InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies issue NPRM on incentive-based compensation
On May 6, the FDIC, OCC, NCUA and the FHFA issued a NPRM (proposed rule) on incentive-based compensation, pursuant to Dodd-Frank’s Section 956 (Section 956), which required federal regulators to prescribe regulations or guidelines regarding incentive-based compensation at covered financial institutions. Regulators first proposed a rule to implement Section 956 in 2011, and again in 2016. Now, regulators are reproposing the 2016 version without change, albeit with certain alternatives. The current proposal, however, will be published without involvement from the Fed or SEC.
Section 956 defined “covered financial institutions” as institutions with at least $1 billion in assets and include the following: depository institutions or depository institution holding companies, registered broker-dealers, credit unions, investment advisers, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac (or any other financial institution that federal regulators determined should be treated as a covered financial institution). Dodd-Frank required regulators to prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that encouraged “inappropriate risks.” The proposed rule included prohibitions intended to make these compensation arrangements more sensitive to risk, such as a ban on incentive-based compensation arrangements that do not include risk adjustment of awards, deferral of payments, or forfeiture and clawback provisions. In addition, the proposed rule set forth recordkeeping and disclosure requirements to help federal regulators monitor potential issues.
The agencies will review both new comments and those received in 2016 for the prior proposed rule. The agencies invited those who previously submitted comments and resubmit their comments to explain how their viewpoint may have changed from their prior comments. The agencies also requested comments on the compliance date and disclosures, like the recordkeeping and clawback requirements. Comments will be due no later than 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
GAO calls for the FDIC to address outstanding recommendations
On April 30, GAO sent a letter to the FDIC on its outstanding recommendations, emphasizing the importance of two priority recommendations, which pertained to blockchain technology and fintech. Regarding blockchain technology, the letter stressed the need for the FDIC and other financial regulators to establish a formal mechanism to identify and address blockchain-related risks. Despite the regulator's coordination, the response to crypto-asset risks had been criticized as untimely. With respect to fintech, this recommendation would have the FDIC and relevant agencies clarify the appropriate use of alternative data in loan underwriting for banks that partner with fintech lenders. The letter also called for the FDIC's attention to additional high-risk areas, including IT management, human capital, federal real property, cybersecurity, and the personnel security clearance process.
OCC and FDIC release CRA evaluations on 69 banks
On May 2, the OCC released its CRA performance evaluations for April and the FDIC released its evaluations for February. The OCC evaluated 13 national banks, federal savings associations, and insured federal branches of foreign banks. Of the 13 evaluations, most entities were rated “Satisfactory,” one entity was rated “Outstanding,” and one entity was rated as “Needs to Improve.” The FDIC released its May list of state nonmember banks of assigned CRA ratings in February. Out of 56 evaluations, two banks were rated “Outstanding,” 52 were rated as “Satisfactory,” one bank was rated as “Needs to Improve,” and one bank was rated as “Substantial Noncompliance.”
FDIC closes Philadelphia-based bank and receives it for another bank
On April 26, the FDIC announced that the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities had closed a Philadelphia-based bank and appointed the FDIC as receiver, noting that this is the first bank to “fail” this year and the first closure of a bank since November 2023. The FDIC reported that as of the end of January, the closed bank had $6 billion in total assets and $4 billion in total deposits. The FDIC entered into an agreement with a different bank from Lancaster, Pennsylvania whereby that bank will assume substantially all deposits and assets of the closed bank. All 32 branches of the failed bank became branches of the assuming bank, and customers of the failed bank became customers of the assuming bank. The FDIC estimated that the bank failure will cost the Deposit Insurance Fund $667 million.
FDIC submits amicus brief in Colorado DIDMCA opt-out case
On April 23, the FDIC submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in support of the defendant: the Colorado attorney general. This case involved Colorado HB 23-1229 (the “Act”), which was enacted on June 5, 2023, and will become effective on July 1. As previously covered by InfoBytes, trade groups filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent enforcement of Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 purported to “opt out” of Section 521 of the DIDMCA which had allowed state-chartered banks to export rates of their home state across state borders.
Section 525 of DIDMCA allows any state to enact legislation to opt out of Section 521 with respect to “loans made in such State.” In the brief, the FDIC argued that courts interpreting federal law have concluded “it is reasonable to conclude that interstate loans are made in the state in which the borrower enters into the transaction and in the state in which the lender enters into the transaction” and that “[i]t would be arbitrary and artificial to select one state when the parties enter into the transaction in two different states.” Thus, according to the FDIC, loans would be made in a state if either the borrower or the lender entered into the transaction in that state. Therefore, the FDIC argued that plaintiffs were incorrect in claiming that the opt-out would apply to loans made by out-of-state creditors to borrowers who were physically located in Colorado.
In addition, the FDIC disagreed with plaintiffs’ argument that FDIC General Counsel Opinion No. 11, 63 Fed. Reg. 27282 (May 18, 1998), which set forth the FDIC’s position regarding where a bank is “located” for purposes of section 27 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, was applicable to interpreting Section 525. The FDIC’s amicus brief stated that Opinion 11 does not address opt-out or Section 525. Moreover, the FDIC argued that “where a loan is made under Section 525 cannot be equated with where a bank is located under Section 521.” The FDIC disagreed similarly with plaintiffs’ reliance on the 1978 Supreme Court of Marquette Nat’l Bank v. First of Omaha Serv. Corp., on the grounds that it concerned where a bank was located and not considered where a loan is “made.”
The plaintiffs’ reply brief will be submitted by May 7, and a hearing of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction has been scheduled for May 16.
OCC seeks input on LCR and NSFR reporting and recordkeeping requirements
On April 16, the OCC released a request for comment on proposed revisions to its “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement, Standards, and Monitoring” to account for three new recordkeeping requirements to be included in 12 CFR part 50, which applies to large national banks and Federal savings associations. The notice outlined steps that such institutions should take to ensure they properly document compliance with the “liquidity coverage ratio” (LCR), which is designed to “promote the short-term resilience” of a bank’s liquidity risk profile, and the “net stable funding ratio” (NSFR), which is designed to reduce disruptions to a bank’s funding sources. The revised reporting obligations require covered institutions to self-report when LCR falls below the minimum threshold or when there is an NSFR shortfall and, in some cases, to submit a liquidity or remediation plan, including estimated time frame for resuming compliance with LCR or NSFR requirements. The recordkeeping revisions require covered entities to, among other things, establish and maintain written policies and procedures for a number of processes, including monitoring changes in relevant laws related to master netting agreements, determine the composition of its eligible high-quality liquid assets (HQLA), and ensure consistent treatment for determining eligible HQLA. Comments must be received by June 17.
FDIC wins dismissal as defendant in NSF fee challenge
On April 8, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the FDIC’s motion to dismiss in a case brought by a trade association and a commercial bank challenging the FDIC’s guidance related to insufficient fund fees (NSF fees). Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged the FDIC’s Financial Institution Letter 32 (FIL 32) as a “legislative rule promulgated without adherence to essential administrative procedures,” and asked the court to permanently enjoin FIL 32 and declare it invalid. As previously covered by InfoBytes, FIL 32 warned financial institutions against charging customers multiple NSF fees on the same unpaid transaction – something the FDIC stated could be an “unsafe or unsound practice.” The plaintiffs alleged four violations of the Administrative Procedure Act: (i) the FDIC allegedly implemented FIL 32 without the APA’s required notice and comment period; (ii) FIL 32 was an arbitrary and capricious agency action; (iii) the FDIC exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to define an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act; and (iv) the FDIC violated its own regulations in releasing FIL 32 since “those regulations prohibit enforcement actions based on supervisory guidance.” The FDIC moved to dismiss all counts, arguing that FIL 32 was not arbitrary and capricious, and that the FDIC acted within its authority. The court agreed that FIL 32 was not a final agency action, that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the case without prejudice.
FDIC releases comprehensive report on international, systemically important banks
On April 10, the FDIC released a report on the FDIC’s plans and readiness to step in as a receiver for a financial company under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act. The FDIC Chairman said this report was the “most detailed description to date of the FDIC’s preparedness to use its Title II resolution authority.”
The report provided background on resolution-related authorities under Dodd-Frank, highlighted key measures that provided readiness of resolution under Title II authority, reviewed strategic decision-making for the use of such authority, and explained how the Commission expects to undertake a Title II resolution of a Global Systematically Important U.S. Bank (GSIB) using a Single Point of Entry (SPOE) resolution strategy. FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg said that such a resolution “will be a challenging process under any circumstance, with a number of steps that need to be taken quickly and in close coordination with a range of stakeholders.”
Under the SPOE resolution strategy, the FDIC would place only the holding company of the GSIB into receivership. The FDIC then would establish a bridge financial company under its control and would transfer the operating subsidiaries to the bridge institution. The bridge institution and its subsidiaries would remain operating while the FDIC performed its receivership duties, including the claims process. The final stage of GSIB receivership would be the implementation of a restructuring and wind-down plan that would aim to maintain value, address the causes of the failure, and transition operations. Chairman Gruenberg also noted that orderly resolution of a GSIB has not been executed before, “so there will be questions on whether it can be done.”
FDIC’s Gruenberg speaks on plans for economic inclusion
On April 4, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman, Martin J. Gruenberg, delivered a speech on the FDIC’s economic inclusion strategy. The speech highlighted the FDIC’s commitment to economic inclusion, efforts to understand the size and characteristics of the unbanked market, and past FDIC economic inclusion efforts.
When Chairman Gruenberg highlighted previous FDIC inclusion efforts, he noted that the unbanked rate fell from 8.2 to 4.5 percent during the decade ending in 2021, with even steeper decreases for some minority populations. He also announced a new economic inclusion strategic plan to expand customers’ participation in the banking system and help households achieve greater financial security. The plan would intend to help customers build credit, including through small-dollar lending programs with affordable rates, and calls for specific steps to encourage bank lending and investments in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
FDIC’s Consumer Compliance report outlines most frequently cited violations and observations
On March 28, the FDIC released its March 2024 version of the Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights from the previous year, a report that enhanced transparency regarding the FDIC’s consumer compliance supervisory activities. The FDIC reported 16 formal enforcement actions and another 16 informal enforcement actions to address consumer compliance examination findings. The report highlighted how the FDIC conducted almost 900 consumer compliance examinations. The top five most frequently cited violations of moderate severity (levels two and three out of five of supervisory concern), which represented 74 percent of the total violations, included, in order from most frequently cited to least: TILA, and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z; the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) and its implementing regulation, Part 339; EFTA, and its implementing regulation, Regulation E; TISA, and its implementing regulation, Regulation DD; and Section 5 of the FTC Act. The report noted how Section 5 of the FTC Act dropped from the second most frequently cited to the fifth.
The FDIC’s report outlined the most significant consumer compliance examination observations including the misuse of the FDIC’s logo, advertising of credit builder products, electronic fund transfer (EFT) error resolutions by third parties, mortgage broker relationships, and fair lending compliance. On the misuse of the FDIC’s logo, the FDIC found “a number of third parties” misrepresented the FDIC’s deposit insurance in violation of Section 18(a)(4) of the FDI Act. On substantiating claims in the advertising of credit builder products, the FDIC found that institutions collaborated with fintech companies on credit builder products and falsely advertised “these products would improve” one’s credit score, in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. On EFTs handled by third parties, the FDIC identified an issue with a security program in validating customer transactions in violation of Regulation E of EFTA. On payments for mortgage brokerage services, the FDIC found RESPA Section 8 violations involving mortgage broker relationships. On oversight of third parties, the FDIC identified issues with an institution that partnered with third-party lenders to offer unsecured consumer loans, finding the institution violated Section 39 of the FDI Act. Last and on fair lending, the FDIC found that most of the DOJ’s referral matters pertinent to discrimination related to redlining, automobile financing, and credit underwriting.