued since the last edition, streamlines certain entries for readability, and includes certain OCC interpretive letters and corporate decisions issued after the Dodd-Frank Act transferred responsibility from the Office of Thrift Supervision to the OCC. While the update consolidates existing guidance, the OCC stated that “OCC precedent remains applicable until rescinded, superseded, or revised,” and banks should not rely solely on the update for guidance but “should review the authorities cited and other relevant precedent before engaging in an activity.” Furthermore, according to an OCC-issued press release, “[i]ndividual OCC-regulated institutions may be precluded from engaging in otherwise permissible activities based on safety and soundness or other supervisory reasons.”
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Issues Consultative Document on Implications of Fintech for the Banking Industry
As waves of innovative financial technology (fintech) continue to reshape the financial services landscape, banking institutions and their supervisors have invested significant effort in analyzing its impact and developing an appropriate response. On August 31, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the primary global standard setter for the prudential regulation of banks, weighed in. Through the release of a consultative document, Sound Practices: Implications of fintech developments for banks and bank supervisors, the BCBS identified 10 key observations, accompanied by 10 recommendations, for banks and bank supervisors to address the challenges posed by advances in fintech.
The report summarizes the main findings of a BCBS task force established to analyze developments in fintech and their impact on the banking industry. Quantifying the size and growth of fintech is difficult; among other reasons, most jurisdictions have not formally defined “fintech” (notably, the report includes a glossary of terms and acronyms related to the delivery of fintech products and services, and is the first attempt by the BCBS to provide a common definition in this space). Yet the significant number of financial products and services derived from fintech innovations and the trend of rising investment in fintech companies globally warrants attention. As the BCBS acknowledges, while the impact of fintech on banking remains uncertain, “that change could be fast-paced and significant.”
In its report, the BCBS observes that the rise of fintech innovation has resulted in “a battle for the customer relationship and customer data,” the result of which “will be crucial in determining the future role of banks.” To assess the impact of the evolution of fintech products and services, the BCBS identified five stylized scenarios describing the potential impact of fintech on banks. In addition, the BCBS assessed six case studies focused on specific innovations (e.g., big data, cloud computing, innovative payment services, and neo-banks), in order to understand the individual risks and opportunities of a specific fintech development through the different scenarios. The extent to which banks or new fintech entrants will own the customer relationship varied across each scenario. However, in almost every scenario, the position of the incumbent banks will be challenged. The BCBS finds that “a common theme across the various scenarios is that banks will find it increasingly difficult to maintain their current operating models, given technological change and customer expectations.”
In analyzing fintech’s potential impact, the BCBS analyzes previous waves of innovation in banking, such as ATMs, electronic payments, and the Internet. While each of these have changed the face of banking, the BCBS highlights two key differences as it concerns fintech’s potential impact: the current pace of innovation is faster now than in previous decades and the pace of adoption has also increased. As a result, the Committee warns, “the effects of innovation and disruption can happen more quickly than before, implying that incumbents may need to adjust faster.”
The BCBS stated that banking standards and supervisory expectations “should be adaptive to new innovations, while maintaining appropriate prudential standards.” Against this backdrop, the Committee concluded its report with 10 key observations and recommendations for consideration by banks and bank supervisors.
These include:
- The overarching need to ensure safety and soundness and high compliance standards without inhibiting beneficial innovation in the banking sector;
- Key risks for banks related to fintech developments, including strategic/profitability risks, operational, cyber and compliance risks;
- Implications for banks of the use of innovative enabling technologies;
- Implications for banks of the growing use of third parties, via outsourcing and/or partnerships;
- Cross-sectoral cooperation between supervisors and other relevant authorities;
- International cooperation between banking supervisors;
- Adaptation of the supervisory skillset;
- Potential opportunities for supervisors to use innovative technologies ("suptech");
- Relevance of existing regulatory frameworks for new innovative business models; and
- Key features of regulatory initiatives set up to facilitate fintech innovation.
By issuing this guidance, BCBS is prompting global regulators to address technological advancements and novel business models with the same sense of urgency that the banking and fintech industries are employing. It will be incumbent on the financial services industry – traditional and novel business models alike – to work together to inform and shape what those supervisory guidelines will look like.
Comments on BCBS’s consultative document will be accepted through October 31, 2017.
FDIC Releases Summer 2017 Supervisory Insights
On August 30, the FDIC released its Summer 2017 Supervisory Insights (see FIL-39-2017), which contains articles discussing community bank liquidity risks and developments and changes to the Bank Secrecy Act. The first article, “Community Bank Liquidity Risk: Trends and Observations from Recent Examinations,” discusses, among other things, (i) an overview of trends in liquidity risk; (ii) the importance of liquidity risk management and contingency funding plans as bank management navigate funding, mitigate liquidity stress, and plan for the future; and (iii) “principles outlined in existing supervisory guidance.” The first article is “intended as a resource for bankers who wish to heighten awareness of prudent liquidity and funds management.” The second article, “The Bank Secrecy Act: A Supervisory Update,” emphasizes the role information collected through Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) programs plays in the U.S. government’s counter terrorist financing initiatives and other financial system protection measures. The article also provides an overview of the financial regulatory agency examination process, compliance program monitoring, recent trends in BSA/AML examination findings, and examples of significant deficiencies in BSA/AML compliance programs that necessitated formal remediation. In addition, the summer issue includes an overview of recently released regulations and supervisory guidance in its Regulatory and Supervisory Roundup.
Federal Reserve Issues Guidance Regarding Roles of Bank Boards, Requests Comments on New SIFI Rating System
Guidance Regarding Roles of Bank Boards.
On August 3, the Federal Reserve (Fed) took an important step towards easing the heavy regulatory burden placed on the boards of directors at the largest U.S. banking organizations, when it issued for public comment a corporate governance proposal intended to “enhance the effectiveness of boards of directors” and “refocus the Federal Reserve supervisory expectations for the largest firms’ boards of directors on their core responsibilities, which will promote the safety and soundness of the firms.”
The proposal is a result of a multi-year review conducted by the Fed of practices of boards of directors, particularly at the largest banking institutions. The Fed focused on the challenges boards face, the factors that make boards effective, and the ways in which boards influence the safety and soundness of their firms and promote compliance within. The key takeaways of this review included:
- supervisory expectations for boards of directors and senior management have become increasingly difficult to distinguish;
- boards devote a significant amount of time satisfying supervisory expectations that do not directly relate to board’s core responsibilities; and
- boards of large financial institutions face significant information flow challenges, which can result in boards being overwhelmed by the complexity and quantity of information received.
The Fed expects that these issues can be remediated by allowing banks to refocus on their core responsibilities, including: (i) developing the firm’s strategy and risk tolerance; (ii) overseeing senior management and holding them accountable for effective risk management and compliance; (iii) supporting the independence of the firm’s independent risk management and internal audit functions; and (iv) adopting effective governance practices.
In April, Fed Governor Jerome Powell indicated that the financial crisis led to a “broad increase in supervisory expectations” for these boards of directors, but cautioned that the Fed needs to “ensure that directors are not distracted from conducting their key functions by overly detailed checklist of supervisory process requirements.” Explaining that the Fed was reassessing its supervisory expectations for boards, Powell stated “it is important to acknowledge that the board’s role is one of oversight, not management.”
The proposed guidance better distinguishes the supervisory expectations for boards from those of senior management, and includes new criteria by which the Fed will assess bank boards. The Fed describes effective boards as those which:
- set clear, aligned, and consistent direction regarding the firm’s strategy and risk tolerance;
- actively manage information flow and board discussions;
- hold senior management accountable;
- support the independence and stature of independent risk management and internal audit; and
- maintain a capable board composition and governance structure.
The proposal also clarifies expectations regarding internal communications within firms for communicating supervisory findings internally, stating that for all supervised firms, most supervisory findings should be communicated to the firm's senior management for corrective action, rather than to its board of directors. Such findings would only be directed to the board for corrective action when the board needs to address its corporate governance responsibilities or when senior management fails to take appropriate remedial action.
While the proposal does not address all of the post-crisis challenges faced by bank boards, it is a welcome message to the industry that the Fed recognized the need to recalibrate their expectations. The proposal also identifies existing supervisory expectations for boards of directors that could be eliminated or revised and notes that the Fed intends to continue assessing whether its expectations of bank boards require further changes.
New SIFI Rating System.
On August 3, the Fed also issued for public comment a new risk rating system for Large Financial Institutions (“LFI”s) that would replace the RFI rating system for bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations established pursuant to the Fed’s Regulation YY. (The Fed will continue to use the same RFI rating system that has been in place since 2004 to evaluate community and regional bank holding companies.)
The LFI rating system is designed to evaluate LFIs on whether they possess sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe and sound operations through a range of conditions. The system would consist of three chief components:
- Governance and Controls
- board of directors
- management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls and
- recovery planning (for domestic bank holding companies subject to LISCC);
- Capital Planning and Positions; and
- Liquidity Risk Management and Positions.
The Governance and Control component would evaluate a LFI’s effectiveness in ensuring that the firm’s strategic business objectives are safely within the firm’s risk tolerance and ability to manage the accordant risk. The component will focus on LFIs’ effectiveness in maintaining strong, effective and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit and compliance, and providing for ongoing resiliency.
The second and third components are intended to incorporate LFI supervision activities, including CCAR and CLAR, which will be directly reflected within the respective component ratings–resulting in a more comprehensive supervisory approach than the RFI rating system which did not incorporate the results of those supervisory activities.
Each LFI would receive a component rating using a multi-level scale (Satisfactory/Satisfactory Watch, Deficient-1 and Deficient-2). “Satisfactory Watch” would indicate that a firm is generally considered safe and sound, however certain issues require timely resolution. Any Deficiency rating would result in that LFI being considered less than “well managed.”
FDIC Updates Supervisory Guidance on Risk Management Examination Policies
On July 26, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-31-2017 to announce updates to its Risk Management Manual of Examination Policies. The revisions, which incorporated guidance from the FDIC’s Board of Directors, updated the Report of Examination Instructions regarding matters requiring board attention and “deviations from the safety and soundness principles underlying statements of policy.” The revision also included updated instructions for examiners to use when complying with examination schedules. The letter applies to all FDIC-supervised financial institutions.
FDIC Adopts Revised Supervisory Appeals Guidelines
On July 18, the FDIC adopted revised guidelines for appeals of certain material supervisory determinations to expand the circumstances under which banks may appeal a material supervisory determination. The revisions incorporate changes suggested by commentators during a request for comments in 2016. The revised guidelines also provide consistency with the appeals processes of other federal banking agencies and will, among other things, (i) permit the appeal of the level of compliance with an existing formal enforcement action; (ii) provide that formal enforcement-related actions or decisions do not affect a pending appeal; (iii) allow for additional opportunities for appeal rights available under the guidelines with respect to material supervisory determinations in certain circumstances; and (iv) draw up other limited technical and conforming amendments.
The guidelines are effective immediately.
Senate Banking Committee Seeks Perspectives of Midsized, Regional, and Large Institutions, Regulators on Economic Growth
On June 15, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (Committee) held a hearing entitled, “Fostering Economic Growth: Midsized, Regional and Large Institution Perspective”. This is the third in a series of hearings to address economic growth. Frequent topics of discussion in the hearing included stress testing and capital planning—specifically the Federal Reserve’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review stress test. Also discussed was the Systemically Important Financial Institution designation and costs incurred as a result, as well as the Volcker Rule.
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Chairman of the Committee, remarked in his opening statement that the current regulatory framework is “insufficiently tailored for many of the firms subject to it.”
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) – ranking member of the Committee—released an opening statement in which he stated “Let me be clear: proposals to weaken oversight of the biggest banks have no place in this committee’s process. . . Having said that, I am optimistic that there is room for agreement on a modified regime for overseeing regional banks.”
The June 15 hearing—a video of which can be accessed here—included testimony from the following witnesses:
- Mr. Harris Simmons, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Zions Bancorporation, on behalf of the Regional Bank Coalition (prepared statement)
- Mr. Greg Baer, President of The Clearing House Association (prepared statement)
- Mr. Robert Hill, Chief Executive Officer of South State Corporation, on behalf of the Midsize Bank Coalition of America (prepared statement)
- Ms. Saule Omarova, Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School (prepared statement)
On June 22, the Senate Banking Committee held another hearing entitled “Fostering Economic Growth: Regulator Perspective, the fourth in its series of hearings focusing on economic growth. The hearing is available via webcast here.