InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC orders entities to stop making fraudulent deposit insurance representations
On February 15, the FDIC sent letters to four entities demanding that they stop making false or misleading representations about FDIC deposit insurance. Letters were sent to a cryptocurrency exchange and to a nonbank financial services provider demanding that the entities cease and desist from making false and misleading statements about FDIC deposit insurance and take immediate corrective action to address these statements. The FDIC also sent letters to two websites ordering them to remove similar false and misleading statements claiming that the crypto exchange and the nonbank financial services provider are FDIC-insured and that FDIC insurance will protect customers’ cryptocurrency or protect customers in the event of the nonbank’s failure. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, persons are prohibited “from representing or implying that an uninsured product is FDIC-insured or from knowingly misrepresenting the extent and manner of deposit insurance.”
Agencies reiterate illegality of appraisal discrimination
On February 14, CFPB Fair Lending Director Patrice Ficklin joined senior leaders from the FDIC, HUD, NCUA, Federal Reserve Board, DOJ, OCC, and FHFA in submitting a joint letter to The Appraisal Foundation (TAF) urging the organization to further revise its draft Ethics Rule for appraisers to include a detailed statement of federal prohibitions against discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and ECOA.
This is the second time the agencies have raised concerns with TAF. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last February, the agencies sent a joint letter in response to a request for comments on proposed changes to the 2023 Appraisal Standards Board Ethics Rule and Advisory Opinion 16, in which they noted that while provisions prohibit an appraiser from relying on “unsupported conclusions relating to characteristics such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender, marital status, familial status, age, receipt of public assistance income, disability, or an unsupported conclusion that homogeneity of such characteristics is necessary to maximize value,” the “provisions do not prohibit an appraiser from relying on ‘supported conclusions’ based on such characteristics and, therefore, suggest that such reliance may be permissible.” The letter noted that the federal ban on discrimination under the FHA and ECOA is not limited only to “unsupported” conclusions, and that any discussions related to potential appraisal bias should be consistent with all applicable nondiscrimination laws.
In their second letter, the agencies said that the fourth draft removed a detailed, unambiguous summary covering nondiscrimination standards under the FHA and ECOA, and instead substituted “a distinction between unethical discrimination and unlawful discrimination.” The letter expressed concerns that the term “unethical discrimination” is not well established in current law or practice, and could lead to confusion in the appraisal industry. Moreover, the letter noted that “the term ‘ethical’ discrimination, and reference to the possibility of a protected characteristic being ‘essential to the assignment and necessary for credible assignment results,’ appears to resemble the concept of ‘supported’ discrimination that the agencies previously disfavored and whose removal and replacement with a summary of the relevant law significantly improved the draft Ethics Rule.” The agencies further cautioned that “[s]uggesting that appraisers avoid ‘bias, prejudice, or stereotype’ as general norms” would grant individual appraisers wide discretion in applying these norms and likely yield inconsistent results. The agencies advised TAF to provide a thorough explanation of these legal distinctions.
Agencies remind banks of HMDA reporting changes on closed-end mortgages
On February 1, the OCC reminded banks and OCC examiners that the loan origination threshold for reporting HMDA data on closed-end mortgages has changed due to a court decision issued last year, which addressed challenges made by a group of consumer fair housing associations to changes made in 2020 by the CFPB that permanently raised coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under HMDA (covered by InfoBytes here.) Due to a court order vacating the 2020 HMDA Final Rule as to the loan volume reporting threshold for closed-end mortgage loans, the OCC explained that the loan origination threshold for reporting HMDA data on closed-end mortgage loans reverted to the threshold established by the 2015 HMDA Final Rule.
According to Bulletin 2023-5, the threshold for reporting HMDA data is now 25 closed-end mortgage loans originated in each of the two preceding calendar years rather than the 100-loan threshold set by the 2020 HMDA Final Rule. “Banks that originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years but fewer than 100 closed-end mortgage loans in either or both of the two preceding calendar years (referred to collectively as affected banks) may need to make adjustments to policies and procedures to comply with reporting obligations,” the OCC said. The agency added that it does not plan to assess penalties for failures to report closed-end mortgage loan data on reportable transactions conducted in 2022, 2021 or 2020 for affected banks that meet other coverage requirements under Regulation C.
The FDIC and Federal Reserve Board also issued similar guidance (see FIL-06-2023 and CA 23-1).
FDIC issues December enforcement actions
On January 27, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in December. The FDIC made public nine orders, including “one order to pay civil money penalty, two consent orders, one combined personal consent order and order to pay, two Section 19 orders, four prohibition orders, and seven orders of termination of insurance.”
The actions included a civil money order against a Georgia-based bank related to violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. The FDIC determined that the bank had engaged in a pattern or practice of violations because it “made, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located in a special flood hazard area or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower and/or the servicer as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral.”
Additionally, the FDIC issued a consent order against a Texas-based bank alleging the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices or violations of law or regulation relating to, among other things, weaknesses in board and management oversight of the information technology function.” The bank neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed, among other things, that it would develop a staffing analysis plan “to ensure sufficient resources are available with the knowledge [and] prerequisite skills commensurate with the risk profile and complexity of the Bank’s information technology [] function.”
FDIC announces Georgia disaster relief
On January 20, the FDIC issued FIL-05-2023 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Georgia affected by severe storms, straight-line winds, and tornadoes on January 12. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and encouraged institutions to work with impacted borrowers to, among other things: (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans, 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 and instructs institutions to contact the Atlanta Regional Office for consideration.
FDIC announces Alabama, California disaster relief
On January 18, the FDIC issued guidance (see FIL-03-2023 and FIL-04-2023) to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Alabama affected by severe storms, straight-line winds, and tornadoes occurring on January 12, and in areas of California affected by severe winter storms, flooding, and landslides occurring from December 27 and continuing. The FDIC wrote that in supervising impacted institutions, it will consider the unusual circumstances those institutions face. The guidance suggested that institutions work with borrowers impacted by the severe weather to extend repayment terms, restructure existing loans, or ease terms for new loans “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” 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 agency will also consider relief from certain reporting and publishing requirements.
FDIC announces Florida disaster relief
On January 9, the FDIC issued FIL-02-2023 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Florida affected by Hurricane Nicole from November 7 to November 30. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and encouraged institutions to work with impacted borrowers to, among other things: (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans, 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.
Agencies extend Reg. O relief for some companies controlled by funds
On December 22, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC extended Regulation O relief for certain investment fund-controlled companies. The agencies issued a temporary no-action position in 2019 to allow time for the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the FDIC and OCC, “to consider whether to amend Regulation O to address concerns about unintended consequences of the application of Regulation O to companies that sponsor, manage, or advise investment funds and institutional accounts that invest in voting securities of banking organizations.” The interagency statement extends the no-action relief under Regulation O for another year to the sooner of either January 1, 2024, or the effective date of a final Federal Reserve rule revising Regulation O “that addresses the treatment of extensions of credit by a bank to fund complex-controlled portfolio companies that are insiders of the bank.” Specifically, the agencies state that action will not be taken against banks extending credit to fund complex-controlled portfolio companies that would otherwise violate Regulation O, provided the company controls (directly or indirectly) less than 15 percent of the bank’s voting securities (or 20 percent under certain circumstances) and has not or does not plan to place representatives in the bank or seek to exercise a controlling influence over the bank. Extensions of credit to these companies must be on “substantially the same terms as those prevailing for comparable transactions with unaffiliated third parties” and may not “involve more than normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features,” the agencies explained, noting that the relief applies only to fund complex-controlled portfolio companies, not the fund complexes.
Agencies warn banks of crypto-asset risks
On January 3, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and OCC issued a joint interagency statement highlighting key risks banks should consider when choosing to engage in cryptocurrency-related services. Risks flagged by the agencies include: (i) the possibility of fraud and scams among crypto-asset sector participants; (ii) legal uncertainties related to custody practices, redemptions, and ownership rights; (iii) misleading disclosures made by crypto firms that may be unfair, deceptive, or abusive; (iv) volatility in crypto-asset markets, including the susceptibility of stablecoins to run risk, which could impact deposit flows; (v) contagion risks resulting from interconnections among crypto-asset participants that may present concentration risks for banks with exposure to the crypto-asset sector; (vi) lack of maturity in risk management and governance practices within the crypto-asset sector; and (vii) elevated risks associated with open, public, and/or decentralized networks.
The agencies commented that while they will continue to take a cautious approach to current or proposed crypto-asset-related activities (and are not prohibiting nor discouraging banks from providing crypto services to customers, as permitted by law or regulation), they currently “believe that issuing or holding as principal crypto-assets that are issued, stored, or transferred on an open, public, and/or decentralized network, or similar system is highly likely to be inconsistent with safe-and-sound banking practices.” Moreover, the agencies expressed “significant safety and soundness concerns with business models that are concentrated in crypto-asset-related activities or have concentrated exposures to the crypto-asset sector.” Agencies have developed processes for banks to engage in robust supervisory discussions with their supervisory office about any proposed or existing crypto-asset-related activities, the agencies advised, adding that before launching any activities, banks should take appropriate risk management measures and assess whether the activity can be performed in a safe and sound manner, is legally permissible, and complies with applicable laws and regulations. Additional statements will be released in the future by the agencies.
“The events of the past year have been marked by significant volatility and the exposure of vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector,” the agencies said as they stressed the importance of keeping crypto-asset risks that cannot be mitigated or controlled from migrating to the banking system.
The OCC separately issued a bulletin advising supervised banks to follow processes outlined in OCC Interpretive Letter 1179 (covered by InfoBytes here) before engaging in certain crypto-asset-related activities.
FDIC issues November enforcement actions
On December 30, the FDIC released a list of orders of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in November. The FDIC made public nine orders consisting of “two consent orders; two orders terminating deposit insurance; three orders to pay civil money penalties; one order terminating consent order; and one Section 19 order.” Among the orders is a civil money penalty against a Wisconsin-based bank related to violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. The FDIC determined that the bank had engaged in a pattern or practice of violations that included the bank’s failure to: (i) obtain adequate flood insurance on the building securing a designated loan at the time of loan origination; (ii) obtain adequate flood insurance at the time of the origination; (iii) notify borrowers that the borrower should obtain flood insurance where a determination had been made that flood insurance had lapsed or a loan was not covered with the required amount of insurance; (iv) provide borrowers with a Notice of Special Flood Hazard and Availability of Federal Disaster Relief Assistance when making, increasing, extending or renewing a loan; and (v) provide borrowers with a Notice of Special Flood Hazard and Availability of Federal Disaster Relief Assistance within a reasonable time before the completion of the transaction. The order requires the payment of a $39,000 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also issued a civil money penalty against an Oregon-based bank for allegedly violating Section 8(a) of RESPA “by entering into mortgage lead generation arrangements with the operator of a real estate website and the operator of an online loan marketplace that were used to facilitate and disguise referral payments for mortgage business.” The FDIC also determined that the bank violated the FTC Act “by making deceptive and misleading representations in three of the bank’s prescreened offers of credit” and violated the FCRA “by obtaining the consumer reports of former loan clients with recent credit inquiries without a legally permissible purpose.” The order requires the payment of a $425,000 civil money penalty.
Additionally, the FDIC issued a consent order against a Tennessee-based bank alleging the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to weaknesses in capital, asset quality, liquidity, and earnings.” The bank neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed, among other things, that its board would “increase its participation in the affairs of the bank by assuming full responsibility for the approval of the bank’s policies and objectives and for the supervision of the bank’s management, including all the bank’s activities.” The bank also agreed to maintain a Tier 1 Leverage Capital ratio equal to or greater than 8.50 percent and a Total Capital ratio equal to or greater than 11.50 percent. The FDIC also issued a consent order against a New Jersey-based bank claiming the bank engaged in “unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to, among other things, management supervision, Board oversight, weaknesses in internal controls, interest rate sensitivity, and earnings.” The bank neither admitted nor denied the allegations but agreed, among other things, that it would retain a third-party consultant “to develop a written analysis and assessment of the bank’s board and management needs (Board and Management Report) for the purpose of ensuring appropriate director oversight and providing qualified management for the bank.”