InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC Chairman discusses innovation in banking
On June 29, FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams spoke at the “Fintech: A Bridge to Economic Inclusion” conference on technology’s role in creating and facilitating a more inclusive financial system. McWilliams noted that while the proportion of U.S. households that were banked in 2019 was 94.6 percent, 7 million households still reported no banking relationship. Moreover, she noted that “the rates for Black and Hispanic households who do not have a checking or savings account at a bank remain substantially higher than the overall ‘unbanked’ rate.” McWilliams discussed the FDIC’s multi-pronged approach to tackle the issue of financial inclusion, which includes: (i) looking at financial innovations in the private sector; (ii) taking steps, including hosting tech sprints, to identify solutions; (iii) coordinating with Minority Depository Institutions and Community Development Financial Institutions; and (iv) conducting targeted public awareness campaigns on the importance of having a banking relationship. In explaining the initiatives, McWilliams pointed out that encouraging the use of alternative data that is not usually found in consumer credit files can “help firms evaluate the creditworthiness of consumers who might not otherwise have access to credit in the mainstream credit system.” She also discussed the use of artificial intelligence, updating brokered deposits rulemaking, and establishing a public/private standard-setting organization for due diligence of vendors and for the technologies they develop. According to McWilliams, “FDiTech is also leading tech sprints to identify data, tools, and technology to help community banks meet the needs of the unbanked, including how to measure impact.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) McWilliams concluded her remarks by explaining that “[a]lthough the FDIC has limited ability to address directly the issue of unbanked Americans, there are things that [it] can do – and which [it is] doing – to foster innovation across all banks and to reduce the regulatory cost of and barriers to innovation.”
FFIEC releases “Architecture, Infrastructure, and Operations” booklet
On June 30, the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC) published the “Architecture, Infrastructure, and Operations” booklet of the FFIEC Information Technology Examination Handbook, which provides guidance to examiners on assessing the risk profile and adequacy of an entity’s information technology architecture, infrastructure, and operations (AIO). According to FDIC FIL-47-2021, the booklet, among other things: (i) describes the principles and practices that examiners should review in order to assess an entity’s AIO functions; (ii) focuses on “enterprise-wide, process-oriented approaches regarding the design of technology within the overall enterprise and business structure, implementation of information technology infrastructure components, and delivery of services and value for customers”; and (iii) mentions “assessing an entity’s governance of common AIO-related risks, enterprise-wide IT architectural planning and design, implementation of virtual and physical infrastructure, and on assessing an entity’s related operational controls.” In addition, according to an OCC announcement, the booklet discusses how appropriate governance of the AIO functions and related activities can: (i) promote risk identification across banks, nonbank financial institutions, bank holding companies, and third-party providers; (ii) support implementation of effective risk management; (iii) assist management through the regular assessment of an entity’s strategies; and (iv) promote alignment and integration between the functions. The booklet replaces the Operations booklet issued in July 2004.
FinCEN issues first government-wide AML/CFT priorities
On June 30, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued the first government-wide priorities for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) policy (AML/CFT Priorities) pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AML Act). The AML/CFT Priorities were established in consultation with the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, SEC, CFTC, IRS, state financial regulators, law enforcement, and national security agencies, and highlight key threat trends as well as informational resources to assist covered institutions manage their risks and meet their obligations under laws and regulations designed to combat money laundering and counter terrorist financing. According to the AML/CFT Priorities, the most significant AML/CFT threats currently facing the U.S. (in no particular order) are corruption, cybercrime, domestic and international terrorist financing, fraud, transnational criminal organization activity, drug trafficking organization activity, human trafficking and human smuggling, and proliferation financing. FinCEN further noted it will update the AML/CFT Priorities to highlight new or evolving threats at least once every four years as required under the AML Act, and issued a separate statement providing additional clarification for covered institutions.
Separately, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, state bank and credit union regulators, and FinCEN also issued a joint statement providing clarity for banks on the AML/CFT Priorities. The statement emphasized that the publication of the AML/CFT Priorities “does not create an immediate change to Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements or supervisory expectations for banks.” Rather, within 180 days of the establishment of the AML/CFT Priorities, FinCEN will promulgate regulations, as appropriate, in consultation with the federal functional regulators and relevant state financial regulators. The federal banking agencies noted that they intend to revise their BSA regulations as needed to address how the AML/CFT priorities will be incorporated into BSA requirements for banks, adding that banks will not be required to incorporate the AML/CFT Priorities into their risk-based BSA compliance programs until the effective date of the final revised regulations. However, banks may choose to begin considering how they intend to incorporate the AML/CFT Priorities, “such as by assessing the potential related risks associated with the products and services they offer, the customers they serve, and the geographic areas in which they operate.” Moreover, the statement confirmed that federal and state examiners will not examine banks for the incorporation of the AML/CFT Priorities into their risk-based BSA programs until the final revised regulations take effect.
FDIC outlines revised approach for insured depository institution resolution planning
On June 25, the FDIC announced PR-58-2021, which outlines a modified approach to implementing its rule requiring insured depository institutions (IDIs) with $100 billion or more in total assets (CIDIs) to submit resolution plans under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Among other things, the modified approach extends the resolution plan’s submission frequency to a three-year cycle and lays out new details regarding the FDIC’s emphasis on engagement with firms. The new approach “exempts filers from other content requirements that have been less useful or are obtainable through other supervisory channels.” In addition, on a case-by-case basis, the FDIC plans to “expressly exempt certain content requirements based on the FDIC’s evaluation of how useful or material the information would be in planning to resolve the specified CIDI.” Resolution plans will be submitted in two groups. The first group will contain IDIs whose top tier parent company is not regarded as a U.S. global systemically important bank or a category II banking organization. The second group encompass all other IDIs with $100 billion or more in total assets. For institutions with less than $100 billion in total assets, the moratorium on submission of IDI plans announced in November 2018 remains in effect.
FDIC releases May enforcement actions
On June 25, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in May. During the month, the FDIC issued 10 orders and one notice consisting of “two Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalties, four Section 19 Applications, three Orders Terminating Consent Orders, one Order of Prohibition from Further Participation, and Notice of Intention to Prohibit from Further Participation, one Notice of Assessment of Civil Money Penalties, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order to Pay, and Notice of Hearing.” Among the orders is a civil money penalty imposed against an Oregon-based bank concerning allegations of unfair and deceptive practices related to a wholly-owned subsidiary’s debt collection practices for commercial equipment financing. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the bank’s subsidiary allegedly violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by, among other things, unfairly and deceptively charging various undisclosed collection fees—such as collection call and letter fees and third-party collection fees—to borrowers with past due accounts. The bank, which did not admit or deny the violations, agreed to voluntarily pay an approximately $1.8 million civil money penalty.
The FDIC also imposed a civil money penalty against an Iowa-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank (i) “[m]ade, increased, extended or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; (ii) “[f]ailed to timely notify the borrower that the borrower should obtain flood insurance, at the borrower’s expense, upon determining that the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan”; and (iii) “[f]ailed to timely purchase flood insurance on the borrower’s behalf when the borrower failed to do so within 45 days of being advised to obtain adequate flood insurance.” The order requires the payment of a $8,000 civil money penalty.
State AGs argue FDIC’s “valid-when-made rule” violates APA
On June 17, eight state attorneys general (from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia) filed an opposition to the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment and reply in support of their motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit challenging the FDIC’s “valid-when-made rule.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, last August the AGs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California arguing, among other things, that the FDIC does not have the power to issue the rule, and asserting that the FDIC has the power to issue “‘regulations to carry out’ the provisions of the [Federal Deposit Insurance Act]” but not regulations that would apply to non-banks. 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 complaint asked the court to declare that the FDIC violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) in issuing the rule and to hold the rule unlawful. The FDIC countered in May (covered by InfoBytes here) 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.
In response, the AGs argued that the rule violates the APA because the FDIC’s interpretation in its “Non-Bank Interest Provision” (Provision) conflicts with the unambiguous plain-language statutory text, which preempts state interest-rate caps for federally insured, state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (FDIC Banks) alone, and “impermissibly expands the scope of § 1831d to preempt state rate caps as to non-bank loan buyers of FDIC Bank loans.” Additionally, the AGs challenged the FDIC’s claim that its Provision “does not implicate rent-a-bank schemes or the true lender doctrine because the Provision only applies ‘if a bank actually made the loan,’” emphasizing that the FDIC’s “mere statement that it does not condone rent-a-bank schemes” is insufficient and that “choosing to not address true-lender issues is an insufficient response to comments that the Provision creates significant uncertainty about those issues.” Moreover, the AGs claimed that the Provision is “arbitrary and capricious” and fails to meaningfully address valid concerns and criticisms raised by commenters, and that the rule constitutes “in substance if not form, a reversal of the FDIC’s previous stance” that the FDIC is “obligated to acknowledge and explain.”
FFIEC updates BSA/AML examination manual
On June 21, the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC) published updated versions of four sections of the Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) Examination Manual (Manual), which provides examiners with instructions for assessing a bank or credit union’s BSA/AML compliance program and compliance with BSA regulatory requirements. The revisions can be identified by a 2021 date label on the FFIEC BSA/AML InfoBase and include the following updated sections: International Transportation of Currency or Monetary Instruments Reporting, Purchase and Sale of Monetary Instruments Recordkeeping, Reports of Foreign Financial Accounts, and Special Measures. The FFIEC notes that the “updates should not be interpreted as new instructions or as a new or increased focus on certain areas,” but are intended to “offer further transparency into the examination process and support risk-focused examination work.” In addition, the Manual itself does not establish requirements for financial institutions as these requirements are found in applicable statutes and regulations. (See also FDIC FIL-12-2021 and OCC Bulletin 2021-10.) As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February the FFIEC updated the following sections of the Manual: Assessing Compliance with Bank Secrecy Act Regulatory Requirements, Customer Identification Program, Currency Transaction Reporting, and Transactions of Exempt Persons.
FDiTech launches tech sprint to help unbanked
On June 16, the FDIC’s technology lab, FDiTech, announced a tech sprint, which challenges participants to “explore new technologies and techniques that would help expand the capabilities of banks to meet the needs of unbanked individuals and households.” The tech sprint, Breaking Down Barriers: Reaching the Last Mile of Unbanked U.S. Households, invites banks, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, private sector companies, and others to identify data, tools, and other resources that may assist community banks meet the needs of the underbanked in a cost-effective manner. According to the FDIC, a recently published survey found that more than seven million U.S. households were unbanked with Black, Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native households having a higher likelihood of being unbanked. Registration will be required for stakeholders to participate, and additional information on how to participate is expected on the FDiTech website in early July.
FDIC provides updates on real estate lending standards and MDIs
On June 15, the FDIC Board of Directors met in open session to discuss Real Estate Lending Standards and Minority Depository Institutions (MDIs), among other things. According to FIL-41-2021, the FDIC issued a proposed rule to amend the Interagency Guidelines for Real Estate Lending Policies “to conform the method for calculating the ratio of loans in excess of the supervisory loan-to-value (LTV) limits with the capital framework established in the community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) rule.” The proposed amendments would provide a consistent approach for calculating the ratio of loans in excess of the supervisory LTV limits at all FDIC-supervised institutions by, among other things, establishing supervisory LTV criteria for certain real estate lending transaction types and allowing exceptions to the supervisory LTV limits. Comments on the proposed rule are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
During the meeting, the FDIC Board of Directors also approved and released an updated Statement of Policy Regarding Minority Depository Institutions to enhance the agency’s efforts to preserve and promote MDIs. In August 2020, the FDIC approved a proposed statement of policy, which updated and clarified the agency’s policies and procedures related to MDIs (covered by InfoBytes here). The recently updated statement of policy replaces the 2002 Statement of Policy and includes, among other things:
- Clarification of the FDIC’s expectations for technical assistance and illustration of opportunities for engagement with members of FDIC staff;
- Outreach efforts by the FDIC including, among other things, the establishment of the MDI Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Community Banking and enhanced activities to promote collaboration with MDIs;
- Definitions of terms utilized in the MDI program, detailed reporting requirements, and specific methods used to measure the effectiveness of MDI program activities; and
- Clarification of considerations made by examination staff when evaluating performance and assigning ratings.
After considering the comment letters, the FDIC revised the proposed statement of policy to identify, specifically, “state bankers associations as collaboration partners, along with other trade associations that support MDIs in the development of education and training events and other initiatives for MDIs.”
Agencies call for "robust" alternate reference rates
On June 11, the Treasury Department, OCC, SEC, and the FDIC released separate statements following the meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council concerning the LIBOR transition. Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu said it is “imperative that banks continue careful planning” for the transition away from LIBOR to an alternate reference rate, such as the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), the Alternate Reference Rates Committee’s (ARRC) preferred LIBOR alternative. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the ARRC released the SOFR “Starter Kit” in August 2020, which includes three factsheets that are the result of a series of educational panel discussions held by ARRC. The various panel discussions were designed to educate on “the history of LIBOR; the development and strengths of SOFR; progress made in the transition away from LIBOR to date; and how to ensure organizations are ready for the end of LIBOR.” SEC Chairman Gary Gensler also expressed support for SOFR, calling it a “preferable” alternate rate. In addition, Gensler shared his concerns regarding the Bloomberg Short-Term Bank Yield Index (BSBY), which some commercial banks are advocating as a replacement for LIBOR. Gensler said the BSBY is based upon unsecured, term, bank-to-bank lending, which is like LIBOR. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen encouraged market participants to “act promptly to support the switch in derivatives from LIBOR to SOFR.” She noted that “[w]hile important progress is being made in some segments of the market, other segments, including business loans, are well behind where they should be at this stage in the transition.” FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams pointed out that the “FDIC continues to focus on the LIBOR transition and to assess institutions’ practices and plans to adopt a replacement rate and address legacy contracts before December 31 of this year.” However, she disclosed that “the FDIC does not endorse any particular alternative reference rate.”