InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC releases March CRA evaluations for 19 banks
On April 1, the OCC released its Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) performance evaluations for last March. The OCC evaluated 19 national banks, federal savings associations, and insured federal branches of foreign banks with a rubric that included four possible ratings: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance. Of the 19 evaluations reported by the OCC, two Midwest banks received the lowest rating, which was “Needs to Improve.” Most entities were rated “Satisfactory,” and four entities were rated “Outstanding.” A full list of the bank evaluations is available here. In an OCC FAQ regarding the implementation of the CRA, the OCC detailed how it evaluated and rated financial institutions by reviewing both the institution itself (such as its capacity, constraints, business strategies, competitors, and peers) and the community the institution serves (such as its demographics, economic data, and its lending, investment, and service opportunities).
OCC releases February CRA evaluations for 31 banks, one “Needs to Improve”
On March 1, the OCC released its Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) performance evaluations for last February. The OCC evaluated 31 national banks and federal savings associations under four ratings: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance. Of the 31 evaluations reported by the OCC, only one entity holds the lowest rating, a small bank in Indiana, which was rated “Needs to Improve.” Most entities were rated “Satisfactory,” and six entities were rated “Outstanding.” In an OCC FAQ regarding the implementation of the CRA, the OCC detailed how it evaluates and rates financial institutions by reviewing both the institution itself (such as its capacity, constraints, business strategies, competitors, and peers) and the community the institution it serves (such as its demographics, economic data, lending, investment, and service opportunities).
OCC issues State Small Business Credit Initiative 2.0 FAQs
On January 8, the OCC issued Bulletin 2024-1, which provides responses to frequently asked questions regarding the state small business credit initiative (SSBCI). The SSBCI, run by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, facilitates access to capital for small businesses, supports credit and investment programs, and offers technical assistance for applying to SSBCI funding and other government programs. The FAQs address a variety of topics, including the types of credit and investment programs states may set up, including collateral support programs, capital access programs, and loan guarantee programs, among others; criteria to qualify as “underserved” for access to the credit; treatment of certain funds; program descriptions; and whether loans made through the program could be considered for Community Reinvestment Act purposes.
CFPB releases 2023 Ombudsman report
On November 30, the CFPB Ombudsman’s Office published its annual report, which detailed inquiries handled by the office, included a new FAQ section, and described the second year of the Ombudsman’s post-examination survey of supervised entities. The Ombudsman reviewed some pertinent topics the CFPB faced in the past year, including recognizing imposter scams, distinguishing between new and duplicate consumer complaints, assisting consumers with diminished capacity, and helping the public contact the CFPB.
In detail, and on recognizing imposter frauds, the Ombudsman provided CFPB resources and posted a blog on scam awareness in English and Spanish. On distinguishing between new and existing complaints, consumers expressed concern that the CFPB closed their cases without providing a reason or that the CFPB mistakenly identified complaints as duplicative. The report described the CFPB’s process for identifying duplicate complaints, noted consumers’ concerns, and indicated that the CFPB continues to review this issue. On assisting consumers with diminished capacity, the Ombudsman discussed challenges with third-party entities assisting with a case, as well as offering resources on power of attorney questions. And on helping the public contact the CFPB, the Ombudsman identified contact points that could improve, such as the CFPB’s website and telephone switchboard, and asked the CFPB to update the contact points.
CFPB updates debt collection FAQs
On July 27 the CFPB added a new section to the Debt Collection Rule Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), which address questions related to the electronic communication and unusual or inconvenient time and place provisions in the Debt Collection Rule.
Fed updates Regulation O FAQs
On July 8, the Fed updated its frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding Regulation O, Loans to Executive Officers, Directors, and Principal Shareholders of Member Banks (12 CFR Part 215). The Fed clarified that a bank’s payment of premiums as part of a split dollar life insurance arrangement does not constitute as an extension of credit to an insider, provided that certain conditions are met. The agency noted that, “under a split dollar life insurance arrangement, a bank pays the premiums on a policy insuring the life of an employee of the bank. Split dollar life insurance arrangements can take many forms. For example, the insurance policy can be owned by the bank, the employee, or a third party (typically a trust).” The Fed further explained that “[r]egardless of form, the bank is entitled to receive from the proceeds of the insurance policy a pre-negotiated amount upon the death of the insured or when the insured surrenders the policy.”
CFPB updates FAQs on civil money penalties
On June 6, the CFPB updated its Civil Penalty Fund Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The FAQs, among other things: (i) present the Civil Penalty Fund Allocation Schedule; (ii) clarify basic definitions related to CFPB civil money penalties; (iii) clarify when the Bureau will begin to distribute funds; and (iv) explain redress and its difference from payments to victims from the Civil Penalty Fund.
CFPB releases 2021 ombudsman report
On December 2, the CFPB Ombudsman’s Office published its annual report, which details inquiries handled by the office as well as its strategic plan goals for the next two years. As a new initiative going forward, following a pilot test at the request of the CFPB, the Ombudsman determined that it would begin conducting post-examination surveys of supervised entities, with a focus on three process areas: (i) supervision materials and resources; (ii) interpersonal communications with Bureau personnel; and (iii) end-of-examination topics, including clarity in expectations of closure and awareness of the appeals process. The Ombudsman will host virtual engagements with industry stakeholders in Q1 of FY2022 to further share information about the survey plan.
Relatedly, the Ombudsman closed its review of one topic from the previous year concerning the information provided to companies during examinations. The review was in response to concerns by industry stakeholders, who anticipated a more positive examination outcome based on communications with the examination team during the onsite portion of the examination. The report noted recent improvements made by the Bureau in this area, including revising certain job aids to assist examiners with both examination outcomes and the enforcement process, in addition to posting information about possible types of outcomes on its website. The report also highlighted: (i) examples on issues the Ombudsman handled during the previous year, including assisting on individual consumer inquiries about stimulus payments and offering feedback and suggestions on draft CFPB materials; (ii) an update on the virtual Ombudsman Forum, which facilitated discussions on topics such as racial and economic equity; (iii) an analysis of individual inquiries; and (iv) a release of frequently asked questions about the Ombudsman’s Office.
Finally, this year’s report also features a new section, the Ombudsman in Brief, which summarizes two topics where the Ombudsman did not engage in a systemic review: (i) assisting the Bureau divisions and offices with their processes related to complaints submitted by small business owners; and (ii) suggesting standardization of terminology within the Bureau when referring to various stakeholder communities.
OFAC issues new Syria sanctions FAQ
On November 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) published new Syria FAQ 934, which relates to the United Nations and the U.S. government's stabilization and early recovery-related activities and transactions involving Syria. According to OFAC, the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (SySR) § 542.513 permit, under certain conditions, “the United Nations, its Specialized Agencies, Programmes, Funds, and Related Organizations and their employees, contractors, or grantees to engage in all transactions and activities in support of their official business in Syria, including any stabilization and early recovery-related activities and transactions in support of their official business.” This authorization applies to all United Nations employees, grantees, and contractors carrying out the official business of the United Nations, specialized agencies, programmes, funds, and related organizations. This includes nongovernmental organizations and private sector entities that act as grantees or contractors.
FAQ 934 also reiterates advice from FAQ 884 that non-U.S. persons, including nongovernmental organizations and foreign financial institutions “do not risk exposure to U.S. secondary sanctions pursuant to the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019” for activities that would be authorized for U.S. persons under the SySR. (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
FDIC updates brokered deposit resources
On September 8, the FDIC updated its brokered deposits FAQs by adding an FAQ to illustrate an example of when a broker is “proposing deposit allocations” under the “matchmaking” definition. According to the FAQ, if an individual identifies at which banks to place the funds of individual customers of a broker dealer as part of a broker dealer sweep program, the person is “proposing deposit allocations” for purposes of the “matchmaking” definition. The new FAQ explains that this is true even if the broker dealer determines the group of banks, or the order of banks, at which the person can propose placing individual depositor's funds or the maximum amount that can be placed at each bank. In addition, the guidance explains that a person that is “proposing deposit allocations” at, or between, more than one bank, also satisfies the other criteria in the matchmaking definition.
The FDIC also provided a public list of all entities that have submitted public notices for the primary purpose exception as of August 31, 2021. Of the two exceptions that require notice filing, the majority of the filers so far claimed an exception based on “enabling transactions” business relationships whereby 100 percent of depositors’ funds that an agent or nominee places, or assists in placing, at depository institutions are placed into transactional accounts that do not pay any fees, interest, or other remuneration to the depositor.