InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Supreme Court blocks student debt relief program
On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Biden v. Nebraska, striking down the Department of Education’s (DOE) student loan debt relief program (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here) that would have provided between $10,000 and $20,000 in debt cancellation to certain qualifying federal student loan borrowers making under $125,000 a year.
The Biden administration appealed an injunction entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that temporarily prohibited the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s program. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Arguing that the universal injunction was overbroad, the administration contended that the six states lack standing because the debt relief plan “does not require respondents to do anything, forbid them from doing anything, or harm them in any other way.” Moreover, the secretary was acting within the bounds of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) when he put together the debt relief plan, the administration claimed.
In considering whether the secretary has authority under the HEROES Act “to depart from the existing provisions of the Education Act and establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel about $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers,” the Court majority (opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined) held that at least one state, Missouri, had Article III standing to challenge the program because it would cost the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a nonprofit government corporation created by the state to participate in the student loan market, roughly $44 million a year in fees. “The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself,” the Court wrote.
The Court also ruled in favor of the respondents on the merits, noting that the text of the HEROES Act does not authorize the secretary’s loan forgiveness plan. While the statute allows the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to student financial assistance programs under the Education Act in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency, it does not permit the Secretary to rewrite that statute, the Court explained, adding that the “modifications” challenged in this case create a “novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program.” As such, the Court concluded that “the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the [s]ecretary’s plan when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a program.”
In dissent, three of the justices argued that the majority’s overreach applies to standing as well as to the merits. The states have no personal stake in the loan forgiveness program, the justices argued, calling them “classic ideological plaintiffs.” While the HEROES Act bounds the secretary’s authority, “within that bounded area, Congress gave discretion to the [s]ecretary” by providing that he “could ‘waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision’ applying to federal student-loan programs, including provisions relating to loan repayment and forgiveness. And in so doing, he could replace the old provisions with new ‘terms and conditions,”’ the justices wrote, adding that the secretary could provide whatever relief needed that he deemed most appropriate.
The Court also handed down a decision in Department of Education v. Brown, ruling that the Court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of the case as the respondents lacked Article III standing because they failed to establish that any injury they may have suffered from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the program. Respondents in this case are individuals whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the plan. The respondents challenged whether the student debt relief program violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures as they were not given the opportunity to provide feedback. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
President Biden expressed his disappointment following the rulings, but announced new actions are forthcoming to provide debt relief to student borrowers. (See DOE fact sheet here.) The first is a rulemaking initiative “aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for as many working and middle-class borrowers as possible, using the Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Act.” The administration also announced an income-driven repayment plan—the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan—which will, among other things, cut borrowers’ monthly payments in half (from 10 to 5 percent of discretionary income) and forgive loan balances after 10 years of payments rather than 20 years for borrowers with original loan balances of $12,000 or less.
Agencies put out policy on CRE workouts
On June 29, the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and NCUA, in consultation with state bank and credit union regulators, jointly issued a final policy statement addressing prudential commercial real estate loan accommodations and workouts for borrowers experiencing financial difficulty. The policy statement applies to all supervised financial institutions and supersedes previous guidance issued in 2009. Building on existing supervisory guidance, the policy statement advises financial institutions “to work prudently and constructively with creditworthy borrowers during times of financial stress.” The policy statement (i) updates interagency supervisory guidance on commercial real estate loan workouts; (ii) adds a new section on short-term loan accommodations (for purposes of the policy statement, “an accommodation includes any agreement to defer one or more payments, make a partial payment, forbear any delinquent amounts, modify a loan or contract, or provide other assistance or relief to a borrower who is experiencing a financial challenge”); (iii) addresses relevant accounting standard changes on estimating loan losses; and (iv) provides updated examples on how to classify and account for loans modified or affected by loan accommodations or loan workout activity. The policy statement takes effect upon publication in the Federal Register.
CFPB issues guidance on small business data collection
On June 28, the CFPB released additional guidance to help financial institutions comply with the agency’s small-business lending data collection rule. The small business lending rule, which implements Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires financial institutions to collect and provide to the Bureau data on lending to small businesses with gross revenue under $5 million in their previous fiscal year. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the final rule prescribes a tiered compliance date schedule, with the earliest compliance date being October 1, 2024, for financial institutions that originate at least 2,500 covered small business loans in both 2022 and 2023 (financial institutions with lower origination amounts have later compliance dates).
To aid financial institutions, the Bureau updated several frequently asked questions to provide additional clarity on who is covered by the small business lending rule and to explain that a financial institution that meets the origination threshold in each of the two immediately preceding calendar years is a covered financial institution, regardless of whether the financial institution has a branch or office in a metropolitan statistical area. The FAQs also (i) outline qualified covered credit transactions and exemptions; (ii) provide a detailed breakdown of the types of transactions a financial institution must count when determining whether it satisfies the origination threshold; (iii) discuss whether a financial institution that is not subject to HMDA reporting is required to count HMDA-reportable loans as covered originations; (iv) address how to count a covered origination if multiple financial institutions were involved in originating the covered credit transaction or when a covered credit transaction is extended to multiple borrowers but only one is a small business; and (v) explain methodologies financial institutions can use to calculate estimated covered originations. In conjunction with the FAQs, the Bureau also released a compliance aid providing additional information covered during a recent Bureau presentation.
Biden announces FTC nominees
On July 3, President Biden announced his intention to nominate Andrew N. Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak to serve as Republican members of the FTC. Ferguson currently serves as the solicitor general of the Commonwealth of Virginia where he oversees appellate litigation of the state and its agencies. Prior to his time as solicitor general, Ferguson served as chief counsel to U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, chief counsel for nominations and constitution to then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and senior special counsel to then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Ferguson also has extensive antitrust experience, including in litigation before the FTC and DOJ.
Holyoak is currently the solicitor general with the Utah Attorney General’s Office where she oversees areas including civil appeals, criminal appeals, constitutional defense, and the antitrust and data privacy divisions. She is an experienced litigator, where much of her 20 years of practice has focused on consumer protection, Biden said. Before joining the Utah Attorney General’s Office, Holyoak was president and general counsel of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest firm that represents consumers challenging unfair class actions and regulatory overreach.
Following the announcement, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan issued a statement congratulating the nominees. The two seats have been vacant since former Commissioner Christine Wilson announced her resignation earlier in the year (covered by InfoBytes here).
FFIEC releases 2022 HMDA data
On June 29, the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC) released the 2022 HMDA data on mortgage lending transactions at 4,460 covered institutions (an increase from the 4,338 reporting institutions in 2021). Available data products include: (i) the Snapshot National Loan-Level Dataset, which contains national HMDA datasets as of May 1; (ii) the HMDA Dynamic National Loan-Level Dataset, which is updated on a weekly basis to reflect late submissions and resubmissions; (iii) the Aggregate and Disclosure Reports, which provide summaries on individual institutions and geographies; (vi) the HMDA Data Browser where users can customize tables and download datasets for further analysis; and (v) the Loan/Application Register for filers of 2022 HMDA data.
The 2022 data includes information on 14.3 million home loan applications, of which 11.5 million were closed-end and 2.5 million were open-end. The Snapshot revealed that an additional 287,000 records were from financial institutions making use of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act’s partial exemptions that did not designate closed-end or open-end status. Observations from the data relative to the prior year include: (i) the percentage of mortgages originated by non-depository, independent mortgage companies decreased, accounting for “60.2 percent of first lien, one- to four-family, site-built, owner-occupied home-purchase loans, down from 63.9 percent in 2021”; (ii) the percentage of closed-end home purchase loans for first lien, one- to four-family, site-built, owner-occupied properties made to Black or African American borrowers increased from 7.9 percent in 2021 to 8.1 percent in 2022, while the share of these loans made to Hispanic-White borrowers decreased slightly from 9.2 percent to 9.1 percent and the share made to Asian borrowers increased from 7.1 percent to 7.6 percent; and (iii) “Black or African American and Hispanic-White applicants experienced denial rates for first lien, one- to four-family, site-built, owner-occupied conventional, closed-end home purchase loans of 16.4 percent and 11.1 percent respectively, while the denial rates for Asian and non-Hispanic-White applicants were 9.2 percent and 5.8 percent respectively.”
Bowman skeptical about higher capital requirements
On June 25, Federal Reserve Governor Michelle W. Bowman expressed skepticism about calls for higher capital requirements following a string of recent bank failures, warning that stricter capital standards could hinder bank lending and diminish competition. In prepared remarks delivered during a global financial seminar held in Salzburg, Austria, Bowman said that while efforts have been taken to understand what went wrong, which have revealed “some uncomfortable realities about the lead-up to the bank failures,” the majority of the work was prepared internally by Fed supervision staff “relying on a limited number of unattributed source interviews, and completed on an expedited timeframe with a limited scope.” She commented that a necessary next step would be to engage an independent third party to analyze what factors and circumstances contributed to the recent bank failures. Independent reviews, Bowman said, “should play an important role in informing the future path of supervision and regulation.”
Bowman further stressed that banks are currently better capitalized and more closely supervised than before the 2008 financial crisis. The banking system is strong and resilient, Bowman said, which “begs the question—what are the justifications for higher capital requirements?” Instead, regulators should consider whether examiners are armed with the appropriate tools and support to identify material risks and demand prompt remediation. “Increasing capital requirements simply does not get at this underlying concern about the effectiveness of supervision,” she said. She commented that if regulators think about what tools are most effective and efficient in addressing shortcomings, they will find ways to improve supervision, revise liquidity requirements, or improve banks’ preparedness to access liquidity. Bowman cautioned that while “higher capital implies greater resiliency,” this resiliency comes at the cost of decreased credit availability and higher cost of credit in normal times, which “can have broad impacts on banks, the broader financial system, and the economy.” Rising bank capital requirements, Bowman added, may also “exacerbate the competitive dynamics that result in advantages to non-bank competitors and push additional financial activity out of the regulated banking system.”
OCC updates asset management handbook
On June 22, the OCC issued version 1.0 of the Asset Management booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. The booklet rescinds the booklet of the same title, issued in December 2000. Among other things, the booklet: (i) clarifies OCC expectations for fiduciary audit requirements; (ii) provides for consistency in the OCC’s examination of bank fiduciary audit activities; (iii) adds language from 12 CFR 150 applying to federal savings associations; and (iv) defines a robust, well documented risk assessment to support the development of a meaningful audit plan and support fiduciary activities.
OCC updates cybersecurity exam procedures
On June 26, the OCC issued Bulletin 2023-22 announcing recent updates to the agency’s approach to cybersecurity assessment procedures. The Cybersecurity Supervision Work Program (CSW) provides high-level examination objectives and procedures aligned with the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework (NIST-CFS) and is part of the agency’s risk-based bank information technology supervision process. The CSW is intended to provide examiners an effective approach for identifying cybersecurity risks in supervised banks.
According to an overview provided by the OCC, the CSW “provides examiners with a common framework and terminology in discussions with bank management” and is structured according to the following NIST-CSF functions: identify, protect, detect, respond, and recover (as well as related categories and subcategories). The OCC also developed an additional function, Specialty Areas, to address areas of risk that may be part of OCC cybersecurity assessments, where applicable. Examiners will use these procedures to supplement those outlined in the “Community Bank Supervision,” “Large Bank Supervision,” and “Federal Branches and Agencies Supervision” booklets of the Comptroller’s Handbook, the FFIEC’s Information Technology Examination Handbook booklets, and other related supervisory guidance.
The OCC encourages supervised banks to use standardized approaches to assess and improve cybersecurity preparedness. Banks may choose from a variety of standardized tools and available frameworks, and should use the agency’s CSW cross-references table for further guidance. No new regulatory expectations are established with the issuance of the CSW.
Agencies release 2023 list of distressed, underserved communities
On June 23, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC released the 2023 list of distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies where revitalization or stabilization activities are eligible to receive Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) consideration. According to the joint release, the list of distressed nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies and underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies are designated by the agencies under their CRA regulations and reflect local economic conditions such as unemployment, poverty, and population changes. Under CRA, banks are encouraged to help meet the credit needs of the local communities listed. For any geographies that were designated by the agencies in 2022 but not in 2023, the agencies apply a one-year lag period, so such geographies remain eligible for CRA consideration for another 12 months.
Waters asks Treasury, SEC to comment on crypto framework
On June 23, Representative Maxine Waters solicited viewpoints, analysis, and recommendations in letters sent to the Department of Treasury and the SEC regarding a recently introduced discussion draft of cryptocurrency framework. In her letters, Waters requested insight on how the proposed legislation would impact the federal regulators’ ability to conduct oversight, among other things. Waters specifically asked the SEC for recommended amendments to existing law, outside of the bill, to further protect investors in the digital assets space. In her letter to the Treasury, she asked for insight on how the bill would address or conflict with its policy recommendations, and if the bill or specific provisions of it are needed. Waters requested that both regulators provide a written response by June 30 and be prepared to brief the House Financial Services Committee.
Introduced on June 2, the discussion draft to which Waters referred would impact the jurisdiction of the CFTC over digital commodities and the SEC’s authority over digital assets. Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry is a co-author of the discussion draft and also the primary sponsor of newly proposed bills regarding financial statement requirements of emerging growth companies that if passed, will indirectly impact regulators’ oversight in the crypto space. HR 2608 would limit the financial information an emerging growth company would be required to submit to the SEC, among other things. Specifically, “an emerging growth company is not required to present a financial statement for any period prior to the earliest audited period of the emerging growth company in connection with its initial public offering, such as a statement for an acquired company.” Additionally, HR 2610 would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, so emerging growth companies would only need to submit the last 2 years of their profit and loss statements (previously 3 years). Among other things, the bill allows an issuer of securities to submit a draft registration statement to the SEC for confidential review prior to a public filing. Both bills have passed the House.