InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC and Fed issue proposed living will guidance for FBOs
On March 6, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board issued a joint notice and request for comment on their proposal for updates to resolution plan guidance for certain large foreign banking organizations (FBOs). Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, FBOs must submit resolution plans—also known as “living wills”—which detail the strategic plans for their U.S. operations and subsidiaries for rapid and orderly resolution in bankruptcy in the event that the banks fail or fall under material financial distress. Updates in the proposal focus on the FBO’s derivatives and trading activities and payment, clearing, and settlement activities and are informed by responses from FBOs to the prior 2018 FBO guidance and 2019 domestic guidance. In addition, the proposal contains an appendix of frequently asked questions with answers provided by agency staff. The agencies also seek comments “on objective, quantitative criteria to determine its applicability.” Comments must be received by May 5.
CFPB announces advisory opinion program, updates business conduct bulletin, proposes whistleblower award legislation
On March 6, the CFPB announced three new measures it is undertaking to prevent customer harm, including (i) implementing an advisory opinion program; (ii) updating its bulletin regarding responsible business conduct; and (iii) advancing whistleblower award legislation through engagement with Congress. Details of each measure are as follows:
- Advisory Opinion Program. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued three new innovation policies last September to reduce regulatory uncertainty and improve compliance. Similarly, the Bureau’s March 6 announcement states that the advisory opinion program should “provide clear guidance to assist companies in better understanding their legal and regulatory obligations.” The program directs that requests for advisory opinions should be submitted through the CFPB website. The opinions will then be published in the Federal Register and on its website.
- Responsible Business Conduct Bulletin. The amended bulletin, originally released in 2013, “clarif[ies] [the Bureau’s] approach to responsible business conduct” and emphasizes “the importance of such conduct.” The updated bulletin presents four categories of “responsible conduct” that entities are encouraged to adopt to improve the culture of compliance and that the CFPB will use to evaluate whether credit is warranted in an enforcement investigation or supervisory matter, including (i) self-assessment; (ii) self-reporting; (iii) remediation; and (iv) cooperation.
- Whistleblower Award Legislation. The proposed legislative language would amend Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act and authorize the Bureau to create a whistleblower award program. For individuals that volunteer information leading to a “successful enforcement action,” the program would enable the Bureau to provide a monetary award of between 10 to 30 percent of the collected penalty amount, up to $10 million.
OCC proposes licensing policy changes
On March 5, the OCC announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) and request for comment on proposed amendments that would update and clarify certain licensing policies and procedures and would revise its rules in 12 CFR part 5 to eliminate unnecessary requirements. Proposed changes include, among other things (i) allowing national and federal savings associations to “follow the procedures applicable to state banks or state savings associations…for certain business combinations”; (ii) expanding operating subsidiary notice and expedited review processes to include activities that are substantively the same as activities previously approved by the OCC; (iii) allowing “non-controlling investments and pass-through investments” in non-OCC supervised entities; (iv) creating procedures for citizenship and residency waivers for national bank directors; (v) redefining “troubled condition” in relation to director and senior executive officer changes; and (vi) adding chief risk officer to the list of positions for which a bank in troubled condition must provide notice when making a personnel change. Comments must be received by May 4.
OCC updates FAQs on third-party risk management
On March 5, the OCC released Bulletin 2020-10, which provides answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) concerning its existing guidance on management of third-party relationships, including relationships with fintech firms and data aggregators. This bulletin, issued to supplement Bulletin 2013-29, “Third-Party Relationships: Risk Management Guidance,” rescinds (but incorporates the substance of) OCC Bulletin 2017-21 (covered by InfoBytes here). Key topics addressed in the new FAQs include:
- clarifying the definition of “third-party relationships” and “business arrangements”;
- outlining expectations for banks that have third-party relationships with cloud computing providers or data aggregators;
- addressing a bank’s reliance on and use of third party-provided reports, certificates of compliance, and independent audits;
- discussing risk management when a third party—such as a less established fintech firm, start-up, or other small business—has limited ability to provide the same level of financial information or other due diligence-related information as a more established third party;
- suggesting approaches for due diligence and ongoing monitoring in instances where the bank has limited negotiating power;
- addressing ways banks can offer products or services to underbanked/underserved populations through fintech third-party relationships;
- discussing considerations for banks when entering into a marketplace lending arrangement with a nonbank entity; and
- outlining measures to address risk management when obtaining alternative data from a third party that may be used by or on behalf of a bank.
The bulletin also reiterates that banks are expected “to practice effective risk management regardless of whether the bank performs an activity internally or through a third party,” and that a “bank’s use of third parties does not diminish the bank’s responsibility to perform the activity in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.”
Fed finalizes simplified capital rules for large banks
On March 4, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) released a final rule amending and simplifying the capital rules for large banks, as well as instructions for the 2020 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) cycle. The final rule, which is “broadly similar” to the Fed’s April 2018 proposal (covered by InfoBytes here), incorporates a simplified framework that integrates a “stress capital buffer” (SCB) requirement, which will use supervisory stress test results to establish the size of a firm’s stress capital buffer requirement. The stress test—one element of the annual CCAR—helps determine a firm’s capital requirements for the upcoming year. According to the Fed, “[b]y combining the Board’s stress tests—which project the capital needs of each firm under adverse economic conditions—with the Board’s non-stress capital requirements, large banks will now be subject to a single, forward-looking, and risk-sensitive capital framework.” The simplification would result in banks needing to meet eight capital requirements, instead of the current 13. Among other things, the final rule will also (i) increase capital requirements for global systemically important banks and decrease requirements for less complex banks; and (ii) continue to subject all banks to ongoing, non-stress leverage requirements.
The final rule applies to bank holding companies and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations with more than $100 billion in total consolidated assets, and will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with a firm’s first stress capital buffer requirement, as determined under the final rule, effective October 1, 2020.
OCC updates PTFA booklet in Comptroller’s Handbook
On March 2, the OCC announced an update to the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook. The revised booklet is intended to provide examiners with information and procedures concerning foreclosure activities and related consumer protections under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (PTFA). Among other things, the booklet provides a summary of requirements and addresses risks associated with a bank’s compliance with PTFA. The OCC notes that the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act made permanent certain sections of PTFA, and states that the applicable provisions “apply to any immediate successor in interest—including banks—that foreclose on a federally related mortgage loan or on any dwelling or residential real property, as defined in section 3 of [RESPA], that is subject to a bona fide lease, as defined in the PTFA and in 12 USC 2602.”
Agencies seek comments on covered funds under Volcker Rule
On February 28, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, SEC, and CFTC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to modify and streamline the “covered funds” requirements under Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act, commonly known as the Volcker Rule. (Previous InfoBytes coverage of the Volcker Rule here). According to the press release, the proposed amendments “would modify and clarify the regulations concerning covered funds and would address certain related issues, including qualifying foreign excluded funds.” Among other things, the amendments to the regulations would (i) “permit the activities of qualifying foreign excluded funds”; (ii) “revise the exclusions from the definition of covered fund for foreign public funds, loan securitizations, and small business investment companies”; (iii) create exclusions from “covered fund credit funds, qualifying venture capital funds, family wealth management vehicles, and customer facilitation vehicles”; (iv) allow certain transactions that would otherwise be prohibited under the so-called “Super 23A” restrictions; (v) redefine “ownership interest”; and (vi) exclude certain investments from “a banking entity’s calculation of its ownership interest in the covered fund.” Comments in response to the NPR must be submitted by April 1.
DoD changes interpretation of MLA related to Guaranteed Asset Protection contracts
On February 28, the Department of Defense (DoD) published an amendment to its December 2017 interpretive rule (2017 Rule) for the Military Lending Act (MLA) to withdraw a provision concerning the exemption of credit secured by a motor vehicle or personal property. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 2017 Rule stated that additional costs may be added to an extension of credit so long as these costs relate to the object securing the credit, and not the extension of credit itself. In particular, the 2017 Rule stated that if credit is extended to cover “Guaranteed Auto Protection insurance or a credit insurance premium” the loan is covered by the MLA.
Following the publication of the 2017 Rule, the DoD received several requests to withdraw this Rule. The requests raised concerns that creditors “would be unable to technically comply with the MLA . . . because 232.8(f) of the [MLA] regulation would prohibit creditors from taking a security interest in the vehicle in those circumstances and creditors may not extend credit if they could not take a security interest in the vehicle being purchased.” The DoD stated that it found merit in these concerns and agreed that additional analysis is warranted. As a result, the DoD has withdrawn amended Q&A #2 from the 2017 Rule, and reinstated the 2016 Rule, which states that loans secured by “personal property” do not fall within the exception to “consumer credit” if the creditor “simultaneously extends credit in an amount greater than the purchase price.”
The amended interpretive rule is effective immediately.
CFPB releases TRID FAQs
On February 26, the CFPB released 10 new lender credit FAQs to assist with TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule (TRID Rule) compliance. Highlights from the FAQs are listed below:
- “[L]ender credits include [(i)] payments, such as credits, rebates, and reimbursements, that a creditor provides to a consumer to offset” a consumer’s closing costs paid “as part of the mortgage loan transaction”; and (ii) “premiums in the form of cash” provided by a creditor “to a consumer in exchange for specific acts, such as for accepting a specific interest rate, or as an incentive, such as to attract consumers away from competing creditors.”
- Lender credits can be specific or non-specific. Non-specific lender credits are also known as “general lender credits.” The FAQs provide examples of both types of lender credit, and note that the distinction is important, as the two types of lender credits are disclosed differently on the Closing Disclosure.
- Creditors are not required to disclose “a closing cost and a related lender credit on the Loan Estimate if the creditor” absorbs the cost, but will be required to disclose these costs if they are “offsetting a cost charged to the consumer.”
- Creditors are required to disclose a closing cost and a related lender credit on a Closing Disclosure if they absorb the cost, “even if the consumer will not be charged for the closing cost.”
- To disclose lender credits on a Loan Estimate, creditors must calculate the sum “of all general and specific lender credits.”
- The nature of how lender credits are disclosed on a Closing Disclosure varies based on whether it is a general lender credit or a specific lender credit.
- The nature of how lender credits for a “no-cost loan” are disclosed varies based “on whether [a] creditor is absorbing closing costs as well as whether [it] is offsetting costs for specific settlement services.”
- When disclosing all of the closing costs charged to consumers, creditors must include a corresponding total amount of lender credits.
- Creditors that provide “a lender credit to offset a certain dollar amount of closing costs” without specifying which costs are providing a general lender credit. The FAQs outlines the disclosure process.
- Lender credits can only change in certain circumstances. Regulation Z does not limit increases in lender credits on a Loan Estimate, but a decrease in “lender credits disclosed on [a] Loan Estimate” may “lead to a violation of the good faith disclosure standard” if it is not tied to a triggering event outlined in Regulation Z.
Kraninger: ATR/QM, Remittance Rules expected in May
On February 25, in a speech before the Credit Union National Association Government Affairs Conference, CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger discussed the Bureau’s rulemaking approach in the consumer financial marketplace. Specifically, Kraninger reminded attendees that the Bureau’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on the Ability to Repay/Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM rule) issued last July signaled its “intent to allow the patch to expire as intended in January 2021 or shortly thereafter to allow for a smooth and orderly transition.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the ANPR solicited feedback on, among other things, whether the debt-to-income ratio should be altered and how Regulation Z and the ATR/QM Rule should be amended to minimize disruption from the so-called GSE patch expiration. Following a review of all received public comments, Kraninger stated that the Bureau has “decided to propose to amend the QM rule by moving away from the 43 percent debt-to-income ratio requirement,” and will instead “propose an alternative, such as [a] pricing threshold to better ensure that responsible, affordable mortgage credit remains available for consumers.” A proposed rule seeking comments on possible amendments will be issued no later than May, Kraninger stated.
Kraninger also discussed possible amendments to the Remittance Rule (Rule), which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and requires financial companies handling international money transfers, or remittance transfers, to disclose exact fees and exchange rates. The Bureau issued a Request for Information last April on two aspects of the Rule (covered by InfoBytes here), and a follow-up Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) in December (covered by InfoBytes here) to propose a permanent safe harbor for financial companies that provide 500 or fewer remittance transfers a year. According to Kraninger, “[t]his would reduce the burden on over 400 banks and almost 250 credit unions that send a relatively small number of remittances. Ultimately, by allowing the use of estimates in some circumstances and adjusting the threshold for coverage under the rule, . . . [the] proposal was designed to preserve consumers’ ability to send remittances from their bank accounts to certain destinations.” The Bureau plans to finalize the remittances rulemaking in May.
Kraninger also commented on the Bureau’s regulatory review process, and reminded attendees of its “Start Small, Save Up” initiative, which encourages partnerships between financial companies/service providers and the Bureau in order to develop savings products for consumers.