InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC’s Hsu discusses bank fairness and effective compliance risk management
On March 25, the Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Michael J. Hsu, released a transcript of a speech on fairness and effective compliance risk management in banking, delivered at a banking association meeting. The speech focused on how bank fairness can be used as a “guide and input to effective compliance risk management,” and how Hsu believed banks could develop more fairness in banking. Hsu noted that deploying more resources and adopting modern technologies will be only part of the challenge in improving a bank’s compliance risk programs; the other part of the challenge is “adapting and anticipating” where compliance risks could arise.
While speaking on the challenges of bank consumer compliance, Hsu discussed rapid changes in product offerings, such as the growth of credit cards, BNPL products, and Earned Wage Access. Hsu discussed how the increase in the digitalization of banking has aligned with third-party arrangements, fraud, and cyber risks in finance. On fairness, Hsu discussed the increased prevalence of overdraft charges and how a “well developed sense of fairness” can guide banks in connection with such areas. Hsu stated that fairness is not unidimensional, and when a bank develops an internal sense of fairness, it should be aware of how multiple notions of fairness interact. For example, he noted that “disparate treatment and disparate impact” provide the foundations for fair lending laws, and to comply with fair lending laws, a bank must mitigate both disparities.
FDIC OIG confirms board oversight and liquidity issues led to a bank’s failure
On March 25, the Office for the Inspector General (OIG) for the FDIC issued a report on a 2023 bank failure, finding that the bank’s failure netted a $14.8 million estimated loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”), but that the failure did not warrant a formal evaluation of the FDIC’s supervision of the failed bank in the form of an In-Depth Review. As defined by the FDIC, the DIF was created to ensure deposits, protect depositors, and resolve failed banks. Any DIF loss incurred under $50 million would require the OIG to review and determine if any unusual circumstances exist that may warrant an In-Depth Review; the OIG did not find any unusual circumstances here.
In November 2023, the FDIC was appointed as a receiver of a bank after its closure by the Iowa Division of Banking. The OIG noted that the bank failed after “significant deterioration” of the bank’s loan portfolio and operating losses stressed its liquidity as a result of bank board issues and management lax lending practices, as well as the failure to properly administer large commercial trucking relationships.
While conducting the bank review, the OIG considered four factors. First, the OIG considered the magnitude of the DIF loss in relation to the total assets of the failed bank. The OIG found the relative loss was 23 percent (noted as consistent in the last five years). Second, the OIG reviewed how effective the FDIC’s supervision addressed the issues. The OIG found the FDIC’s supervision “identified and effectively addressed” the issues that led to the bank’s failure. Third, the OIG considered any indicators of fraudulent activities that contributed to the DIF loss. The OIG found that while the examiners identified conflicts of interest in bank loans, they did not “significantly contribute” to the DIF loss. Last and fourth, the OIG reviewed any other relevant conditions contributing to the bank’s failure and found none.
FDIC opens comment period on proposed Statement of Policy regarding bank merger transactions, highlights “added scrutiny” for $100+ billion mergers
On March 21, the FDIC issued a request for comment on its proposed Statement of Policy (SOP) on bank merger transactions, which will aim to update, strengthen, and clarify the FDIC’s approach to bank merger evaluation. The proposed SOP does note that transactions in excess of $100 billion are more likely to present financial stability concerns and will be “subject to added scrutiny.” The new SOP will replace the FDIC’s current SOP on its responsibilities under the Bank Merger Act (BMA) or Section 18(c) of the FDI Act. Both the heads of the CFPB and OCC issued statements on this review, with the Acting Comptroller of the Currency offering his explicit support.
Broadly speaking, the proposed SOP aims to make the process more principles based, communicate the FDIC’s expectations in its evaluation of merger applications, and describe which merger transactions are under the FDIC’s domain. The proposed SOP will include separate discussions for each statutory factor as set forth in the BMA, including the effects on competition, financial resources, future prospects, CRA, financial and banking stability risk, and AML considerations. Further, this will not be an exhaustive list, as the FDIC will claim jurisdiction over any other elements that could present a risk to financial stability. Of note, the proposed SOP will not include any “bright lines or specific metrics” on what transaction would be considered anti-competitive, as the FDIC wishes to maintain its flexibility to appropriately evaluate the circumstances of each merger application.
This new comment period will begin after the FDIC reviewed 33 comment letters received during the previous comment period, about three-fourths of which were in favor of at least some changes to the FDIC’s merger review process. Six commenters were against such changes and two commenters were neither in favor of nor against the changes. The comments against argued that the current framework was “sound,” and any revisions could harm the sector by making the bank merger process more difficult and disproportionally impacting community, mid-size, and regional banks. Comments must be received by 60 days from the date of the SOP’s publication in the Federal Register.
OCC releases Q4 report on first-lien mortgage performance
On March 19, the OCC released a report on the performance of first-lien mortgages in the federal banking system during the fourth quarter of 2023. According to the report, 97.2 percent of mortgages included in the report were current and performing at the end of the quarter, which is a slight improvement from the fourth quarter of 2022, but also a minor decline from the third quarter of 2023. The report also shows
- a rise in the percentage of seriously delinquent mortgages compared to the previous quarter (1.2 percent in the fourth quarter compared to 1.1 percent in the third quarter), but this percentage has trended down since the fourth quarter of 2021 (when it was 2.3 percent);
- a decline in new foreclosures, with 8,320 new foreclosures in the fourth quarter of 2023, compared to 8,965 new foreclosures the previous quarter and a high of 19,524 new foreclosures in the first quarter of 2022;
- finalization of 7,382 loan modifications, which was less than the 7,436 modifications completed in the prior quarter. Eighty-seven percent of the modifications were “combination modifications,” which are modifications that incorporate more than one type of modification action to improve the loan’s affordability, such as an interest rate reduction and a loan term extension.
First-lien mortgages account for 22.2 percent of the total outstanding residential mortgage debt in the country, representing approximately 11.7 million loans with a combined principal balance of $2.9 trillion.
Agencies extend applicability date of certain provisions of their Community Reinvestment Act final rule
On March 21, the FDIC, Fed, and OCC jointly issued an interim final rule to extend the applicability date of certain provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) final rule and requested comments on the extension. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the final rule was intended to modernize how banks comply with the CRA, a law that encouraged banks to help meet the credit needs of low- and moderate-income communities.
Stated “[t]o promote clarity and consistency,” the agencies have postponed the applicability date of the facility-based assessment areas and public file provisions from April 1, 2024, to January 1, 2026. As a result, banks would not be required to modify their assessment areas or public files in response to the final rule until the new 2026 date. This extension would put these elements on the same timeline as other components of the 2023 CRA final rule that also would take effect on January 1, 2026, including the performance tests and geographic area provisions.
The agencies also made technical, non-substantive updates to the CRA final rule and related agency regulations that reference it. One of these technical adjustments specified that banks are not required to update their public CRA Notices until January 1, 2026. Public comments on the postponed implementation date must be received 45 days following the rule's publication in the Federal Register.
FHA implements changes to branch office registration requirements
On March 19, the FHA issued Mortgagee Letter 2024-04 to implement the provisions of a Final Rule, “Changes in Branch Office Registration Requirements.” The Final Rule will eliminate the requirement for mortgagees and lenders to register with HUD in each branch office from which they conduct FHA business, making branch registration optional and branch registration fees applicable only to branch offices that mortgagees or lenders choose to register with FHA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, FHA proposed the rule last March. Following public comments, HUD published the Final Rule without changes from the proposed rule, and the Final Rule became effective on March 4.
The Final Rule will exclude branch offices not registered with HUD from the HUD Lender List Search page. The Mortgagee Letter will summarize changes that will be incorporated into Handbook 4000.1 to implement the Final Rule, including updating the policy for registering branch offices, clarifying the “Area Approved for Business” for home offices and branch offices, updating the definitions for Branch Manager and Regional Manager, and clarifying the policy requirements that apply to registered branch offices. Although the Mortgagee Letter will go into effect immediately, it will not impact annual recertifications due to be completed by March 31; rather, the recertification fee “will be calculated based on the registered branches as of the last business day of the mortgagee’s certification period (fiscal year end).”
CFPB warns remittance transfer providers against falsely advertising the costs and speed of transfers
On March 27, the CFPB issued a circular cautioning remittance transfer providers against falsely advertising the costs or speed of sending transfers to avoid violating the CFPA’s prohibition on deceptive acts or practices. The CFPB would administer and enforce the Remittance Rule under the EFTA, but the Bureau noted that remittance providers also can be liable under the CFP Act for deceptive marketing practices, regardless of whether they comply with the Remittance Rule’s disclosure requirements. Through the circular, the CFPB warned against falsely marketing “no fee” or “free” services if the remittance transfer provider actually charges a fee, noting that “[w]ith respect to digital wallets or other similar products, it can be deceptive to market a transfer as ‘free’ if the provider imposes costs to convert funds into a different currency or withdraw funds,” and that “[i]t may also be deceptive to market international money transfers as ‘free’; if the provider is imposing costs on consumers through the exchange rate spread.” The Bureau also warned against “burying” promotional conditions in fine print, and falsely advertising how long a transfer will take especially if transfers may take longer to reach recipients. The circular would apply to traditional international money transfer providers, as well as “digital wallets” that send money internationally from the U.S. and would be part of the Bureau’s initiative to “rein in” alleged “junk fees.”
CFPB wins approval to move credit card late fee case to Washington, D.C.
On March 28, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the CFPB’s motion to transfer a case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after identifying several concerns regarding litigating the case in the Texas venue. This case has been brought by multiple trade organizations to challenge the CFPB’s attempt to alter the structure and amount of credit card late fees under its alleged authority under the CARD Act, covered by InfoBytes here. The court agreed to transfer the case after finding that both defendants, along with three of the six plaintiffs, resided in Washington where the rule at issue was promulgated; comparatively, only one of the six plaintiffs resided in Fort Worth.
The court analyzed both private- and public-interest factors. On private-interest factors, the court agreed that Washington was a more practical venue, noting that eight of the ten attorneys representing the parties list offices in Washington, while only one plaintiff was headquartered in Texas. The court concluded that plaintiffs also have not identified any substantial or practical issues with this case being held in Washington. On public interest factors, the court weighed the comparative dockets and noted that, on average, a case in Washington would be resolved faster than in Texas. The court also reasoned that there was a strong interest in having the case decided in Washington. “The Rule at issue in this case was promulgated in Washington D.C., by government agencies stationed in Washington D.C., and by employees who work in Washington D.C. Most of the Plaintiffs in this case are also based in Washington D.C. and eighty percent of the attorneys in this matter work in Washington D.C. Thus, the [U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia] has a stronger interest in resolving this dispute, as it is the epicenter for these types of rules and challenges thereto.”
CFPB, federal and state agencies to enhance tech capabilities
On March 26, the CFPB announced as a part of a coordinated statement with other federal and state agencies, the intent to enhance its technological capabilities. As part of this initiative, the CFPB will be hiring more technologists to help enforce laws and find remedies for consumers, workers, small businesses, etc. These technologists will join interdisciplinary teams within the CFPB to monitor and address potential violations of consumer rights within the evolving tech landscape, particularly considering the growing attention to generative artificial intelligence (AI). The CFPB's technologists will be tasked with identifying new technological developments, recognizing potential risks, enforcing laws, and developing effective remedies. CFPB Director Rohit Chopra emphasized the essential role of technology in the Bureau’s efforts to regulate data misuse, AI issues, and big tech involvement in financial services. Chopra and Chief Technologist Erie Meyer remarked that the CFPB has integrated technologists into its core functions, with these experts now actively involved in supervisory examinations, enforcement actions, and other regulatory proceedings. They also note that the CFPB has researched how emerging technologies, such as generative AI and near-field communication, are used in consumer finance. To foster a competitive and “law-abiding” marketplace, Chopra and Meyer also note that the CFPB will continue to issue policy guidance to assist firms with understanding legal obligations.
CFPB submits brief alleging “forum shopping,” banking groups defend their choice of venue
On March 12, the CFPB submitted a brief to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in opposition to a motion for preliminary injunction filed by a group of industry associations, urging the court to block the implementation of a new rule that would limit the ability of large credit card issuers to charge late fees (covered by InfoBytes here).
The CFPB defended the rule by stating that it has considered all relevant factors and that the rule aimed to prevent credit card issuers from charging excessive late fees. The CFPB also argued that the case is not properly situated, as the plaintiffs lack a significant connection to the district in which they filed the lawsuit and do not have the standing to sue on behalf of others, stating “it seems not one large card issuer wants its name on the marquee… [t]he rule applies to only the largest card issuers—approximately 30–35 total entities nationwide. Plaintiffs have not identified a single one that is based in this District.” The CFPB suggested that plaintiffs have engaged in “forum shopping”—i.e., choosing this court because they believe it will be more favorable to their case, despite a lack of substantial connection to the district. The brief stated that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act because they failed to establish proper venue and associational standing. Additionally, the CFPB argued that an injunction was not warranted because the rule was designed to protect consumers and that preventing its implementation would be against the public interest.
On March 13, plaintiffs submitted a brief defending its motion for preliminary injunction and their choice of venue in Texas as part of an ongoing suit against the CFPB. The brief stated that according to law, the venue was appropriate if one plaintiff resided in the district, which applied to one of the Texas-based chamber plaintiffs, and if a significant portion of the related events occurred in the district, which is true as the rule impacted the local area. That plaintiff argued they have standing to sue because the issues are relevant to its “mission of cultivating a ‘thriving business climate in the Fort Worth region’” and its trade members included credit card issuers affected by the rule. Despite the CFPB’s counterarguments that the plaintiff lacked standing and that a transactional venue was not applicable, the plaintiff asserted it represented members that would be directly impacted by the rule, fulfilling the requirements for standing. Additionally, plaintiff contended that the rule's effects within the district justify the court's jurisdiction over the case.