InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB finalizes rule stating supervisory guidance lacks force of law
On January 19, the CFPB issued a final rule codifying the Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the CFPB, OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and the NCUA on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the October 2018 joint proposal amended 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.”
The Bureau notes that it chose to issue a final rule that is specific to the Bureau and Bureau-supervised institutions, rather than a joint version including the five agencies as it did with the proposal. However, the final rule adopts the proposed rule without substantive change. The final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Similar announcements were issued by the OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.
CFPB and NCUA announce supervision MOU
On January 14, the CFPB announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the NCUA, which is intended to improve supervision coordination of credit unions with over $10 billion in assets. According to the Bureau’s press release, the MOU covers (i) the sharing of the Covered Reports of Examination and final Reports of Examination for covered institutions, using secure, two-way electronic means; (ii) collaboration in semi-annual strategy planning sessions for examination coordination; (iii) information sharing on training activities and content; and (iv) information sharing related to potential enforcement actions.
FinCEN, federal banking agencies clarify CDD requirements for charities and non-profit organizations
On November 19, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in concurrence with the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC (collectively, “federal banking agencies”), released a fact sheet clarifying that Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for charities and nonprofit organizations (NPOs) should be based on the money laundering risks posed by customer relationships. FinCEN and the federal banking agencies remind banks that “the application of a risk-based approach for charities and other NPOs is consistent with existing CDD and other [BSA/anti-money laundering] compliance requirements.” The fact sheet further emphasizes that while “the U.S. government does not view the charitable sector as a whole as presenting a uniform or unacceptably high risk of being used or exploited for money laundering, terrorist financing [], or sanctions violations,” banks must adopt risk-based procedures for conducting CDD that will allow banks to (i) understand the nature and purpose of a customer relationship in order to develop a customer risk profile, and (ii) conduct ongoing monitoring for the purposes of identifying and reporting suspicious transactions “on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer information.” The fact sheet does not alter existing BSA/AML legal or regulatory requirements, nor does it establish new supervisory expectations. (See also OCC Bulletin 2020-101 and FDIC FIL-106-2020.)
Regulators update Senate on Covid-19
On November 10, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing entitled “Oversight of Financial Regulators,” which primarily focused on Covid-19-related actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), OCC, FDIC, and NCUA since the federal financial regulators last testified in May (covered by InfoBytes here). Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) opened the hearing by applauding the actions taken by the regulators after the passage of the CARES Act to help mitigate the economic impact of the pandemic. Crapo cautioned, however, that the regulators should continue to review and adjust their regulatory and supervisory frameworks to support economic recovery, including by “alleviat[ing] the regulatory burdens associated with a variety of asset-based regulatory thresholds on [] banks and credit unions temporarily experiencing growth from participation in recovery-orientated programs” such as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
In his written statement, Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Randal K. Quarles discussed actions taken by the Fed, such as (i) issuing a set of key principles concerning Covid-related credit accommodations; (ii) updating guidance on bank examinations to “consider the unique, evolving, and potentially long-term issues that institutions face”; (iii) clarifying the Fed’s approach to Covid-related activity under the Community Reinvestment Act; and (iv) supporting the ability of banks to meet customer needs by issuing PPP loans, underwriting loans in the Main Street Lending Program, and acting as counterparties in several other facilities.
OCC Acting Comptroller Brian Brooks also discussed activities undertaken by the agency, and noted that the regulators are working on an interagency basis “on a set of rule[s] that would relieve for a period of time certain asset thresholds being tripped that trigger heightened scrutiny and heightened compliance requirements at different levels.” According to Brooks, this relief would “cap out at $10 billion, most likely, based on current conversations.” Brooks agreed with Quarles that while larger banks are “fully capable of managing those risks,” smaller banks will face difficulties.
FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams also provided an update on actions undertaken to provide banks flexibility while maintaining safety and soundness. McWilliams discussed five key areas: (i) responding to Covid-19 economic risks; (ii) “enhancing [] resolution readiness”; (iii) supporting communities; (iv) “fostering technology solutions and encouraging innovation”; and (v) “finalizing outstanding rulemakings,” including approving an interim final rule to provide regulatory relief to insured depository institutions that have experienced significant, but temporary, asset growth due to government stimulus efforts (covered by InfoBytes here).
NCUA Chairman Rodney E. Hood also discussed updated agency measures in response to the pandemic, such as adjusting supervision priorities to ensure that credit unions’ good-faith efforts to comply with the CARES Act are reviewed. Hood further emphasized in his written statement that “NCUA’s examiners will not criticize a credit union’s efforts to provide prudent relief for members when such efforts are conducted in a reasonable manner with proper controls and management oversight.” Hood also discussed, among other things, NCUA’s cybersecurity efforts in response to the pandemic and significant rulemaking actions, including an interim final rule that provides relief to credit unions that temporarily fall below the well-capitalized level.
The House Financial Services Committee also held a hearing later in the week to discuss the regulators' responses to the pandemic.
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).
Agencies give guidance on working with borrowers affected by hurricane, wildfires
On September 1, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) issued a joint statement covering supervisory practices for financial institutions affected by Hurricane Laura and the California wildfires. Among other things, the agencies called on financial institutions to “work constructively” with affected borrowers, noting that “prudent efforts” to adjust loan terms in affected areas “should not be subject to examiner criticism.” Institutions facing difficulties in complying with any publishing and reporting requirements should contact their primary federal and/or state regulator. Additionally, the agencies noted that institutions may receive Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services that revitalize or stabilize federally designated disaster areas.
Additionally, HUD announced it will make disaster assistance available to Louisiana, which will provide foreclosure relief and other assistance to homeowners living in parishes affected by Hurricane Laura. Specifically, HUD is providing an automatic 90-day moratorium on foreclosures of FHA-insured home mortgages for covered properties and is making FHA insurance available to those victims whose homes were destroyed or severely damaged. Additionally, HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program will allow individuals who have lost homes to finance the purchase of a house, or refinance an existing house along with the costs of repair, through a single mortgage. The program will also allow homeowners with damaged property to finance the rehabilitation of existing single-family homes.
Federal agencies and CSBS to hold webinar on PPP
On August 20, the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, OCC, NCUA, and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors announced that a webinar will be held with SBA officials discussing the loan forgiveness process and recent changes in the Paycheck Protection Program on Thursday, August 27 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EDT). Participants must preregister for the webinar and are encouraged to email questions in advance to asktheregulators@stls.frb.org. An archive of the webinar materials will be available here, a few hours after the webinar ends.
Agencies clarify BSA/AML enforcement
On August 13, the OCC, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the NCUA (collectively, the “agencies”) issued a joint statement, which clarifies how the agencies apply the enforcement provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and related anti-money laundering (AML) laws and regulations. Specifically, the statement discusses the conditions that require the issuance of a mandatory cease and desist order under sections 8(s) and 206(q). According to the agencies, there are no new exceptions or standards created by document. Among other things, the statement:
- Provides examples of when an agency shall issue a cease and desist order in accordance with sections 8(s)(3) and 206(q)(3) for “[f]ailure to establish and maintain a reasonably designed BSA/AML Compliance Program. The statement notes that an institution would be subject to a cease and desist order when the one component of their compliance program “fails with respect to either a high-risk area or multiple lines of business… even if the other components or pillars are satisfactory.”
- Describes circumstances in which an agency may use its discretion to issue formal or informal enforcement actions related to unsafe or unsound BSA-related practices. The statement notes that the “form and content” of the enforcement action will depend on a variety factors, including “the capability and cooperation of the institution’s management.”
- Describes how the agencies incorporate customer due diligence regulations and recordkeeping requirements as part of the internal controls pillar of an institutions BSA/AML compliance program.
- Discusses the treatment of isolated or technical compliance program requirements that are generally not issues resulting in an enforcement action.
FFIEC discusses additional Covid-19 loan accommodations
On August 3, the member agencies of the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council (FFIEC) issued a joint statement on managing loan accommodations granted to borrowers pursuant to federal, state, and local law to address Covid-19 related hardships. Specifically, the statement provides risk management and consumer protection principles to financial institutions working with borrowers that are near the end of their initial loan accommodation period. Among other things, the statement outlines:
- Risk Management Practices. The statement encourages financial institutions to institute sound credit risk management practices following an accommodation period, such as “reassess[ing] risk ratings for each loan based on a borrower’s current debt level, current financial condition, repayment ability, and collateral.” Additionally, the statement encourages institutions to provide “clear, accurate, and timely information to borrowers and guarantors regarding the accommodation” being granted.
- Sustainable Accommodations. The statement notes that the Covid-19 pandemic may have “long-term adverse impact[s] on borrower’s future earnings” and financial institutions should consider additional accommodation options to mitigate losses for the borrower and institutions by assessing “each loan based upon the fundamental risk characteristics affecting the collectability of that particular credit.”
- Consumer Protection. The statement encourages financial institutions to provide consumers with options to support repayment at the end of accommodations to avoid delinquencies and to consider offering credit product term changes to “support sustainable and affordable payments for the long term.”
- Accounting and Regulatory Reporting. The statement emphasizes that financial institutions should consider the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic in its allowance for loan and lease losses, or credit losses, estimation processes, consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
- Internal Control Systems. The statement notes that internal control functions for the end of initial accommodation periods and for additional accommodations typically “include appropriate targeted testing of the process for managing each stage of the accommodation.” Additionally, the statement reminds financial institutions of their responsibility for ensuring service providers in charge of these functions act consistently with the institution’s policies and all applicable laws and regulations.