InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed issues final rule revising delegations of authority
On August 29, the Federal Reserve Board published a final rule in the Federal Register revising rules regarding delegation of authority. Among other things, the Fed noted that the final rule “enhances transparency, improves usability, and relieves burden on regulated institutions, practitioners before the Board, and Federal Reserve staff.” Specifically, the final rule “codifies and revises delegations of authority previously approved by the Board, makes technical changes, and rescinds moot or superseded delegations.” The final rule also notes that its rules regarding delegation of authority implement section 11(k) of the Federal Reserve Act and enumerate the actions that the Fed has determined to delegate. Section 11(k) authorizes the Fed to delegate, by published order or rule and subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, any of its functions, other than those related to rulemaking or pertaining principally to monetary and credit policies. By delegating actions that do not raise significant legal, supervisory, or policy issues, the Fed can respond more efficiently to applications, requests, and other matters. The final rule is effective September 1.
FDIC releases July enforcement actions
On August 26, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in July. During the month, the FDIC issued seven orders consisting of “two orders of prohibition, two orders to pay civil money penalty, two section 19 orders, and one order terminating consent order.” Among the actions is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against an Iowa-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank: (i) “made, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; (ii) “made, increased, extended or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral”; and (iii) “failed to comply with proper procedures for force-placing flood insurance in instances where the collateral was not covered by flood insurance at some time during the term of the loan.” The order requires the payment of a $2,500 civil money penalty. The actions also include a civil money penalty imposed against a Texas-based bank related to six alleged violations of the FDPA for “failure to obtain flood insurance or obtain an adequate amount of insurance coverage, at or before loan origination, for all structures in a flood zone, including multiple structures,” among other alleged violations. The order requires the payment of a $6,000 civil money penalty.
FDIC examines effects of insurance premiums on bank lending
Recently, the FDIC’s Center for Financial Research released a working paper examining the procyclical effects of FDIC insurance premiums on bank lending. Using confidential FDIC data from the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the FDIC analyzed procyclical deposit insurance premium schedules and bank lending. Among other things, the study found that the lending growth rate decreased 1.6 percent in the quarter after a seven basis-point increase in deposit insurance premiums. The study also found that this effect was exaggerated for banks with less than $100 million in assets who experienced a 2 percent decrease in lending growth rates. According to the FDIC, the working paper “suggest[ed] that deposit insurance premiums, which have been relatively overlooked in the procyclicality discussion, can be a significant driver of bank credit procyclicality.” The FDIC also noted that “changes in deposit insurance premiums can influence the real economy through the bank lending channel,” and suggested that “there may be costs to raising deposit insurance premiums that should be considered, particularly during a crisis.” The working paper highlighted that throughout its long history, “the FDIC has adapted its approach to setting deposit insurance premiums in response to an evolving banking system” and has recently implemented changes that address some procyclicality concerns. These changes include the use of scorecards for large banks to determine assessment rates derived from data showing how each institution fared during the financial crisis, updating of the pricing structure for established small banks, and the indefinite suspension of dividends under the Deposit Insurance Fund management plan “to increase the probability that the reserve ratio will reach a level sufficient to withstand a future crisis.” The working paper concludes that “[t]hese efforts will likely reduce the risk of major assessment-rate increases during future economic downturns.”
FDIC issues CDO against five crypto companies
On August 19, the FDIC issued letters (see here, here, here, here, and here) to five companies demanding that they cease and desist from making crypto-related false and misleading statements regarding their FDIC deposit insurance status and take immediate corrective action to address these false statements. The FDIC noted that “each of these companies made false representations—including on their websites and social media accounts—stating or suggesting that certain crypto-related products are FDIC-insured or that stocks held in brokerage accounts are FDIC-insured.” Specifically, the FDIC noted that “a company offering a so-called cryptocurrency also registered a domain name that suggests affiliation with or endorsement by the FDIC,” calling such representations “false and misleading.” The FDIC said that the companies’ actions violated the FDI Act, which “prohibits any person from representing or implying that an uninsured product is FDIC–insured or from knowingly misrepresenting the extent and manner of deposit insurance,” and “further prohibits companies from implying that their products are FDIC–insured by using ‘FDIC’ in the company’s name, advertisements, or other documents.” The FDI Act authorizes the FDIC to enforce this prohibition against any person. The FDIC demanded that the companies take corrective actions by removing the misrepresentations or false statements and providing written confirmation to the FDIC that they have fully complied with the removal request.
OCC requests comments on various Volcker Rule requirements
On August 23, the OCC published in the Federal Register a request to renew its information collection titled “Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships with Covered Funds.” Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act “generally prohibits any banking entity from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a covered fund, subject to certain exceptions . . . that allow certain types of permissible trading and covered fund activities.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2019, the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, and SEC published a final rule amending the Volcker Rule to simplify and tailor compliance with Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act’s restrictions on a bank’s ability to engage in proprietary trading and own certain funds.
The OCC is seeking comments specifically related to the reporting, disclosure, documentation and information collection requirements under the rule, including: (i) whether the information collections are necessary for the proper function of the agency and if the information has practical utility; (ii) whether the OCC’s estimates of the burden of the information collections are accurate and the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (iii) measures to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (iv) ways to minimize the burden of information collections on respondents, such as using automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (v) capital or start-up cost estimates, as well as costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Comments are due October 24.
FDIC warns financial institutions about NSF fees
On August 18, the FDIC issued FIL-40-2022 along with supervisory guidance to warn supervised financial institutions that charging customers multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented unpaid transactions may increase regulatory scrutiny and litigation risk. According to the FDIC, some institutions’ disclosures did not fully or clearly describe their re-presentment practices and failed to explain that the same unpaid transaction may result in multiple NSF fees if presented more than once. Failing to disclose “material information to customers about re-presentment and fee practices has the potential to mislead reasonable customers,” the agency said, noting that the material omission of this information is considered to be deceptive pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act. Additionally, “there are situations that may also present risk of unfairness if the customer is unable to avoid fees related to re-presented transactions,” the FDIC said.
The supervisory guidance also discussed the agency’s approach for addressing violations of law, noting that it will focus on identifying re-presentment-related issues to ensure correction of deficiencies and remediation to harmed customers. The agency stated that examiners “will generally not cite UDAP violations that have been self-identified and fully corrected prior to the start of a consumer compliance examination,” and noted that it “will consider an institution’s record keeping practices and any challenges an institution may have with retrieving, reviewing, and analyzing re-presentment data, on a case-by-case basis, when evaluating the time period institutions utilized for customer remediation.” However, the FDIC warned that “[f]ailing to provide restitution for harmed customers when data on re-presentments is reasonably available will not be considered full corrective action.” Financial institutions are encouraged to review practices and disclosures related to the charging of NSF fees for re-presented transactions and should consider FDIC risk-mitigation practices to reduce the risk of customer harm and potential violations.
OCC releases enforcement actions data
On August 18, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. Included in the release is a formal agreement between the OCC and a New York-based bank from July 13 in connection with alleged unsafe or unsound practices relating to information technology security and controls and information technology risk governance. The agreement requires the bank to: (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor the bank’s progress in complying with the agreement’s provisions; (ii) report such progress to the bank’s board on a quarterly basis; and (iii) develop, implement, and adhere to a written risk-based IT assurance and testing program.
Special Alert: New Fed guidelines clarify, but do not transform, master account and payment services access
The Federal Reserve Board recently issued final guidelines for the Reserve Banks to use in reviewing requests from a range of financial services providers for access to Federal Reserve master accounts and payment services. Master account and Federal Reserve services allow institutions to transfer money to other master accountholders directly and hold funds in the Federal Reserve System, while others must go through third parties — which can add cost, delay, and further complication to transactions.
The final guidelines are substantially similar to those proposed in 2021 and a supplement issued earlier this year. They make the application process more transparent by describing the risk factors that a Reserve Bank should take into consideration and by applying a three-tier approach regarding the intensity of a Reserve Bank’s review. However, the guidelines do not broaden the categories of entities that are eligible to apply in the first place, do not establish application processing timelines, and do not provide a clear path forward for entities that lack federal bank supervision, including novel charter types.
Toomey pressures FDIC to respond to alleged anti-crypto actions
On August 16, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) informed FDIC acting Chairman Martin Gruenberg that information provided by whistleblower communications suggest that the agency may be asking banks to “refrain from expanding relationships with crypto-related companies, without providing any legal basis.” Toomey’s letter expressed concerns about the ramifications of banks restricting services to legal crypto-related companies, stressing that “[g]iven the FDIC’s involvement under [Gruenberg’s] leadership in the Obama administration’s notorious Operation Choke Point, which sought to coerce banks into denying services to legal yet politically disfavored businesses, it is important to better understand the actions the FDIC is now taking and the legal basis for them.” He commented that regional offices allegedly received draft letters to send to banks requesting that they refrain from expanding relationships with crypto-related companies, and cited an example of a bank that planned to provide customers access to a crypto-related trading platform through the bank’s mobile app. “This arrangement appears similar to the common practice of banks partnering with third-parties so customers can access services like stock-trading platforms,” Toomey said, adding that the bank was going to send customers clear disclosures warning them that neither the trading platform nor their digital assets were insured by the FDIC. He cited another alleged incident where FDIC-headquartered employees purportedly urged regional examination staff to downgrade their classification of a specific loan that a bank made to a crypto-related company. “It is my understanding that it is highly atypical for FDIC headquarters personnel to be involved in reviewing an individual loan,” Toomey said. “FDIC regional office staff reportedly interpreted the involvement of FDIC headquarters in this matter as an effort to change how loans to crypto-related companies are generally classified and to deter banks from extending such loans in the future.” Claiming that the agency “may be abusing its supervisory powers to deter banks from extending credit to crypto-related companies,” Toomey asked the FDIC to respond to several questions pertaining to its alleged behavior by August 30.
Fed discusses technology, innovation, and financial services
On August 17, Federal Reserve Governor Michelle W. Bowman spoke before the VenCent Fintech Conference in Arkansas regarding technology, innovation, and financial services. In her remarks, Bowman discussed the importance of technology and how it is leading to new bank business models, including application programming interfaces and other technologies that allow nonbank technology firms to provide financial services. Bowman also discussed why customers engage more in crypto assets, such as that there has been “significant consumer demand for engagement in these types of services,” and that “banks have observed their deposits flowing to nonbank crypto-asset firms and, understandably, would like to stem that outflow by offering the services themselves.” Bowman also noted that the Fed is “working to articulate supervisory expectations for banks on a variety of digital asset-related activities,” such as custody of crypto-assets and loans collateralized by crypto-assets, among other things. She addressed supervisory guidance recently released by the Fed (covered by InfoBytes here), which “provide[s] banks with additional information about the risks of crypto activities and remind[s] them to ensure that the activities are legal and [that] they should have adequate systems, risk management, and controls in place to conduct the activities in a safe and sound manner consistent with applicable law.” Bowman also discussed the Fed’s involvement in artificial intelligence (AI), noting that last year, the Fed joined with other financial agencies to issue a Request for Information (RFI) on input on financial institutions’ use of AI (covered by InfoBytes here) and has received over 100 responses. As noted in the RFI, banks are using AI in a variety of ways, including fraud monitoring, personalization of customer services, credit decisions, risk management, and textual analysis. As covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in May, the Fed issued a final rule for its FedNow instant-payments platform that offers more clarity on how the new service will work while essentially adopting the proposed rule. Bowman contended that FedNow “will enable financial institutions of every size, and in every community across America, to provide safe and efficient instant payment services,” and that it is “a flexible, neutral platform that will support a broad variety of instant payments.” In regard to novel charters and access to federal reserve account services, Bowman closed by highlighting the Fed’s final guidelines governing how Reserve Banks will evaluate requests for account access. Bowman explained that “[t]he guidelines take into account the Board's goals to (1) ensure the safety and soundness of the banking system; (2) effectively implement monetary policy; (3) promote financial stability; (4) protect consumers; and (5) promote a safe, efficient, inclusive, and innovative payment system.”