InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Updates Comptroller’s Licensing Manual Booklet to Provide Guidance on Substantial Asset Changes
On August 23, the OCC released OCC Bulletin 2017-30 announcing a new booklet to address filing policies and requirements pertaining to substantial asset and charter purpose changes for OCC-supervised national banks and federal savings associations. The “Substantial Asset Changes, Including Changes in Charter Purpose” booklet, which is part of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual, provides, among other things:
- an overview of asset changes requiring an application;
- filing exceptions;
- the OCC’s decision criteria;
- the required contents of an application and application process; and
- references and links to informational resources.
FinCEN Updates GTOs for Title Insurance Companies in Several Major Metropolitan Areas, Issues Advisory to Financial Institutions and Real Estate Industry Regarding Associated Money Laundering Risks
On August 22, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) published an announcement releasing revised Geographic Targeting Orders (GTOs) that “require U.S. title insurance companies to identify the natural persons behind shell companies used to pay for high-end residential real estate in seven major metropolitan areas[,]” without the use of a bank loan or other type of external financing but, rather, with the use of—at least in part—cash or a cashier’s check or similar instrument. The GTOs have also been expanded to now include high-end real estate transactions conducted in the following places: (i) Manhattan ($3 million) and all other boroughs of New York city ($1.5 million); (ii) Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties ($1 million); (iii) Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties ($2 million); (iv) Bexar County, Texas, which includes San Antonio ($500,000); and (v) city and county of Honolulu, Hawaii ($3 million).
Through the revised GTOs, FinCEN seeks to capture a broader range of transactions, including those involving wire transfers. According to FinCEN’s analysis of data covering GTOs, nearly 30 percent of the targeted transactions ended up involving a beneficial owner or representative who is already the subject of a previous suspicious activity report. The results appear to corroborate concerns underlying FinCEN’s rationale for issuing GTOs in the first place, and will assist future efforts to “assess and combat the money laundering risks associated with luxury residential real estate purchases.” For additional information concerning GTO compliance, FAQs released by FinCEN in August 2017 are available here.
FinCEN also published an Advisory that same day to provide financial institutions and the real estate industry with information on the money laundering risks associated with real estate transactions, including those involving luxury property purchased through shell companies, particularly when conducted as “all-cash” transactions without traditional financing. The Advisory also provides an overview of anti-money laundering regulations affecting the real estate sector.
NCUA Seeks Comments on Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Agenda
On August 16, the National Credit Union Association (NCUA) announced plans to publish in the Federal Register a notice requesting comments on its four-year regulatory reform agenda. As an independent agency, the NCUA is not required to comply with President Trump’s Executive Order 13777, which compels agencies to review and carry out regulatory reform, but it chose to voluntarily comply with the spirit of this Order by forming an internal regulatory reform task force to determine if any of the agency’s existing regulations should be eliminated, revised, improved, or clarified. The Task Force Report outlines its initial findings and recommendations for the amendment or repeal of regulatory requirements that it has determined are outdated, ineffective, or excessively burdensome. The report provides a three-tiered prioritization approach to regulatory reform based on “degree of impact and degree of effort” covering a four-year period, where “impact” focuses on the “magnitude of the benefit that would result from the change, and how broadly the stakeholder community would be impacted”, and “effort” considers the time and energy required to make the change.
Tier 1 recommendations, assigned the highest level of priority with a two year target time frame, address the following key recommendations: (i) revisions to the “loans to members and lines of credit to members” rules, which govern federal credit union loan maturity limits, single borrower limits, third-party servicing of indirect vehicle loans and executive compensation plans; (ii) modernization of the federal credit union bylaws; (iii) revisions to the agency’s chartering and field of membership manual; (iv) potential changes to capital planning and stress test threshold requirements; and (v) implementation of certain fidelity bond and insurance coverage requirements.
Tier 2 recommendations, which provide a three-year target time frame, address the following key recommendations: (i) revisions to aggregate loan participation limits; (ii) conducting a review to determine whether prior NCUA approval is required to purchase and assume liabilities from market participants other than federal credit unions; and (iii) easing restrictions on investment activities not required by the Federal Credit Union Act.
Tier 3 recommendations, which provide a four-year target time frame, address the following key recommendations: (i) enhanced third-party due diligence rules; (ii) changes concerning loans and credit lines to members to “[e]nhance Federal preemption where possible and appropriate” in an effort to reduce overlap with state laws and regulatory burden; and (ii) conducting a review of the regulation pertaining to security programs, suspected crimes and transactions reporting, catastrophic acts, and Bank Secrecy Act compliance.
Comments on the proposed plan are due 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.
OCC Updates Bank Accounting Guidance
On August 15, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released the annual update to its long-running Bank Accounting Advisory Series (BAAS). Intended to “promote[] consistent application of accounting standards among OCC-supervised banks and federal savings associations,” the BAAS “represents the OCC’s Office of the Chief Accountant’s interpretations of generally accepted accounting principles and regulatory guidance.” The 2017 edition of the BAAS updates guidance on a range of accounting standards issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), and “includes recent answers to frequently asked questions from the industry and examiners.” Several FAQs are updated or deleted, and new FAQs cover the following topics: investments in debt and equity securities; lessee classification and accounting; and transfers of financial assets and servicing.
This edition of the BAAS also introduces a new approach to recently issued accounting standards. Previous editions covered new accounting standards only after they became effective. But since many FASB Accounting Standard Updates (ASUs) now have different effective dates for public business entities (PBEs) and private companies, this edition also covers ASUs issued through March 31, 2017 that (i) “while not yet effective for all institutions, must be adopted by PBEs beginning in 2018 and may be adopted early by other institutions”; or (ii) “are not yet effective for any institutions but early adoption is allowed.” Accordingly, lavender text boxes include alternative content for both PBEs and early adopters, and gold text boxes include alternative content for early adopters only.
Amendments and Proposal to TRID Rule Published in Federal Register, Comments Due October 10
As previously reported in a Special Alert, the CFPB issued amendments to its TILA/RESPA Integrated Disclosure rule, which importantly included a concurrent proposal to address the “black hole” issue that prevents creditors from resetting tolerances using the Closing Disclosure except in very limited circumstances. On August 11, the Bureau published the amendments in a final rule and the proposal in the Federal Register. The final rule takes effect October 10, 2017 with mandatory compliance by October 1, 2018. Comments on the proposal are due October 10, 2017.
OCC Updates Comptroller’s Licensing Manual Booklet to Provide Guidance on Failure Acquisitions
On August 3, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released OCC Bulletin 2017-26 announcing a revised version of its “Failure Acquisitions” booklet designed to provide guidance on several policies and procedures impacting national banks and federal savings associations interested in acquiring a failed depository institution through the FDIC’s bidding process. The booklet, which is part of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual, covers:
- an overview of the process banks must follow when submitting a purchase and assumption (P&A) application, which requires OCC approval before a bank can begin the FDIC bidding process;
- considerations undertaken by the OCC when reviewing a P&A application;
- a description of the process and elements of the application, including public notice and competitive factors, as well as legal and accounting standards; and
- references and links to informational resources.
Buckley Sandler Special Alert: CFPB Releases Four Prototype Overdraft Disclosure Forms and a Report on Frequent Overdrafters
On August 4, the CFPB released four new prototype overdraft opt-in model disclosure forms and a report titled “Data Point: Frequent Overdrafters.” A summary of the forms and report are provided below. The prototype forms are still in the process of being developed, and the Bureau is requesting feedback as it works toward finalizing them, but the prototypes are intended to replace the current model form A-9 found in Appendix A of Regulation E. The report focuses on bank customers who overdraft their accounts more than 10 times per year and provides context to the Bureau’s concerns on the impact overdraft services may have on financially vulnerable consumers.
Although overdrafts have long been a focus of the CFPB’s enforcement and supervisory activities, this represents the first sign of movement by the Bureau toward the potential new overdraft services rulemaking listed on its 2017 rulemaking agenda, which is currently in the pre-rule stage. We anticipate that aspects of the approach and language contained in these prototype forms may eventually make their way into account agreements. We invite you to review the forms and report to gain insight into the CFPB’s view of overdraft services and the types of concerns the Bureau may attempt to address in future rulemaking.***
Click here to read full special alert.If you have questions about the report or other related issues, please visit our Retail Banking practice page, or contact a Buckley Sandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
FINRA to Host AML Seminars
On August 2, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it will host a series of anti-money laundering (AML) seminars for compliance professionals, led by managers of the FINRA AML Unit. The seminars on October 19 (Dallas, Texas), November 7 (Boca Raton, Florida), and November 13 (New York, NY) will discuss money laundering fundamentals and typologies, applicable rules and regulations, and guidelines for monitoring for suspicious activity.
Federal Reserve Issues Guidance Regarding Roles of Bank Boards, Requests Comments on New SIFI Rating System
Guidance Regarding Roles of Bank Boards.
On August 3, the Federal Reserve (Fed) took an important step towards easing the heavy regulatory burden placed on the boards of directors at the largest U.S. banking organizations, when it issued for public comment a corporate governance proposal intended to “enhance the effectiveness of boards of directors” and “refocus the Federal Reserve supervisory expectations for the largest firms’ boards of directors on their core responsibilities, which will promote the safety and soundness of the firms.”
The proposal is a result of a multi-year review conducted by the Fed of practices of boards of directors, particularly at the largest banking institutions. The Fed focused on the challenges boards face, the factors that make boards effective, and the ways in which boards influence the safety and soundness of their firms and promote compliance within. The key takeaways of this review included:
- supervisory expectations for boards of directors and senior management have become increasingly difficult to distinguish;
- boards devote a significant amount of time satisfying supervisory expectations that do not directly relate to board’s core responsibilities; and
- boards of large financial institutions face significant information flow challenges, which can result in boards being overwhelmed by the complexity and quantity of information received.
The Fed expects that these issues can be remediated by allowing banks to refocus on their core responsibilities, including: (i) developing the firm’s strategy and risk tolerance; (ii) overseeing senior management and holding them accountable for effective risk management and compliance; (iii) supporting the independence of the firm’s independent risk management and internal audit functions; and (iv) adopting effective governance practices.
In April, Fed Governor Jerome Powell indicated that the financial crisis led to a “broad increase in supervisory expectations” for these boards of directors, but cautioned that the Fed needs to “ensure that directors are not distracted from conducting their key functions by overly detailed checklist of supervisory process requirements.” Explaining that the Fed was reassessing its supervisory expectations for boards, Powell stated “it is important to acknowledge that the board’s role is one of oversight, not management.”
The proposed guidance better distinguishes the supervisory expectations for boards from those of senior management, and includes new criteria by which the Fed will assess bank boards. The Fed describes effective boards as those which:
- set clear, aligned, and consistent direction regarding the firm’s strategy and risk tolerance;
- actively manage information flow and board discussions;
- hold senior management accountable;
- support the independence and stature of independent risk management and internal audit; and
- maintain a capable board composition and governance structure.
The proposal also clarifies expectations regarding internal communications within firms for communicating supervisory findings internally, stating that for all supervised firms, most supervisory findings should be communicated to the firm's senior management for corrective action, rather than to its board of directors. Such findings would only be directed to the board for corrective action when the board needs to address its corporate governance responsibilities or when senior management fails to take appropriate remedial action.
While the proposal does not address all of the post-crisis challenges faced by bank boards, it is a welcome message to the industry that the Fed recognized the need to recalibrate their expectations. The proposal also identifies existing supervisory expectations for boards of directors that could be eliminated or revised and notes that the Fed intends to continue assessing whether its expectations of bank boards require further changes.
New SIFI Rating System.
On August 3, the Fed also issued for public comment a new risk rating system for Large Financial Institutions (“LFI”s) that would replace the RFI rating system for bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations established pursuant to the Fed’s Regulation YY. (The Fed will continue to use the same RFI rating system that has been in place since 2004 to evaluate community and regional bank holding companies.)
The LFI rating system is designed to evaluate LFIs on whether they possess sufficient financial and operational strength and resilience to maintain safe and sound operations through a range of conditions. The system would consist of three chief components:
- Governance and Controls
- board of directors
- management of core business lines and independent risk management and controls and
- recovery planning (for domestic bank holding companies subject to LISCC);
- Capital Planning and Positions; and
- Liquidity Risk Management and Positions.
The Governance and Control component would evaluate a LFI’s effectiveness in ensuring that the firm’s strategic business objectives are safely within the firm’s risk tolerance and ability to manage the accordant risk. The component will focus on LFIs’ effectiveness in maintaining strong, effective and independent risk management and control functions, including internal audit and compliance, and providing for ongoing resiliency.
The second and third components are intended to incorporate LFI supervision activities, including CCAR and CLAR, which will be directly reflected within the respective component ratings–resulting in a more comprehensive supervisory approach than the RFI rating system which did not incorporate the results of those supervisory activities.
Each LFI would receive a component rating using a multi-level scale (Satisfactory/Satisfactory Watch, Deficient-1 and Deficient-2). “Satisfactory Watch” would indicate that a firm is generally considered safe and sound, however certain issues require timely resolution. Any Deficiency rating would result in that LFI being considered less than “well managed.”
OCC, Federal Reserve Solicit Public Comments on Volcker Rule
On August 2, the OCC announced it is seeking public comments on ways to improve regulations implementing the Volcker Rule, however the agency stressed it is not seeking comment on changes to the underlying statute. The draft notice outlines issues with the rule, which bans banks from engaging in proprietary trading and restricts their ownership of certain funds, explaining that there is “broad recognition that the final rule [implementing the Volcker Rule] should be improved both in design and in application.” Referring to the Treasury Department’s June 2017 report, which identified problems with the design of the final rule and offered recommendations for revision, the OCC’s notice asked for suggestions on how to improve implementation with the understanding that any revisions would require a joint undertaking by the OCC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, and consultation with the SEC and the CFTC. Specifically, the notice seeks comments in the following four areas: (i) scope of entities subject to the final rule; (ii) proprietary trading prohibitions; (iii) covered fund prohibitions; and (iv) requirements for compliance program and metrics reporting.
Comments must be received within 45 days from publication in the Federal Register.
Separately, on August 2, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Fed) issued a notice seeking comment on whether to extend for three years the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships with Covered Funds (Regulation VV). Regulation VV imposes information reporting requirements on certain banks engaged in significant trading activities, to ensure compliance with the Volcker Rule. Among other things, the Fed invited comment on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary and has practical utility, and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information, while minimizing the burden on respondents. In its notice, the Fed stated that the information collection “is required in order for covered entities to obtain the benefit of engaging in certain types of proprietary trading or investing in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund, under the restrictions set forth in [the Volcker Rule].”
Comments must be received by October 2, 2017.