InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
President Trump Issues Two Memoranda to Treasury; Instructs Secretary to Review FSOC Processes for Designating Nonbank Financial Companies as SIFIs and Treasury’s Orderly Liquidation Authority under Dodd-Frank
On April 21, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a review of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) processes for determining whether nonbank financial companies are financially distressed and designating nonbank financial companies as “systemically important.” The memorandum explains that a review of these processes is needed because the designations “have serious implications for affected entities, the industries in which they operate, and the economy at large.” The memorandum requires the Secretary to report within 180 days on whether:
- the FSOC’s processes are sufficiently transparent and provide adequate due process protections;
- a FSOC designation “give[s] market participants the expectation that the Federal Government will shield supervised or designated entities from bankruptcy”;
- a determination regarding a nonbank’s systemic importance should include “specific, quantifiable projections of the damage that could be caused to the United States economy”;
- the processes appropriately account for the costs of designation; and
- potential designees receive adequate guidance on how to reduce their perceived risk and a “meaningful opportunity to have their determinations or designations reevaluated in a timely and appropriately transparent manner.”
The memorandum further directs the Secretary to include SIFI designation recommendations, including any proposed legislative measures, for improving the processes and opine on whether such processes are consistent with the Administration’s “Core Principles.” The secretary is also directed to make any recommendations for legislation or regulation that would further align FSOC’s activities with the Core Principles.
The President issued a second Memorandum, directing the Secretary to review and report on the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) under Dodd-Frank, with the goal of understanding the “OLA’s full contours and acknowledge the potentially adverse consequences of its availability and use.” Specifically, the memorandum requires that the Secretary assess the following:
- “the potential adverse effects of failing financial companies on the financial stability of the United States”;
- whether the framework for employing OLA is consistent with the Core Principles;
- whether “invoking OLA could result in a cost to the general fund of the Treasury”;
- whether the use or availability of OLA could lead to excessive risk taking or . . . otherwise lead[] market participants to believe that a financial company is too big to fail; and
- whether a new chapter in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code would be a “superior method of resolution for financial companies.”
The memorandum also requires that Secretary’s review include a quantitative evaluation of OLA’s “anticipated direct and indirect effects” as well as recommendations for improving OLA. The memo also directs the Treasury Department to refrain from making any systemic risk determination unless it determines, in consultation with the President, that the Doff-Frank criteria require otherwise.”
At the signing of the memo, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin delivered prepared remarks, in which he assured the President and the Public that the Treasury will “work tirelessly” in its efforts to “provide a clear analysis of the extent to which the OLA encourages inappropriate risk-taking and the extent of potential taxpayer liability.”
House Financial Services Committee to Discuss the “Financial CHOICE Act” at April 26 Hearing
On April 19, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) announced that the Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the Financial CHOICE Act next Wednesday, April 26. Touted as a potential replacement for the Dodd-Frank Act, the proposed new law—which stands for Creating Hope and Opportunity for Investors, Consumers and Entrepreneurs—was unveiled last June by Chairman Hensarling in a speech to the Economic Club of New York and was subsequently approved by the Committee last September. The hearing will focus on an updated discussion draft of the bill at next Wednesday’s hearing.
If enacted, the Financial CHOICE Act would, among other things, tailor a bank’s supervision to its risk profile/business model and provide for an independent exam appeals process, while also providing for and imposing more stringent penalties in cases of fraud or deception. Other provisions of the bill would repeal the Volcker Rule, strip the CFPB of its examination powers, and “UDAAP” enforcement authority and also discontinue small business loan data collection. And, finally, the Act would bring the CFPB, FDIC, OCC, FHFA, NCUA, and the Fed’s supervisory functions under the congressional appropriations process, thereby mandating a cost-benefit analysis and, in some cases, congressional approval prior to the release of any new regulations.
According to a press release from GOP Committee members, the proposed new law is based upon two central principles: (i) “all banks need to be well-capitalized” but (ii) “Dodd-Frank’s one-size-fits-all regulations . . . make[] no sense and hurt[] smaller, hometown banks and credit unions that did nothing to cause the last financial crisis.” To this end, the Financial CHOICE Act seeks to ease capital standards for community banks and credit unions that “elect to maintain enough capital to ensure that if they get in trouble, taxpayers won’t be forced to bail them out.” Meanwhile, offering a very different response to the release of an updated draft of the bill, Maxine Waters (D-CA), the Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee, released a statement reiterating numerous objections to what she terms “the Wrong Choice Act.” Among other things, Rep. Waters argues that the proposed law “prioritize[s] the needs of Wall Street over the needs of hard-working Americans,” and “would take away much needed protections and put our economic security at risk.”
PHH Submits Reply Brief in Case Against CFPB; DOJ Allocated 10 Minutes at May 24 Oral Argument
As recently covered by InfoBytes, on March 31 the CFPB and seven amicus curiae respondents each filed briefing in PHH Corp. v CFPB urging the D.C. Circuit to uphold the constitutionality of the Bureau’s single-director, independent-agency structure. On April 10, PHH filed a reply brief responding to the arguments raised by the CFPB and other respondents, and reiterating its position that, among other things, the en banc court should declare that the Dodd-Frank Act’s creation of the CFPB violated constitutional separation of powers requirements and that the only satisfactory remedy is the complete invalidation of the Bureau.
Citing Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), PHH contends that, “the Constitution does not permit Congress to assign any portion of the executive power to an ’independent’ officer who is not accountable to, and removable by, the President.” Id. at 113. Moreover, in addressing comparisons between the CFPB and the FTC, the mortgage lender’s reply argues that “[t]he CFPB’s broad executive, legislative, and adjudicative authority further refutes its claim that it is functionally ‘indistinguishable’ from the FTC in 1935” because, among other reasons, “[i]n 1935, the FTC had no substantive rulemaking powers—the FTC disclaimed that authority until 1962.” In support of this claim, PHH highlights the fact that “the CFPB has all the authority—and more—of a cabinet department such as Treasury or Justice” but “unlike most cabinet positions, the Director may unilaterally appoint every subordinate official in the agency, as well as hire and compensate all CFPB employees outside the normal competitive-service requirements” (emphasis added). In addition to addressing the constitutional issue, PHH’s reply brief also notes that the CFPB has offered no support for its effort to enforce a reinterpretation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act against the companies.
Oral argument is scheduled for May 24. As provided in a Per Curiam Order issued on April 11, the Court has allocated 30 minutes per side for the argument and an additional ten minutes of argument for the United States as amicus curiae. For additional background, please see our recent PHH Corp. v CFPB Case Update.
Departing Federal Reserve Governor Offers Final Thoughts
On April 4, outgoing Federal Reserve Governor Daniel K. Tarullo presented his departing thoughts on the Fed’s response to the “worst recession since the Great Depression.” In his speech, Tarullo discussed the Fed’s initial post-crisis regulatory response and how it addressed the “too-big-to-fail” concept—positing that the “quick action in assessing the firms, recapitalizing them where needed, and sharing the results of the stress tests with the public stands as one of the turning points in the crisis.” On the subject of the Dodd-Frank Act, Tarullo noted that “partisan divisions” have prevented necessary substantive enhancements from being made, such as changing various thresholds to narrow the scope of strict prudential requirements and relieve the burdens placed on small community banks, and changing the Volcker Rule to make it less complicated. Tarullo summarized his position by stating that “[e]ight years at the Federal Reserve has only reinforced my belief that strong capital requirements are central to a safe and stable financial system” and that furthermore, “it is crucial that the strong capital regime be maintained, especially as it applies to the most systemically important banks. Neither regulators nor legislators should agree to changes that would effectively weaken that regime, whether directly or indirectly.” Tarullo’s last day at the Fed was April 5.
Treasury Renews Unchanged Information Collection on Designation of Financial Market Utilities; Seeks Public Comment
On March 28, the Treasury Department issued a request for comment on its plan to renew an information collection, without change, on the designation of Financial Market Utilities (FMUs) as systemically important financial institutions. According to the Treasury’s notice, the information will be used by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to “determine whether to designate or rescind the designation of an FMU under Title VIII” of the Dodd-Frank Act. The request for comment allows FMUs to submit written materials to the FSOC before the Council makes a designation decision and also permits an FMU to request a hearing or submit materials to contest the FSOC’s proposed determination. Comments on the information collection must be received by April 27, 2017 as instructed on the notice’s publication in the Federal Register.
House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Explores Dodd-Frank’s “Too Big to Fail” Designation Process
On March 28, the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing that examined the processes used by the Financial Stability Oversight Council to designate nonbank financial companies under Section 113 of Dodd-Frank. As discussed in a memorandum issued prior to the hearing by the House Financial Services Committee, the hearing was also scheduled to go over the findings of a recent Financial Services Committee Staff Report, including concerns over whether FSOC has acted inconsistently in exercising its power to designate certain nonbank companies as “too big to fail.” During the hearing, the subcommittee heard from the following witnesses:
- Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum
- Dr. Paul Kupiec, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
- Professor David Zaring, Associate Professor, Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
- Mr. Alex J. Pollock, Distinguished Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
In a press release available on the Financial Services Committee webpage following the hearing, the majority members of the subcommittee identified the “Key Takeaways from the Hearing,” as: (i) “[t]he Dodd-Frank Act created an arbitrary threshold that the FSOC uses to designate systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs); (ii) “FSOC’s process for designating SIFIs in essence codifies "too big to fail" and poses a threat to the U.S. economy”; (iii) “[t]he Financial CHOICE Act, the Republican plan to replace Dodd-Frank and promote economic growth” would “end[] ‘too big to fail’ and bank bailouts.”
High Court passes on opportunity to resolve circuit split over statutory requirements for whistleblower protection under Dodd-Frank Act
On March 21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Verble v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, (No. 16-946), thereby declining to resolve a circuit split regarding whether the protections against retaliation provided in the Dodd-Frank Act extend to whistleblowers who do not report the misconduct to the SEC. At issue were the statutory requirements for qualifying as a “whistleblower” under the Dodd-Frank Act. While the Act defines “whistleblower” as an individual who reports wrongdoing “to the Commission,”[1] a separate provision provides protection against retaliation for whistleblowers reporting wrongdoing under Sarbanes-Oxley,[2] which includes both reporting to federal agencies or internal reporting within the company.[3]
The Verble case came to the Court on appeal from a Sixth Circuit decision affirming the dismissal of Mr. Verble’s claim that he was improperly terminated in retaliation for being a confidential informant (and whistleblower) to the FBI. A U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee dismissed the former financial advisor’s Dodd-Frank retaliation claim after finding that Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision was available only for whistleblowers who reported their concerns directly to the SEC. See Verble v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, 148 F. Supp. 3d 644 (E.D. Tenn. 2015). On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but did not reach the issue regarding the scope of Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision. Rather than taking sides on the split between circuits, the Sixth Circuit panel opted instead to base its decision solely on the ground that Mr. Verble “fail[ed] to meet the threshold requirement of providing enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief.”
On January 26, Mr. Verble filed the aforementioned unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The first question presented in the petition for certiorari was whether the Sixth Circuit erred by avoiding the issue; next, Mr. Verble asked the Court to settle a split between the Fifth and Second Circuits—the only two circuits to have opined on the issue. Weighing in first, the Fifth Circuit had strictly applied the Dodd-Frank Act’s definition of “whistleblower” to the later anti-retaliation provision, so as to require dismissal of the plaintiff’s action in that case because he did not make his disclosures to the SEC. See Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620, 621 (5th Cir. 2013). In so doing, the court declined to rely upon an SEC regulation adopting a contrary interpretation. By contrast, the Second Circuit, viewing the statute itself as ambiguous, applied Chevron deference to (and accepted) the SEC’s interpretation, which extended protections to all whistleblowers. Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy LLC, 801 F.3d 145, 155 (2d Cir. 2015).
Notably, while the petition for certiorari was pending, the Ninth Circuit became the third appellate circuit to stake out a position on the existence of an external reporting requirement when, in an opinion filed on March 8, it held that the Dodd-Frank Act whistleblower provision “unambiguously and expressly protects from retaliation all those who report to the SEC and who report internally.” See Somers v. Digital Realty Trust, No. 15-17352, 2017 WL 908245 (9th Cir. 2017).
House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Hearing Examines Decline in New Bank/Credit Union Charter Applications
In an afternoon hearing on March 21 entitled “Ending the De Novo Drought: Examining the Application Process for De Novo Financial Institutions,” Members of the House Financial Services Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee met to examine the impact that the Dodd-Frank Act has had on the creation of new or “de novo” financial institutions. According to a majority staff memorandum released in advance of the hearing, the number of new, or “de novo,” bank and credit union charters has declined to historic lows since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. From 2010 to 2016, there were only five new bank and 16 new credit union charters granted. In comparison, between 2000 and 2008, 1,341 new banks and 75 new credit unions were chartered.
Three of the witnesses – each of whom appeared on behalf of a banking industry group – generally agreed that the Dodd-Frank Act has, to some extent, had a “chilling impact” on the creation of new banks:
- Kenneth L. Burgess, speaking on behalf of the American Bankers Association noted, among other things, that “in the five years since Dodd-Frank was enacted, the pace of lending was half of what it was several years before the financial crisis. Some banks have stopped offering certain products altogether, such as mortgage and other consumer loans.”
- Keith Stone, representing the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions, noted that “[t]he compliance requirements in a post-Dodd-Frank environment have grown to a tipping point where it is nearly impossible for many smaller institutions to survive, much less start from scratch.”
- Patrick J. Kennedy, Jr., appearing on behalf of the Subchapter S Bank Association, noted that “[m]any banks exited the mortgage loan business because of the complexity and uncertainty resulting from Dodd Frank, the CFPB and related rulemaking.”
The fourth witness, Sarah Edelman, offered an alternative explanation for the decline in new bank applications to the FDIC. Ms. Edelman—who is currently the director of housing finance at the Center for American Progress—testified as to her belief that the “decline” in “[t]he number of new bank applications to the FDIC . . . is largely the result of macroeconomic factors, including, historically low interest rates reducing the profitability of new banks, as well as investors being able to purchase failing banks at a discount following the financial crisis.”
In December of last year, the FDIC released a handbook entitled Applying for Deposit Insurance – A Handbook for Organizers of De Novo Institutions, which provides an overview of the business considerations and statutory requirements that de novo organizers face as they work to establish a new depository institution and offers guidance for navigating the phases of establishing an insured institution. Rather than establish new policy or offer guidance, the Handbook instead “seeks to address the informational needs of organizers, as well as feedback from organizers and other interested parties during recent industry outreach events.” Comments were due February 20. Additional resources are available through an FDIC website dedicated to applications for deposit insurance.
President Trump Hosts “National Economic Council” Listening Session with CEOs of Small and Community Banks
On March 9, President Trump met with 11 community bank CEOs at the White House seeking the bankers’ input on which regulations may be crimping their ability to lend to consumers and small businesses. The meeting included representatives from the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), and the American Bankers Association (ABA), as well as nine bank executives from across the country. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, National Economic Council Chairman Gary Cohn, and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus also were present.
The President started the meeting by noting that “[n]early half of all private-sector workers are employed by small businesses” and that “[c]ommunity banks are the backbone of small business in America” before announcing his commitment to “preserving our community banks.” Following the President’s brief opening remarks, the attendees had the opportunity to introduce themselves and share specific examples of how excessive regulatory burdens affect their ability to serve their customers, make loans and create jobs at the local level. Proposals, such as the ICBA’s Plan for Prosperity, also were discussed.
Following the meeting, ABA President and CEO Rob Nichols released a statement “commend[ing] President Trump for meeting with community bankers to hear the challenges they face serving their clients.” He described the meeting as “an important step” toward re-examining the “highly prescriptive rules” that have created a “regulatory environment” in which “mortgages don’t get made, small businesses don’t get created and banks find it more difficult to make the loans that drive job creation.” The ICBA also issued a post-meeting Press Release, in which their Chairman, Rebeca Romero Rainey, explained that among the items discussed at the meeting was the ICBA’s “Plan for Prosperity”—a “pro-growth platform to eliminate onerous regulatory burdens on community banks” that “includes provisions to cut regulatory red tape, improve access to capital, strengthen accountability in bank exams, incentivize credit in rural America and more.” The ICBA Chairman also confirmed that the Association “looks forward to continuing to work with President Trump, his administration and Congress to advance common-sense regulatory relief that will support communities nationwide.”
Also weighing in was House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), who issued a press release praising the President for “listening to the concerns of community bankers who have been buried under an avalanche of burdensome regulations as a result of Dodd-Frank.” Chairman Hensarling also took the opportunity to tout the Financial CHOICE Act, his bill that would make sweeping amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act. According to Chairman Hensarling, GOP members on the Financial Services Committee are “eager to work with the President and his administration this year to fulfill the pledge to dismantle Dodd-Frank and unclog the arteries of our financial system so the lifeblood of capital can flow more freely and create jobs.”
Fannie, Freddie and FHLBs Ordered to Report Results of Annual Stress Tests
On March 3, FHFA Director Melvin Watt issued orders directing FHFA regulated government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)—Fannie Mae (Order No. 2017-OR-FNMA-01), Freddie Mac (Order No. 2017-OR-FHLMC-01), and the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks collectively (Order No. 2017-OR-B-01)—to report the results of their stress tests so that the financial regulators may determine whether the GSEs “have the capital necessary to absorb losses as a result of adverse economic conditions.” The orders were issued pursuant to the requirement under the Dodd-Frank Act that covered financial institutions with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion conduct an annual stress test to determine whether they have sufficient capital to support operations in adverse economic conditions. Accompanying each order was a copy of the “2017 Report Cycle Dodd-Frank Stress Tests Summary Instructions and Guidance.”
On April 14, the FHFA order was officially published in the Federal Register.