InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed targets flood insurance violations
On November 10, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced an enforcement action against an Arkansas-based bank for alleged violations of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H, which implements the NFIA. The consent order assesses a $12,000 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H, but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.
Agencies issue joint statement on LIBOR transition
On November 6, the OCC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the FDIC issued a statement reiterating that the agencies do not intend to recommend a specific credit-sensitive rate for use in place of LIBOR. The agencies recommend that financial institutions “use any reference rate for its loans that the bank determines to be appropriate for its funding model and customer needs” and emphasize the need for fallback language in lending contracts that provide for the “use of a robust fallback rate if the initial reference rate is discontinued.” The agencies note that examiners will not criticize banks solely regarding their choice of reference rate, including a credit-sensitive rate other than Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) (the rate recommended by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee). Additionally, the agencies encourage financial institutions to reach out to lending customers to ensure they are prepared for the transition and to consider any technical changes to internal systems that might be needed to accommodate a new reference rate.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July, the member agencies of the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC) issued a joint statement highlighting several risks that will result from the anticipated cessation of LIBOR at the end of 2021 and discussing the supervisory impacts of the LIBOR transition.
Fed report highlights banks’ Covid-19 responses
On November 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued its Supervision and Regulation Report, which summarizes banking system conditions and the Fed’s supervisory and regulatory activities. The current report discusses the safety and soundness of the banking industry, especially with respect to economic and financial stresses resulting from Covid-19 containment measures. The report highlights, among other things, that Fed programs “have helped to preserve the flow of credit” and that banks have taken several actions to maintain financial and operational resiliency. These actions include providing access to substantial lines of credit for corporate borrowers and playing a significant role in supporting small businesses through the Paycheck Protection Program. In addition, the report notes that loan growth has grown slightly since the beginning of the year and that capital positions and liquidity conditions remain strong. However, the report cautions that while “economic indicators have shown marked improvement since the second quarter, a high degree of uncertainty persist.” The report also details the Fed’s current areas of supervisory focus and describes how banks have adapted to a largely remote working environment.
The same day, the Fed also announced updates to the list of firms supervised by its Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee Program, which is responsible for supervising the largest and most complex firms. As a result, “certain foreign banks with U.S. operations that have substantially decreased in size and risk over the past decade will move to the Large and Foreign Banking Organization supervision portfolio, where they will be supervised with other banks of similar size and risk.” The Fed stresses that the “portfolio move will have no effect on the regulatory capital or liquidity requirements of any firm.”
Agencies outline standards for strengthening operational resilience
On October 30, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, and FDIC (agencies) released an interagency paper describing standards and sound practices for increasing operational resilience. (See also the Fed’s release and FDIC FIL-103-2020). The paper, titled Sound Practices to Strengthen Operational Resilience, does not revise existing agency regulations or guidance, but rather provides a “comprehensive approach” for banks to strengthen and maintain operational resilience. According to the agencies, “[r]obust operational risk and business continuity management anchor the sound practices, which are informed by rigorous scenario analyses and consider third-party risks. Secure and resilient information systems underpin the approach to operational resilience, which is supported by thorough surveillance and reporting.” The paper also includes an appendix focused on sound practices for cyber risk management and cybersecurity preparedness. The appendix is aligned to the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework and is “augmented to emphasize governance and third-party risk management.” The standards set forth in the paper are intended for large, domestic banks with more than $250 billion in average total consolidated assets, or banks with more than $100 billion in total assets and other risk characteristics.
Fed lowers Main Street Lending Program minimum loan size
On October 30, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced an adjustment to the terms of the Main Street Lending Program (MSLP) in order to expand support to smaller businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, the Fed reduced the minimum loan size for the three Main Street facilities from $250,000 to $100,000 and adjusted the associated fees.
Additionally, the Fed and the U.S. Department of Treasury issued an FAQ clarifying that up to $2 million of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans may be excluded for purposes of determining the maximum loan size under the MSLP. If a borrower has applied for forgiveness, the amount that is eligible for forgiveness may be excluded from the “existing outstanding and undrawn available debt” calculation under the MSLP program. If the borrower has not yet applied for forgiveness, the amount to be excluded from the calculation is the amount that “its principal executive officer has a reasonable, good-faith basis to believe will be forgiven in accordance with applicable PPP requirements.”
Agencies propose lowering threshold for certain fund transfers and transmittals of funds under Bank Secrecy Act
On October 23, the Federal Reserve Board and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced a proposed rule that would, among other things, amend the Recordkeeping Rule and the Travel Rule under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) by reducing the data collection threshold from $3,000 to $250 for certain fund transfers that begin or end outside of the U.S. In addition, the proposed rule would set the threshold at $250 for financial institutions “to transmit to other financial institutions in the payment chain information on fund transfers and transmittals of funds that begin or end outside of the [U.S.]” The proposed rule’s $250 threshold for data collection would also apply to digital currency transactions, both for international transfers and those within the U.S. The agencies also propose to clarify the meaning of “money” as used in certain defined terms to ensure the rules apply to domestic and cross-border transactions involving convertible virtual currencies. By proposing to lower the current threshold, the agencies “specifically considered Suspicious Activity Reports filed by money transmitters, which indicate that a substantial volume of potentially illicit funds transfers and transmittals of funds occur below the $3,000 threshold.” The agencies also note that the threshold for domestic transactions would remain unchanged at $3,000. Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Federal agencies will not recommend specific LIBOR replacement rate
On October 21, a group of U.S. financial agencies wrote to the executives of financial institutions that participated in the Credit Sensitivity Group workshops, stating that the agencies do not intend to recommend a specific credit-sensitive rate for use in commercial lending products in place of LIBOR. The letter states that “[t]he transition away from LIBOR is a significant and complex undertaking,” and there are multiple suitable alternative reference rates to replace LIBOR. The letter acknowledges that the use of the Secured Overnight Financial Rate (SOFR), which is recommended by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee is “voluntary.” After participating in the workshops, the agencies concluded that they are “not well positioned to adjudicate the selection of a reference rate between banks and their commercial customers” due to various business needs and terms of commercial loans that are based on the negotiation of banks and borrowing parties. Thus, the letter states, the agencies will continue to convene additional working sessions to highlight innovation in the credit-sensitive rates and explore implementing solutions for commercial loans transitioning away from LIBOR.
For continuing InfoBytes covering on the LIBOR transition see here.
Federal bank regulatory agencies release two final rules supporting large banks
On October 20, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, and FDIC (collectively, “federal bank regulatory agencies”) finalized two rules for large banks.
The federal bank regulatory agencies first announced a final rule intended to reduce interconnectedness within the financial system between the largest banking organizations and to minimize systemic risks stemming from failure of these organizations. As the federal bank regulatory agencies noted in their announcement, the final rule, Regulatory Capital Treatment for Investments in Certain Unsecured Debt Instruments of Global Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies, Certain Intermediate Holding Companies, and Global Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations; Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity Requirements, “prescribes a more stringent regulatory capital treatment for holdings of [total loss-absorbing capacity] (TLAC) debt.” U.S. global systemically important banking organizations (GSIBs) will be required, among other things, to deduct from their regulatory capital certain investments in unsecured debt instruments issued by foreign or U.S. GSIBs in order to meet minimum TLAC requirements and long-term debt requirements, as applicable. The final rule recognizes the systemic risks posed by banking organizations’ investments in covered debt instruments and “create[s] an incentive for advanced approaches [for] banking organizations to limit their exposure to GSIBs.” The final rule takes effect April 1, 2021.
The federal bank regulatory agencies also announced a second final rule, Net Stable Funding Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement Standards and Disclosure Requirements, which will implement a stable funding requirement for certain large banking organizations established by a quantitative metric known as the net stable funding ratio (NSFR). The NSFR will measure banking organizations’ level of stability, and will require that a minimum level of stable funding be maintained over a one-year period. According to the federal bank regulatory agencies, the NSFR is intended “to reduce the likelihood that disruptions to a banking organization’s regular sources of funding will compromise its liquidity position,” and is designed to “promote effective liquidity risk management, and support the ability of banking organizations to provide financial intermediation to businesses and households across a range of market conditions.” The final rule “applies to certain large U.S. depository institution holding companies, depository institutions, and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, each with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, together with certain depository institution subsidiaries” with “increases in stringency based on risk-based measures of the top-tiered covered company.” The final rule takes effect July 1, 2021.
Agencies propose codifying that supervisory guidance lacks force of law
On October 20, the Federal Reserve Board, CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which seeks to codify the “Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the agencies on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement).” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 2018 Statement confirmed that supervisory guidance “does not have the force and effect of law, and [that] the agencies do not take enforcement actions based on supervisory guidance.” The Statement emphasized that the intention of supervisory guidance is to outline agencies’ expectations or priorities and highlighted specific policies and practices the agencies intend to take relating to supervisory guidance to further clarify the proper role of guidance, including: (i) not citing to “violations” of supervisory guidance; (ii) limiting the use of numerical thresholds or other “bright-line” requirements; (iii) limiting multiple issuances of guidance on the same topic; (iv) continuing to emphasize the role of supervisory guidance to examiners and to supervised institutions; and (v) encouraging supervised institutions to discuss supervisory guidance questions with their appropriate agency contact.
In addition to codifying the above elements of the 2018 Statement, the proposal would amend the 2018 Statement by (i) clarifying that references in the Statement limiting agency “criticisms” includes criticizing institutions “through the issuance of [matters requiring attention] MRAs and other supervisory criticisms, including those communicated through matters requiring board attention, documents of resolution, and supervisory recommendations”; and (ii) adding that supervisory criticisms should be “specific as to practices, operations, financial conditions, or other matters that could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness of the financial institution, could cause consumer harm, or could cause violations of laws, regulations, final agency orders, or other legally enforceable conditions.”
Comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred.
FinCEN, federal banking agencies provide CIP program relief
On October 9, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in concurrence with the OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC, and NCUA (collectively, “federal banking agencies”), issued an interagency order granting an exemption from the requirements of the customer identification program (CIP) rules for insurance premium finance loans extended by banks to all customers. The exemption is intended to facilitate insurance premium finance lending for the purchase of property and casualty insurance policies and will apply to loans extended by banks and their subsidiaries, subject to the federal banking agencies’ jurisdiction. According to FinCEN, insurance premium finance loans present a low risk for money laundering due to the purpose for which the loans are extended and the limitations on how such funds may be used. Moreover, FinCEN emphasized that “property and casualty insurance policies themselves are not an effective means for transferring illicit funds.” Banks, however, must still comply with all other regulatory requirements, including those implementing the Bank Secrecy Act that require the filing of suspicious activity reports. Furthermore, the federal banking agencies determined that the order is consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The order supersedes a September 2018 order, which previously granted an exemption from the CIP rule requirements for commercial customers (covered by InfoBytes here).