InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed formalizes stance on supervisory guidance
On March 31, the Federal Reserve Board issued a final rule codifying the Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement). As previously covered by InfoBytes, an October 2018 joint proposal amended the 2018 Statement by (i) clarifying that references in the 2018 Statement limiting agency “criticisms” includes criticizing institutions “through the issuance of [matters requiring attention] 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 final rule is effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and mirrors final rules issued by the CFPB, OCC, FDIC, and NCUA.
FFIEC releases 2021 HMDA reporting guide
On March 30, the FDIC issued FIL-21-2021 announcing the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council’s issuance of the 2021 edition of the “Guide to HMDA Reporting: Getting It Right!” The guide applies to HMDA data collected in 2021 that will be reported to supervisory agencies by March 1, 2022, and includes (i) a summary of responsibilities and requirements; (ii) directions for assembling the necessary tools; and (iii) instructions for reporting HMDA data. According to the announcement, the 2021 edition provides information to assist with HMDA compliance in the event of a merger or acquisition, as well as updates to the appendices that reflect amendments to Regulation C made by a CFPB final rule published last year (covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule increased the permanent threshold from 25 to 100 loans starting July 1, 2020, for both depository and nondepository institutions, and also increased the permanent threshold for collecting and reporting data about open-end lines of credit from 100 to 200. The latter change, however, will not take effect until January 1, 2022, when the current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit expires.
Prudential regulators exploring how institutions use AI
On March 29, the FDIC, Fed, OCC, CFPB, and NCUA issued a request for information (RFI) seeking input on financial institutions’ use of artificial intelligence (AI), which may include AI-based tools and models used for (i) fraud prevention to identify unusual transactions for Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering investigations; (ii) personalization of customer services; (iii) credit underwriting; (iv) risk management; (v) textual analysis; and (vi) cybersecurity. The RFI also solicits information on challenges financial institutions face in developing, adopting, and managing AI, as well as on appropriate governance, risk management, and controls over AI when providing services to customers. Additionally, the agencies seek input on whether it would be helpful to provide additional clarification on using AI in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. According to FDIC FIL-20-2021, while the agencies support responsible innovation by financial institutions and believe that new technologies, including AI, have “the potential to augment decision-making and enhance services available to consumers and businesses, . . . identifying and managing risks are key.” Comments on the RFI are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Treasury issues emergency capital investment program FAQs
On March 30, the U.S. Treasury Department issued frequently asked questions to provide timely guidance concerning all aspects of the Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP). The FAQs cover issues regarding:
- The types of institutions eligible to participate in the ECIP;
- Submission of an ECIP application and emergency investment lending plan;
- How Treasury will decide allocation of the available capital among applicants that meet the thresholds for eligibility, including how well an applicant has responded to the needs of communities impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic;
- Whether an institution can choose to issue preferred stock or subordinated debt in the ECIP; and
- Compliance and reporting requirements.
The ECIP was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (covered by InfoBytes here), and will provide up to $9 billion in capital directly to Community Development Financial Institutions and minority depository institutions to provide, among other things, “loans, grants, and forbearance for small and minority businesses and consumers in low income communities” that may be disproportionately impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. As previously covered in InfoBytes, on March 22, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and the FDIC published an interim final rule (IFR) to facilitate the implementation of the ECIP.
Fed sets resumption of share repurchases, dividends for July
On March 25, the Federal Reserve Board announced that measures previously instituted to ensure that large banks maintain a high level of capital resilience in light of uncertainty introduced by the Covid-19 pandemic would expire for most banks after June 30. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed’s measures prohibited large banks from making share repurchases and capped dividend payments. The Fed most recently advised that “[i]f a bank remains above all of its minimum risk-based capital requirements in this year’s stress test, the additional restrictions will end after June 30 and it will be subject to the [stress capital buffer]’s normal restrictions.” Banks whose capital levels fall below required levels in the stress tests will remain subject to the restrictions through September 30. Further, banks still below the capital required by the stress test at that time will face even stricter distribution limitations.
FATF updates virtual assets and service provider guidance
In March, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) updated pre-existing guidance on its risk-based approach to virtual assets (VAs) and virtual asset service providers (VASPs). The draft updated guidance revises guidance originally released June 2019, wherein FATF members agreed to regulate and supervise virtual asset financial activities and related service providers (covered by InfoBytes here) and place anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations on VAs and VASPs. According to FATF, the revisions “aim to maintain a level playing field for VASPs, based on the financial services they provide in line with existing standards applicable to financial institutions and other AML/CFT-obliged entities, as well as minimizing the opportunity for regulatory arbitrage between sectors and countries.” The revisions provide updated guidance in six main areas intended to:
- Clarify VA and VASP definitions to make it clear that these definitions are expansive and that “there should not be a case where a relevant financial asset is not covered by the FATF Standards (either as a VA or as a traditional financial asset)”;
- Provide guidance on how FATF Standards apply to so-called stablecoins;
- Provide further guidance on risks and potential risk mitigants for peer-to-peer transactions;
- Provide updated guidance on VASP licensing and registration requirements;
- Provide additional guidance for public and private sectors on the implementation of the “travel rule”; and
- Include principles of information sharing and cooperation among VASP supervisors.
FATF intends to consult private sector stakeholders before finalizing the revisions, and is separately considering implementing revised FATF Standards on VAs and VASPs—as well as whether further updates are necessary—through a second 12-month review.
Agencies issue rulemaking to facilitate Emergency Capital Investment Program for CDFIs and MDIs
On March 22, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and the FDIC published an interim final rule (IFR) to facilitate the implementation of the Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the ECIP was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, and will provide up to $9 billion in capital directly to Community Development Financial Institutions and minority depository institutions to provide, among other things, “loans, grants, and forbearance for small and minority businesses and consumers in low income communities” that may be disproportionately impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The IFR outlines capital designations and investment eligibility criteria, and specifically notes that the agencies have revised “the capital rule to clarify that senior preferred stock will qualify as additional tier 1 capital and subordinated debt will qualify as tier 2 capital.” The ECIP will expire six months after the date on which the national Covid-19 emergency ends.
Agencies to allow supplementary leverage ratio flexibility to expire
On March 19, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve Board announced that the temporary changes to the supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) for depository institutions will expire as scheduled on March 31. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the federal banking agencies issued an interim final rule last May, which temporarily permitted depository institutions to exclude U.S. Treasury securities and deposits at Federal Reserve Banks from the calculation of the SLR, enabling depository institutions to expand their balance sheets to provide additional credit to households and businesses in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. In connection with announcing its decision to allow the temporary SLR changes to expire, the Fed noted that due to “recent growth in the supply of central bank reserves and the issuance of Treasury securities, the Board may need to address the current design and calibration of the SLR over time to prevent strains from developing that could both constrain economic growth and undermine financial stability.” The Fed noted it intends to “shortly seek comments on measures to adjust the SLR” and “will take appropriate actions to assure that any changes to the SLR do not erode the overall strength of bank capital requirements.”
Fed clarifies MDI definition guidance
On March 5, the Federal Reserve Board issued clarifying guidance regarding definitions for minority depository institutions (MDIs), expanding the definition of an MDI to include women-owned financial institutions. In addition to statutory provisions—which define the term “minority” to mean any African American, Native American, Hispanic American, or Asian American, and “states that an MDI is any depository institution where a majority of the voting stock is owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals”—the Federal Reserve System’s definition of an MDI will now recognize women’s depository institutions, and will provide these depository institutions with the same resources as other MDIs. According to the Board, the definition of a “women’s depository institution” is consistent with how the term is defined under the Community Reinvestment Act. Additionally, the Board highlighted resources available for MDIs through its Partnership for Progress program, which helps MDIs operate in a safe and sound manner and meet supervisory standards.
OCC updates SCRA Comptroller’s Handbook booklet
On March 4, the OCC issued Bulletin 2021-11 announcing the revision of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. The booklet rescinds the 2011 version and provides background information and examination procedures on consumer protections afforded servicemembers under the SCRA. Among other things, the revised booklet (i) summarizes SCRA protections and requirements; (ii) discusses compliance, operational, strategic, and reputation risks associated with a bank’s SCRA activities; (iii) discusses risk management practices for effective SCRA compliance; and (iv) includes procedures for examining banks’ compliance with the SCRA.