InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC releases April enforcement actions
On May 28, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in April. During the month, the FDIC issued 10 orders consisting of “two Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalties, one Section 19 Application, one Order Terminating Consent Order, and one Order of Prohibition from Further Participation.” Among the orders is a civil money penalty imposed against a Washington-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) for “failing to obtain adequate flood insurance on buildings and/or the buildings’ contents securing designated loans at the time the Bank made, increased, extended, or renewed the loans.” The order requires the payment of a $17,000 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also imposed a civil money penalty against a California-based bank related to alleged violations of the FDPA. Among other things, the FDIC claims that the bank (i) failed to notify the borrower to obtain flood insurance; and (ii) failed to purchase flood insurance on the borrower’s behalf. The order requires the payment of a $281,000 civil money penalty.
U.S.-UK financial regulators discuss bilateral issues
On May 24, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a joint statement covering the recently held fourth meeting of the U.S.-UK Financial Regulatory Working Group (Working Group). Participants included officials and senior staff from both countries’ treasury departments, as well as regulatory agencies including the Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, FDIC, OCC, SEC, the Bank of England, and the Financial Conduct Authority. The Working Group discussed, among other things, (i) financial sector implications of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; (ii) “cooperative efforts to promote the free flow of cross-border financial services data crucial for effective financial sector regulation and supervision”; (iii) regulatory fragmentation and data localization risks; (iv) the Financial Stability Board’s work on non-bank financial intermediation, which involves active engagement from both U.S. and UK authorities; and (v) the management of climate-related financial risks and other sustainable finance issues. Working Group participants will continue to engage bilaterally on these issues and others ahead of the next meeting planned for this fall.
FDIC counters states’ challenge to “valid-when made” rule
On May 20, the FDIC filed a motion for summary judgment in response to a challenge brought by eight state attorneys general to the FDIC’s valid-when-made rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FDIC’s final rule clarifies that, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), whether interest on a loan is permissible is determined at the time the loan is made and is not affected by the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan. The AGs filed a lawsuit last year (covered by InfoBytes here) arguing, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, and asserting that while the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the FDIA,” it cannot issue regulations that would apply to nonbanks. The AGs also claimed that the rule’s extension of state law preemption would “facilitate evasion of state law by enabling ‘rent-a-bank’ schemes,” and that the FDIC failed to explain its consideration of evidence contrary to its assertions, including evidence demonstrating that “consumers and small businesses are harmed by high interest-rate loans.”
The FDIC countered that the AGs’ arguments “misconstrue” the rule, which “does not regulate non-banks, does not interpret state law, and does not preempt state law.” Rather, the FDIC argued that the rule clarifies the FDIA by “reasonably” filling in “two statutory gaps” surrounding banks’ interest rate authority. “The rule, which enjoys widespread support from the banking industry, represents a reasonable interpretation of [the FDIA], and should be upheld under Chevron’s familiar two-step framework,” the FDIC stated. Moreover, the FDIC contended, among other things, that the rule is appropriate because the FDIA does not address at what point in time the validity of a loan’s interest rate should be determined and is “silent” about what effect a loan’s transfer has on the validity of the interest rate. The FDIC also challenged the AGs’ argument that it is improperly trying to regulate non-banks, pointing out that the rule “regulates the conduct and rights of banks when they sell, assign, or transfer loans” and that “any indirect effects the rule has on non-banks do[es] not place the rule outside the agency’s authority.”
Agencies to proceed with Call Report revisions
On May 24, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC published a joint notice and request for comments on information collections published last December and this February (covered by InfoBytes here). The proposed reporting changes would revise and extend three versions of the Call Report—FFIEC 031, FFIEC 041, and FFIEC 051—as well as FFIEC 002, “Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks,” and FFIEC 002S, “Report of Assets and Liabilities of a Non-U.S. Branch that is Managed or Controlled by a U.S. Branch or Agency of a Foreign (Non-U.S.) Bank.” After considering comments received on the information collections, the agencies announced their intention to proceed with the proposed revisions and will submit a request to Office of Management and Budget for approval. The proposed revisions to the reporting forms, along with revised instructions related to FDIC amendments to the deposit insurance assessment system, will be effective with the June 30, 2021, report date. Additionally, the agencies noted that the exclusion of sweep deposits and certain other deposits from reporting as brokered deposits will be effective with the September 30, 2021, report date. Comments on the joint notice must be received by June 23.
Federal agencies release host state loan-to-deposit ratios
On May 21, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the OCC released the current host state loan-to-deposit ratios for each state or U.S. territory, which the agencies use to determine compliance with Section 109 of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Interstate Act). Under the Interstate Act, banks are prohibited from establishing or acquiring branches outside of their home state for the primary purpose of deposit production. Branches of banks controlled by out-of-state bank holding companies are also subject to the same restriction. Determining compliance with Section 109 requires a comparison of a bank’s estimated statewide loan-to-deposit ratio to the estimated host state loan-to-deposit ratio. If a bank’s statewide ratio is less than one-half of the published host state ratio, an additional review is required by the appropriate agency, which involves a determination of whether a bank is reasonably helping to meet the credit needs of the communities served by the bank’s interstate branches.
FDIC seeks input on digital assets
On May 17, the FDIC issued a notice and request for comments regarding information on insured depository institutions’ (IDIs) current and potential digital asset activities. The Request for Information (RFI) solicits input on digital asset use cases involving IDIs and their affiliates to help the agency “inform its understanding of the industry’s and consumers’ interests in this area.” According to the agency, there are “novel and unique considerations” connected to digital assets and “banks are increasingly exploring several roles in the emerging digital asset ecosystem, such as being custodians, reserve holders, issuers, and exchange or redemption agents; performing node functions; and holding digital asset issuers’ money deposits.” FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams states that digital asset areas have “seen rapid expansion and innovation in recent years” and that “[t]his RFI gives us an opportunity to gain additional insight into the market, and what role banks might play in the future.” The deadline for submitting comments for the RFI is July 16.
Federal regulators discuss Covid-19 responses and priorities
On May 19, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “Oversight of Prudential Regulators: Ensuring the Safety, Soundness, Diversity, and Accountability of Depository Institutions.” Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) opened the hearing by expressing her concerns about the “harmful deregulatory actions” taken by the previous administration’s appointees to “roll back key Dodd-Frank reforms and other consumer protections.” She noted, however, that she was pleased that the Senate is moving forward to reverse the OCC’s true lender rule and commented that she has asked House leadership to address the related Congressional Review Act resolution as soon as possible.
Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Randal K. Quarles provided an update on the Fed’s Covid-19 regulatory and supervisory efforts, noting that the Fed has “worked to align [the Fed’s] emergency actions with other relief efforts as the economic situation improves” and is maintaining or extending some measures to promote continued access to credit. When Congresswoman Velazquez inquired how government programs like the Paycheck Protection Program helped to stabilize businesses and improve the overall economy, Quarles answered, “We would have experienced a much deeper and more durable economic contraction, and would have had more lasting economic scarring with closed businesses and defaulting obligations [] had those programs not been put in place.”
OCC Comptroller Michael Hsu discussed the agency’s increasing coordination with other federal and state regulators on fintech policy, in addition to OCC efforts to strengthen Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations and address climate change. The OCC has been encouraging innovation, Hsu said, but added that his “broader concern is that these initiatives were not done in full coordination with all stakeholders. Nor do they appear to have been part of a broader strategy related to the regulatory perimeter.” In his written testimony, Hsu emphasized his concerns with providing charters to fintechs, noting that in doing so, it would “convey the benefits of banking without its responsibilities,” but also “that refusing to charter fintechs will encourage growth of another shadow banking system outside the reach of regulators.” Hsu expressed in his oral statement the importance of finding “a way to consider how fintechs and payment platforms fit into the banking system” and emphasized that it must be done in coordination with the FDIC, Fed, and the states. He also explained that “the regulatory community is taking a fragmented agency-by-agency approach to the technology-driven changes taking place today. At the OCC, the focus has been on encouraging responsible innovation. For instance, we updated the framework for chartering national banks and trust companies and interpreted crypto custody services as part of the business of banking.” When Congressman Bill Huizenga (R-MI) asked how the OCC planned to address the “true lender” rule, which would soften the regulations for national banks to sell loans to third parties, Hsu stated that the OCC originally intended to review the rule, but that after the Senate passed S.J.Res. 15 to invoke the Congressional Review Act and provide for congressional disapproval and invalidation of the rule (covered by InfoBytes here), the agency decided to leave it up to congressional deliberation and will monitor it instead.
FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams discussed, among other things, the FDIC’s policy of granting industrial loan company charters. As previously covered by Infobytes, the agency approved a final rule in December 2020 establishing certain conditions and supervisory standards for the parent companies of industrial banks and ILCs. McWilliams defended the FDIC’s new rule during the hearing, stating it “ensures that the parent company serves as a source of financial strength for the ILC while providing clarity about the FDIC's supervisory expectations of both the ILC and its parent company.”
NCUA Chairman Todd Harper also outlined agency measures taken in response to the pandemic. Among other things, Harper noted that the NCUA is supporting low-income credit unions through the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund and that the agency is working to strengthen its Consumer Financial Protection Program (CFPP) to ensure fair and equitable access to credit. During the hearing, Harper stated, “there is an increased emphasis on fair lending compliance, and agency staff are studying methods for improving consumer financial protection supervision for the largest credit unions not primarily supervised by the CFPP.”
FDIC announces Tennessee disaster relief
On May 14, the FDIC issued FIL-33-2021 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Tennessee affected by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things, (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.
FDIC chairman addresses the importance of innovation
On May 11, FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams spoke at the Federalist Society Conference about the Dodd-Frank Act in a post Covid-19 environment and the future of financial regulation. Among other topics, McWilliams emphasized the importance of promoting innovation through inclusion, resilience, amplification, and protecting the future of the banking sector. McWilliams pointed out that “alternative data and AI can be especially important for small businesses, such as sole proprietorships and smaller companies owned by women and minorities, which often do not have a long credit history” and that “these novel measures of creditworthiness, like income streams, can provide critical access to capital” that otherwise may not be possible to access. McWilliams also discussed an interagency request for information announced by the FDIC and other regulators in March (covered by InfoBytes here), which seeks input on financial institutions’ use of AI and asks whether additional regulatory clarity may be helpful. McWilliams also added that rapid prototyping helps initiate effective reporting of more granular data for banks. Additionally, McWilliams addressed agency’s efforts to expand fintech partnerships through several initiatives intended to facilitate cooperation between fintech groups and banks to promote accessibility to new customers and offer new products. Concerning the ability to confront the direct cost of developing and deploying technology at any one institution, McWilliams added that “there are things that we can do to foster innovation across all banks and to reduce the regulatory cost of innovation.”
FDIC fines Oregon-based bank for unfair and deceptive collection practices
On May 10, the FDIC announced that an Oregon-based bank has agreed to settle allegations of unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act related to a wholly owned subsidiary’s debt collection practices for commercial equipment financing. According to the FDIC, the subsidiary unfairly and deceptively charged various undisclosed collection fees—such as collection call and letter fees and third-party collection fees—to borrowers with past due accounts. The FDIC additionally claimed that some of the subsidiary’s collection practices were also unfair and deceptive, including (i) placing excessive and sequential collection calls to borrowers even after requests were made to stop the calls; (ii) disclosing borrowers’ debt information to third parties; and (iii) telling borrowers that their commercial debt would be reported as delinquent to the consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), even though its policy and practice was to not report such delinquencies to the CRAs. Under the terms of the settlement order, the bank, which does not admit nor deny the violations, will voluntarily pay an approximately $1.8 million civil money penalty.