InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FHFA proposes rule for new GSE products
On October 19, the FHFA announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) to provide advance notice to FHFA of new activities and obtain prior approval before launching new products. According to a factsheet released in conjunction with the proposed rule, the NPR would allow “FHFA to assess the impact, risks, and benefits of a new activity, and to determine whether the new activity is a new product that merits public notice and comment,” and would replace an interim final rule that has been in effect since 2009. Among other things, the NPR would (i) establish revised criteria for determining “what is a new activity and a new product, and the process for that activity’s review and approval” by FHFA; (ii) provide a “unified notice process,” which will require the GSEs “to make a single form of submission”; (iii) streamline and simplify the advance notification process; and (iv) outline FHFA’s process for reviewing notices of new activity and provide timelines for both the public notice and request for comment period as well as final approval. Comments on the NPR must be submitted within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.
Federal bank regulatory agencies release two final rules supporting large banks
On October 20, the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, and FDIC (collectively, “federal bank regulatory agencies”) finalized two rules for large banks.
The federal bank regulatory agencies first announced a final rule intended to reduce interconnectedness within the financial system between the largest banking organizations and to minimize systemic risks stemming from failure of these organizations. As the federal bank regulatory agencies noted in their announcement, the final rule, Regulatory Capital Treatment for Investments in Certain Unsecured Debt Instruments of Global Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies, Certain Intermediate Holding Companies, and Global Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations; Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity Requirements, “prescribes a more stringent regulatory capital treatment for holdings of [total loss-absorbing capacity] (TLAC) debt.” U.S. global systemically important banking organizations (GSIBs) will be required, among other things, to deduct from their regulatory capital certain investments in unsecured debt instruments issued by foreign or U.S. GSIBs in order to meet minimum TLAC requirements and long-term debt requirements, as applicable. The final rule recognizes the systemic risks posed by banking organizations’ investments in covered debt instruments and “create[s] an incentive for advanced approaches [for] banking organizations to limit their exposure to GSIBs.” The final rule takes effect April 1, 2021.
The federal bank regulatory agencies also announced a second final rule, Net Stable Funding Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement Standards and Disclosure Requirements, which will implement a stable funding requirement for certain large banking organizations established by a quantitative metric known as the net stable funding ratio (NSFR). The NSFR will measure banking organizations’ level of stability, and will require that a minimum level of stable funding be maintained over a one-year period. According to the federal bank regulatory agencies, the NSFR is intended “to reduce the likelihood that disruptions to a banking organization’s regular sources of funding will compromise its liquidity position,” and is designed to “promote effective liquidity risk management, and support the ability of banking organizations to provide financial intermediation to businesses and households across a range of market conditions.” The final rule “applies to certain large U.S. depository institution holding companies, depository institutions, and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, each with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, together with certain depository institution subsidiaries” with “increases in stringency based on risk-based measures of the top-tiered covered company.” The final rule takes effect July 1, 2021.
CFPB extends GSE Patch
On October 20, the CFPB issued a final rule extending the expiration of the GSE Patch until the mandatory compliance date of final amendments to the General Qualified Mortgage (QM) loan definition in order to facilitate a smooth and orderly transition away from the GSE Patch. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in June, the Bureau released two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to address the January 2021 expiration of the GSE Patch for the QM Rule. The first NPRM proposed to remove the General QM loan definition’s 43 percent debt-to-income ratio (DTI) limit and replace it with a price-based threshold and the second proposed to extend the expiration of the GSE Patch.
The final rule replaces the original expiration of the GSE Patch (January 1, 2021) until the mandatory compliance date of the final amendments to the QM loan definition. The final rule also provides that the current QM definition “will be available only for covered transactions for which the creditor receives the consumer’s application before the mandatory compliance date of final amendments to the General QM loan definition in Regulation Z.” Notably, the NPRM for the new QM loan definition proposes an effective date of six months after the final rule is published in the Federal Register and the rule has not yet been published; it does not discuss a mandatory compliance date.
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.
NYDFS urges regulating social media companies following hacks
On October 14, NYDFS released a report detailing the Department’s investigation into the July 2020 social media hacks of public figures and cryptocurrency firms, concluding that the social media platform lacked adequate cybersecurity protections and recommending increased regulation of large social media companies. The investigation, which was requested by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, determined, among other things, that (i) the social media hackers obtained log-in credentials from four employees by pretending to be from the company’s IT department; (ii) the hackers stole over $118,000 worth of bitcoin from consumers by tweeting “double your bitcoin” with a link to send bitcoin payments from celebrity accounts and several bitcoin companies; (iii) certain Department-regulated cryptocurrency companies blocked attempted transfers to the hacker’s addresses; and (iv) the social media company lacked adequate cybersecurity protection, including not having “a chief information security officer, adequate access controls and identity management, and adequate security monitoring.” The report recommends that the largest social media companies be designated as “systemically important institutions” subject to an analogue council of the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The report suggests the social media companies should be subject to enhanced regulation, including “stress test[]” scenarios covering cyberattacks and election interference.
New Jersey charges student loan servicer with deceptive collection practices
On October 20, the New Jersey Attorney General and the Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs filed a complaint alleging a student loan servicer engaged in unlawful practices when collecting on loans owned by borrowers residing in the state. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the servicer (i) steered borrowers into forbearance programs instead of income-driven repayment (IDR) plans; (ii) failed to inform borrowers about IDR recertification deadlines and the effects of not timely submitting a recertification application; (iii) encouraged borrowers to obtain a cosigner for their student loans and then misrepresented the requirements for obtaining a cosigner release; and (iv) misled delinquent borrowers about the amount of their delinquency, by including the next month’s payment in the “present amount due.” The complaint alleges two violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and seeks equitable injunctive relief, borrower restitution, disgorgement, statutory penalties, and costs and fees.
NYDFS to host first-ever virtual currency techsprint
On October 15, NYDFS, in collaboration with the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the Alliance for Innovative Regulation, announced that a first-of-its-kind techsprint focusing on virtual currency will take place early 2021. The techsprint will bring together regulators, fintech and virtual currency industry stakeholders, and experts to collaborate on regulatory compliance solutions. Possible solutions may include “process improvements to a functional prototype of a reporting mechanism,” such as Digital Regulatory Reporting (DRR), which will “give regulators instant access to data provided by firms under their supervision.” Based on the takeaways from the techsprint, NYDFS intends to “develop a set of common standards and an open source technical framework for DRR” that may be adopted by NYDFS and other regulatory agencies. As part of the collaboration, future techsprints will also be developed that focus on other types of nonbank entities subject to financial regulation.
FinCEN outlines human trafficking red flags for financial institutions
On October 15, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued Advisory FIN-2020-A008 outlining new financial and behavioral indicators, as well as updated typologies, to help financial institutions identify human trafficking. The advisory highlights four specific typologies human traffickers may use to evade detection and launder illicit proceeds: (i) front companies that may appear to have legitimate registrations and licenses; (ii) exploitative employment practices; (iii) funnel accounts used to transfer funds between geographic areas, often in amounts below the cash reporting threshold; and (iv) alternative payment methods, including payments by “credit cards, prepaid cards, mobile payment applications, and convertible virtual currency.” The advisory includes examples for financial institutions to monitor, such as multiple employees receiving salaries in the same account, or payments that are immediately withdrawn or transferred into another account. FinCEN also notes that human traffickers use third-party payment processors to wire funds in order to conceal the true originator or beneficiary. While the advisory includes a specific list of red flag indicators, FinCEN warns financial institutions to consider additional behaviors, both behavioral indicators and financial indicators when determining whether a transaction may be associated with human trafficking. Financial institutions reporting human trafficking in a suspicious activity report should reference the advisory in the appropriate fields to indicate a connection between the activities involved in the SAR and those described in the advisory.
OFAC sanctions al-Qa’ida facilitator
On October 19, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated an al-Qa’ida facilitator based in Australia and the company he owns for “having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of” the terrorist organization, pursuant to Executive Order 13224. Specifically, OFAC alleges that the individual and his company are involved in gemstone dealings, which provide the ability to move funds internationally for the benefit of al-Qa’ida. As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property of the designated persons that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC. OFAC further warned foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitating significant transactions or providing significant financial services to the designated person or entity may subject them to U.S. correspondent account or payable-through sanctions.
OFAC reaches $4.1 million settlement with holding company to resolve Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations violations
On October 20, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a more than $4.1 million settlement with a Nebraska-based multinational conglomerate holding company to resolve 144 apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations engaged in by its indirectly wholly owned Turkish subsidiary. According to OFAC’s web notice, the Turkish subsidiary, in violation of the company’s compliance policies, allegedly sold goods to two third-party Turkish distributors knowing that the goods “would be shipped to a distributor in Iran for resale to Iranian end-users, including several entities later identified as meeting the definition of the Government of Iran.” The Turkish subsidiary also purchased goods manufactured by other company subsidiaries, and allegedly took measures “to obfuscate its dealings with Iran” and conceal these activities from the company. Employees of certain other company subsidiaries also allegedly received communications revealing that these orders may have been intended for Iranian end users; however only one of these subsidiaries warned the Turkish subsidiary that such transactions were prohibited.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that (i) the Turkish subsidiary’s management “willfully engaged” in prohibited transactions, and certain senior management “intentionally concealed its dealings with Iran”; (ii) certain company subsidiaries had knowledge, or reason to know, that some of the products sent to the Turkish subsidiary were intended for Iran; and (iii) the Turkish subsidiary “demonstrated a pattern of conduct by knowingly engaging in prohibited dealings for approximately three years.”
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, such as (i) the company voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations, and cooperated with the investigation; (ii) the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates signed a tolling agreement; and (iii) the company has undertaken remedial measures, including enhancing its compliance procedures for foreign subsidiaries, to minimize the risk of similar violations from occurring in the future.