InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC’s March Fintech Guidance Documents Draw Range of Comments, Reactions from Stakeholders
Back in December of last year, the OCC announced its intention to move forward with developing a special purpose national bank charter for financial technology (fintech) companies. In an accompanying white paper the OCC outlined the basis for its authority to grant such charters to fintech companies and potential minimum supervisory standards for successful fintech bank applicants. And, as previously covered by InfoBytes, in March, the OCC released a Draft Licensing Manual Supplement for Evaluating Charter Applications From Financial Technology Companies (“Draft Fintech Supplement”) and a Summary of Comments and Explanatory Statement (“March 2017 Guidance Summary”) (together, “March 2017 Guidance Documents”) in which it provided additional detail concerning application of its existing licensing standards, regulations, and policies to fintech companies applying for special purpose national bank charters. With the comment period for its March 2017 Guidance Documents closing earlier this month, the bank regulator drew a range of reactions from stakeholders, several of which are described below:
Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). In its comment letter—submitted on behalf of a number of consumer, civil rights, small business, and community groups—the CRL argued, among other things, that “the OCC does not have the legal authority to charter non-depositories,” and “is not a substitute for critical safeguards that exist at the state level,” and that the existence of a national bank charter for non-depository fintech institutions would likely result in the preemption of strong state laws. The signers expressed concern that, in its approval process, the OCC “has completely failed to address critical consumer and small business protection requirements.” The letter adds that the chartering process, as it now exists, “seems more designed to pick winners and losers and grant special privileges to established players in the industry than to facilitate innovation.”
Mercatus Center at George Mason University (Mercatus Center). In its comment letter, the Mercatus Center set forth its position and belief that the OCC’s current proposal “shows some improvement over its previous statements,” but “remains overly focused on the survival of the entity instead of the protection of customers.” According to Brian R. Knight, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center, the proposal imposes requirements and conditions on special purpose national banks (SPNBs) “that many will find impossible to meet—without a sufficient countervailing benefit.” Knight recommends therefore, that the OCC, among other things: (i) reorient charter requirements away from insisting that SPNBs demonstrate survivability and toward ensuring that they can fail in an orderly manner that protects their customers; and (ii) clarify the requirements for SPNBs to obtain and maintain a charter consistent with the rights and responsibilities of national banks under relevant law.
Consumer Bankers Association (CBA). In an April 14 comment letter, the CBA argued that the OCC "has not provided a clear rationale or justification for offering a national bank charter to fintech companies,” and that the standards for such banks are not yet fully developed.” The group urged the OCC to conduct an in-depth study of the fintech sector to determine whether or not the public would benefit from a fintech charter.
Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the ICBA has been a vocal opponent of the OCC’s fintech charter efforts throughout the agency’s nearly yearlong process. Reiterating concerns raised in its January 17 comment letter, the ICBA submitted another comment letter on April 12, calling upon the OCC to rescind the proposed licensing manual supplement and request specific congressional authorization to grant fintech charters. Specifically, the ICBA asserted the need to spell out clearly the supervision and regulation that these chartered institutions and their parent companies would be subject to. The ICBA noted its observation that federal agencies “are inconsistent on how they define a ‘bank’ or what constitutes the ‘business of banking,’” and argued the benefits of giving Congress the “opportunity to define the business of banking and consider all the policy implications of issuing a fintech charter.” In particular, the ICBA insisted that the OCC publish liquidity and capital requirements for fintech firms that would be the same as those applied to depository institutions. The ICBA also issued a statement concerning a lawsuit filed April 26 by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors CSBS against the OCC (see related InfoBytes Special Alert), in which the organization “commend[ed] the CSBS for elevating this issue and remains deeply concerned with the OCC’s proposed fintech charter, which the agency has pursued without congressional authorization or a formal rulemaking process subject to public comment.”
American Bankers Association. In an April 14 letter, the ABA expressed its support for the OCC’s proposed charter, so long as “the same rules and oversight are applied consistent with those for any national bank.” The ABA emphasized, among other things, the benefit of a bank charter as a “clear signal to customers that they are dealing with a trusted partner,” as “[t]he title of ‘bank’ carries significant weight in the mind of customers and should not be taken lightly.”
Marketplace Lending Association (MLA). In its April 13 comment letter, the MLA called for the OCC to “consider developing metrics that are different from those used for traditional depository institutions.” Specifically, the MLA argues, “[i]instead of applying rigid capital and liquidity requirements across the board, the OCC should consider implementing requirements that are based on basic prudent operations, long-term profitability, and risk factors that would apply” to fintech firms with different business plans or structures.
Financial Innovation Now (FIN). Finally, in a letter sent earlier this month to the Senate Banking Committee (FIN)—an “alliance of leading innovators promoting policies that empower technology to make financial services more accessible, safe and affordable for everyone”—offered several policy recommendations in response to the legislators’ request for proposals to grow the economy. Among the recommendations offered, was a call for a “Financial Innovation National Strategy” to foster innovation, job creation, and competition in the financial services sector. As part of that strategy, the FIN letter outlines six policy proposals: (i) statutory designation of an Undersecretary of Treasury for Technology; (ii) federal money transmitter laws; (iii) payment technology assessments under the Card Act; (iv) consumer data access protections; (v) better federal regulatory coordination; and (vi) flexible approaches to new tech entrants.
Special Alert: CSBS Sues OCC Over Fintech National Bank Charter
On April 26, 2017, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) initiated a lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the OCC’s statutory authority to create a special purpose national bank (SPNB) charter for financial technology (fintech) companies.
Prior to this lawsuit, CSBS had publicly opposed the fintech SPNB charter on numerous occasions, asserting last month that the OCC has acted beyond the legal limits of its authority and that providing SPNB charters to fintech companies “exposes taxpayers to the risk of inevitable FinTech failures.”
In the press release announcing the lawsuit, CSBS President John Ryan referred to the OCC’s action as “an unprecedented, unlawful expansion of the chartering authority given to it by Congress for national banks,” and stated that “if Congress had intended it to be used for another purpose, it would have explicitly authorized the OCC to do so.”
Citing violations of the National Bank Act (NBA), Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the U.S. Constitution, CSBS seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that would declare the fintech SPNB charter to be unlawful and prohibit the OCC from taking further steps toward creating or issuing an SPNB fintech charter, without express Congressional authority.***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the charter or other related issues, visit our Financial Institutions Regulation, Supervision & Technology (FIRST) and FinTech practice pages for more information, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
Credit Unions, Small Banks Encourage Fed Payments System Operational Role
On April 18, three industry organizations representing community banks and credit unions—the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), and the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions (NAFCU)—sent a letter urging the Federal Reserve System (Fed) to provide central bank settlement services in support of private sector development of future payment systems, rules, and standards. The letter also urges the Fed to take on three operational roles in addition to settlement capabilities: (i) to serve as an “on-ramp” to real-time payments; (ii) to serve as a real-time payments operator, much as it currently is an operator for checks, automated clearinghouse payments, and wire transfers; and (iii) to maintain a “payments directory” that would link together financial institutions and private-sector payments directories. The organizations argue, among other things, that the Fed’s commitment to these operational roles is critically important to achieving the “much-needed goals of safety, equitable access, and ubiquity” in developing an improved payments system. The letter emphasizes that the organizations are not requesting that the Fed develop rules or standards for real-time payments, but rather take the position that such efforts “should be left for private sector rules and standards organizations.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed created the Faster Payments Task Force and the Secure Payments Task Force in June 2015 to lead industry efforts toward a speedier and better payments system. The CFPB also issued a set of guiding principles aimed to help private industry better protect consumers as new, faster electronic payment systems continue to emerge. (See InfoBytes coverage) The April 18 letter “applaud[s] the formation of both [Task Forces]” and “strongly encourage[s] the ongoing commitment of the [Fed] to lead and catalyze payments industry activities until the desired outcomes stated in the 2015 Strategies for Improving the U.S. Payments System paper are achieved.”
GAO Publishes Study Examining Fintech Industry Regulation
On April 19, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a study examining four “subsectors” within the fintech industry—marketplace lenders, mobile payments, digital wealth management platforms, and distributed ledger technology (also known as blockchain)—and highlighting the types of products and services offered and how they are regulated. The report, Financial Technology – Information on Subsectors and Regulatory Oversight, is the first in a series of planned reports on fintech, following a request by Congress for a review of issues related to the industry. From July 2016 to April 2017, GAO reviewed agency publications, guidance, final rulemakings, initiatives, and enforcement actions, and also conducted interviews with representatives from the federal prudential regulators, state supervision agencies, and trade associations in order to compile the findings in the report. The report provides an overview of the technologies associated with each subsector, identifies primary users of the products and services, notes potential benefits and risks, and highlights industry trends and current regulations and oversight. Notably, GAO stated it made no recommendations in this report.
Arizona Enacts Laws Providing for Legal Recognition of Certain Electronic Signatures and Other Records
Last month, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law two pieces of legislation (S.B. 1084 and S.B. 1078), which formally grant legal recognition of electronic records and signatures under state law. Specifically, the new laws—each of which were passed unanimously by both houses of the Arizona legislature—formally acknowledge the legality of certain electronic records and signatures for the purpose of “satisfy[ing] any law that requires a record to be in writing or to be retained or both.” S.B. 1084 further details the requirements that must be satisfied when creating, sending, and accepting electronic signatures or records in order to qualify for legal recognition under the new law. As previously reported in InfoBytes, Arizona also recently enacted H.B. 2417, which recognized blockchain signatures and smart contracts under state law.
OCC's Office of Innovation Announces Dates of “Office Hours,” Accepting Meeting Requests
On April 10, the OCC’s Office of Innovation announced that May 16 and 17, 2017, will be the dates of its first “Office Hours” in San Francisco, California. “Office Hours” offers fifteen one-hour meetings with the OCC’s Acting Chief Innovation Officer Beth Knickerbocker along with other OCC experts, and will provide an opportunity for attendees to discuss matters relating to financial technology, new products and services, bank or FinTech partnerships, as well as other items related to financial innovation. Meeting requests may be submitted here and are due by April 25, 2017.
NYDFS Authorizes Coinbase to Offer Trading of Digital Currencies in New York
On March 22, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced the approval of Coinbase, Inc.’s application to offer Ether and Litecoin to New York customers. “Ether” is a “digital cryptography-based asset” of the Ethereum network, “similar to how bitcoin is the digital cryptography-based asset of the Bitcoin network.” Litecoin, developed as a modification of the Bitcoin protocol, is the first alternative virtual currency to Bitcoin to gain public acceptance. NYDFS also approved Coinbase’s linked debit card service “Shift Card”—a VISA debit card that allows Coinbase users in select U.S. states and territories to use Bitcoin anywhere VISA is accepted. As discussed in a previous InfoBytes post, NYDFS recently issued a virtual currency and money transmitter license to Coinbase, which permits the company to operate as a service for buying, selling, sending, receiving, and storing Bitcoin. Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo noted, “DFS has proven that the state regulatory system is the best way to supervise and cultivate a thriving fintech industry, like virtual currency. New York will remain steadfast in pushing back against federal encroachment efforts like the OCC’s proposal to impose a one-size-fits-all national bank charter that increases risk and seeks to usurp state sovereignty.”
Virtual Currency Added to Utah’s Unclaimed Property Act
In March, Utah passed SB 175 amending its Unclaimed Property Act. Among the changes incorporated through the new law was the expansion of the law’s coverage to include “virtual currency”—a term the law defines as “a digital representation of value used as a medium of exchange, unit of account, or store of value, which does not have legal tender status recognized by the United States.” Notably, this definition explicitly excludes “(i) the software or protocols governing the transfer of the digital representation of value; (ii) game-related digital content; (iii) a loyalty card; (iv) membership rewards” and “(v) a gift card.” Virtual currency subject to Utah law must be turned over to the state’s treasury after it has been “presumed abandoned” for a prescribed period of time. The law contains a detailed test for when property has been presumed abandoned, when the clock starts ticking, and under what circumstances that clock may be paused and/or reset. In a March 15 press release, Utah Treasurer David Damschen, “applauded the final passage of SB 175,” but also explained that “there are certain changes in the law related to properties held by the banking and insurance industries that we may still have to make,” including, for example “certain prepaid debit card account balances.”
New York AG Announces Settlements with Three Mobile Health Application Developers over Misleading Marketing Practices and Privacy Policies
On March 23, the New York Attorney General’s (NYAG) office announced settlements with U.S.-, Austria-, and Israel-based mobile application (app) developers who allegedly participated in misleading marketing practices and the mismanagement of consumer information—both of which are violations of New York Executive, Education, and General Business Laws. Two of the three developers claimed their health-related apps accurately measured heart rates, and a third allegedly claimed its app would measure a fetal heartbeat. However, all three failed to test the apps for accuracy, conduct comparisons to other approved products, or obtain approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The developers have agreed to provide additional testing information, will correct misleading advertisements, obtain affirmative consent from consumers for developers’ privacy policies, and will pay $30,000 in combined penalties to the NYAG’s office. Furthermore, all three developers have also made changes to their privacy policies and disclose the collecting and sharing of information that “may be personally identifying” including “users’ GPS location, unique device identifier, and ‘deidentified’ data that third parties may be able to use to reidentify specific users.”
Arizona Governor Signs Blockchain Records Bill
On March 29, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed H.B. 2417, which recognizes blockchain signatures and smart contracts under state law. H.B. 2417 amends Title 44, Chapter 26, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and defines “blockchain technology” as “distributed ledger technology . . . protected with cryptography . . . [that] provides an uncensored truth.” The amendment, cleared by the Senate in a 28-1 vote on March 23, addresses signatures and records and states “a signature that is secured through blockchain technology is considered to be in an electronic form and to be an electronic signature.” Furthermore, the amendment also discusses the legality and enforceability of a smart contract, defined by the bill as an “event-driven program, with state, that runs on a distributed, decentralized, shared and replicated ledger . . . that can take custody over and instruct transfer of assets on that ledger.” Smart contracts, therefore, “may exist in commerce . . . and may not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability,” thus presenting a new option of delivering information via blockchain.