InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FDIC provides updates on real estate lending standards and MDIs
On June 15, the FDIC Board of Directors met in open session to discuss Real Estate Lending Standards and Minority Depository Institutions (MDIs), among other things. According to FIL-41-2021, the FDIC issued a proposed rule to amend the Interagency Guidelines for Real Estate Lending Policies “to conform the method for calculating the ratio of loans in excess of the supervisory loan-to-value (LTV) limits with the capital framework established in the community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) rule.” The proposed amendments would provide a consistent approach for calculating the ratio of loans in excess of the supervisory LTV limits at all FDIC-supervised institutions by, among other things, establishing supervisory LTV criteria for certain real estate lending transaction types and allowing exceptions to the supervisory LTV limits. Comments on the proposed rule are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
During the meeting, the FDIC Board of Directors also approved and released an updated Statement of Policy Regarding Minority Depository Institutions to enhance the agency’s efforts to preserve and promote MDIs. In August 2020, the FDIC approved a proposed statement of policy, which updated and clarified the agency’s policies and procedures related to MDIs (covered by InfoBytes here). The recently updated statement of policy replaces the 2002 Statement of Policy and includes, among other things:
- Clarification of the FDIC’s expectations for technical assistance and illustration of opportunities for engagement with members of FDIC staff;
- Outreach efforts by the FDIC including, among other things, the establishment of the MDI Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Community Banking and enhanced activities to promote collaboration with MDIs;
- Definitions of terms utilized in the MDI program, detailed reporting requirements, and specific methods used to measure the effectiveness of MDI program activities; and
- Clarification of considerations made by examination staff when evaluating performance and assigning ratings.
After considering the comment letters, the FDIC revised the proposed statement of policy to identify, specifically, “state bankers associations as collaboration partners, along with other trade associations that support MDIs in the development of education and training events and other initiatives for MDIs.”
Acting comptroller discusses bias in appraisals
On June 15, OCC acting Comptroller Michael J. Hsu delivered remarks during the CFPB’s Virtual Home Appraisal Bias Event to raise awareness on the importance of reducing bias in real estate appraisals. The event included discussions with civil rights organizations, housing policy experts, and other federal agencies on how bias can occur in real estate appraisals and automated valuation models. Biased appraisals, Hsu noted, have a large impact on lending and contribute to inequity in housing values. He pointed to data from studies showing that homes in Black neighborhoods are valued at approximately half the price as homes in neighborhoods with few or no Black residents. This difference has created a $156 billion cumulative loss in value across the country for majority-Black neighborhoods, Hsu stated. He further emphasized that “[w]hile appraisers and the appraisal process are not often seen as parts of the banking system, there are clear intersections. Banking regulations require appraisals on certain transactions, and banks rely on third-party appraisals in their underwriting and overall risk management practices. Regulators, including the OCC, expect banks to ensure their vendors treat customers fairly and do not discriminate, and we are seeing banks held accountable for discrimination in appraisals they use.” Hsu added that holding banks accountable, while necessary, is not enough to solve the problem of biased appraisals, and that a solution will require collaboration between all stakeholders, including the attendees participating in the Bureau’s event.
Agencies call for "robust" alternate reference rates
On June 11, the Treasury Department, OCC, SEC, and the FDIC released separate statements following the meeting of the Financial Stability Oversight Council concerning the LIBOR transition. Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu said it is “imperative that banks continue careful planning” for the transition away from LIBOR to an alternate reference rate, such as the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), the Alternate Reference Rates Committee’s (ARRC) preferred LIBOR alternative. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the ARRC released the SOFR “Starter Kit” in August 2020, which includes three factsheets that are the result of a series of educational panel discussions held by ARRC. The various panel discussions were designed to educate on “the history of LIBOR; the development and strengths of SOFR; progress made in the transition away from LIBOR to date; and how to ensure organizations are ready for the end of LIBOR.” SEC Chairman Gary Gensler also expressed support for SOFR, calling it a “preferable” alternate rate. In addition, Gensler shared his concerns regarding the Bloomberg Short-Term Bank Yield Index (BSBY), which some commercial banks are advocating as a replacement for LIBOR. Gensler said the BSBY is based upon unsecured, term, bank-to-bank lending, which is like LIBOR. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen encouraged market participants to “act promptly to support the switch in derivatives from LIBOR to SOFR.” She noted that “[w]hile important progress is being made in some segments of the market, other segments, including business loans, are well behind where they should be at this stage in the transition.” FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams pointed out that the “FDIC continues to focus on the LIBOR transition and to assess institutions’ practices and plans to adopt a replacement rate and address legacy contracts before December 31 of this year.” However, she disclosed that “the FDIC does not endorse any particular alternative reference rate.”
Senate holds hearing on central bank digital currency
On June 9, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy held a hearing titled “Building A Stronger Financial System: Opportunities of a Central Bank Digital Currency” to discuss the potential opportunities of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Among the issues discussed at the hearing were protecting consumer privacy and security, financial inclusion, and the Federal Reserve’s authority.
The Honorable J. Christopher Giancarlo, Senior Counsel at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, was a witness on behalf of the Digital Dollar Project (DDP). The digital dollar, proposed by the Fed, would be distributed through the two-tiered banking system and operated alongside physical currency and commercial bank money. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) asked how a CBDC should be designed, implemented, and regulated to reduce the risk of fraud and ensure privacy. Giancarlo, who stated he is not convinced of the need for CBDC, but believed in the need to examine this issue, said the DDP convened a privacy subcommittee which addressed four principles: (i) economic privacy; (ii) security; (iii) inclusion; and (iv) sufficient transparency to provide settlement and payment certainty. When Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) questioned witness Dr. Neha Narula, Director of the Digital Currency Initiative at MIT, on security risks associated with cryptocurrencies, she responded that, with respect to ransomware attacks, the issue is that valuable data has not been properly secured, and suggested that a CBDC could have built-in safeguards. She also believed that open source software is critical for security.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) suggested that banks use “abusive” practices and that the crypto industry has promised a better and more inclusive financial system, which reduces cost and improves quality. When Warren asked if a well-designed CBDC could help people who are poorly served by the current financial system, Narula emphasized the importance of designing a CBDC with a focus on accessibility and reducing barriers to access.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argued that Americans should not be subject to excessive fees to access their own money. He also noted that a CBDC may work with a solution he has proposed, called No-Fee Accounts, which would be available to every American and backed by the Fed. As previously covered by InfoBytes, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard noted in a speech that a CBDC may address concerns regarding the lack of federal deposit insurance and banking supervision for nonbank issuers of digital assets, and that “new forms of private money may introduce counterparty risk into the payments system in new ways that could lead to consumer protection threats or, at large scale, broader financial stability risks.” Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-PA) expressed his concerns around the Fed’s position in retail banking services and was doubtful that the Fed would provide high quality customer service, while Ranking Member John Kennedy (R-LA) questioned if it is appropriate for the federal government to get entangled in the credit markets by way of a CBDC.
FDIC announces Louisiana disaster relief
On June 10, the FDIC issued FIL-40-2021 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of Louisiana affected by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things, (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC further stated that it will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.
CFPB publishes rulemaking agenda
On June 11, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs released the CFPB’s spring 2021 rulemaking agenda. According to a Bureau announcement, the information released represents regulatory matters the Bureau is “currently pursuing under interim leadership pending the appointment and confirmation of a permanent Director.” Any changes made by the new permanent director will be reflected in the fall 2021 rulemaking agenda. Additionally, the Bureau indicates that it plans to continue to focus resources on actions addressing the adverse impacts to consumers due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, and highlighted an interim final rule issued in April that addresses certain debt collector conduct associated with the CDC’s temporary eviction moratorium order (covered by InfoBytes here). The Bureau will also continue to take concrete steps toward furthering the agency’s “commitment to promoting racial and economic equity.”
Key rulemaking initiatives include:
- Small Business Rulemaking. Last September, the Bureau released a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) outline of proposals under consideration, convened an SBREFA panel last October, and released the panel’s final report last December (covered by InfoBytes here and here). The Bureau reports that it anticipates releasing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the Section 1071 regulations this September to “facilitate enforcement of fair lending laws as well as enable communities, governmental entities, and creditors to identify business and community development needs and opportunities of women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses.”
- Consumer Access to Financial Records. The Bureau notes that it is considering rulemaking to implement section 1033 of Dodd-Frank in order to address the availability of electronic consumer financial account data. The Bureau is currently reviewing comments received in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) issued last fall regarding consumer data access (covered by InfoBytes here).
- Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau published an ANPR in March 2019 seeking feedback on the unique features of PACE financing and the general implications of regulating PACE financing under TILA. The Bureau notes that it continues “to engage with stakeholders and collect information for the rulemaking, including by pursuing quantitative data on the effect of PACE on consumers’ financial outcomes.”
- Automated Valuation Models (AVM). Interagency rulemaking is currently being pursued by the Bureau, Federal Reserve Board, OCC, FDIC, NCUA, and FHFA to develop regulations for AVM quality control standards as required by Dodd-Frank amendments to FIRREA. The standards are designed to, among other things, “ensure a high level of confidence in the estimates produced by the valuation models, protect against the manipulation of data, [ ] avoid conflicts of interest, require random sample testing and reviews,” and account for any other appropriate factors. An NPRM is anticipated for December.
- Amendments to Regulation Z to Facilitate LIBOR Transition. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Bureau issued an NPRM in June 2020 to amend Regulation Z to address the sunset of LIBOR, and to facilitate creditors’ transition away from using LIBOR as an index for variable-rate consumer products. A final rule is expected in January 2022.
- Reviewing Existing Regulations. The Bureau notes in its announcement that while it will conduct an assessment of a rule implementing HMDA (most of which took effect January 2018), it will no longer pursue two HMDA proposed rulemakings previously listed in earlier agendas related to the reporting of HMDA data points and public disclosure of HMDA data. Additionally, the Bureau states that it finished a review of Regulation Z rules implementing the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 and plans to publish any resulting changes in the fall 2021 agenda.
The Bureau’s announcement also highlights several completed rulemaking items, including (i) a final rule that formally extended the mandatory compliance date of the General Qualified Mortgage final rule to October 1, 2022 (covered by InfoBytes here); (ii) proposed amendments to the mortgage servicing early intervention and loss mitigation-related provisions under RESPA/Regulation X (covered by a Buckley Special Alert) (the Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule before June 30, when the federal foreclosure moratoria are set to expire); and (iii) a proposed rule (covered by InfoBytes here), which would extend the effective date of two final debt collection rules to allow affected parties additional time to comply due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic (the Bureau plans to issue a final rule in June on whether, and for how long, it will extend the effective date once it reviews comments).
Fed winding down Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility
On June 2, the Federal Reserve Board announced plans to wind down the portfolio of the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF), a temporary emergency lending facility that was established and provided by the Treasury Department under the CARES Act, which closed in December 2020. The SMCCF (covered by InfoBytes here) played a role in restoring market functioning, supported the availability of credit for certain employers, and assisted employment numbers during the Covid-19 pandemic. According to the announcement, sales from the SMCCF portfolio will be “gradual and orderly,” aiming to decrease the likelihood of “any adverse impact on market functioning by taking into account daily liquidity and trading conditions for exchange traded funds and corporate bonds.” The announcement also indicates that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which manages the operations of the SMCCF, will release more details before sales begin.
2nd Circuit says challenge to OCC’s fintech charter is unripe
On June 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a 2019 district court ruling, holding that NYDFS lacked Article III standing to pursue claims that the OCC’s policy to issue Special Purpose National Bank charters (SPNB charters) to non-depository fintech companies exceeded its statutory authority. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court entered final judgment in favor of NYDFS after concluding that the OCC’s SPNB policy should be set aside “with respect to all fintech applicants seeking a national bank charter that do not accept deposits,” rather than only those that have a nexus to New York State. Among other things, the district court, in denying the OCC’s motion to dismiss, determined that the OCC exceeded its authority under the National Bank Act because the Act “unambiguously requires receiving deposits as an aspect of the business,” and that “absent a statutory provision to the contrary, only depository institutions are eligible to receive [a SPNB] from [the] OCC.” The OCC appealed, and both parties filed briefs addressing issues related to ripeness and standing (covered by InfoBytes here).
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit concluded that NYDFS lacked Article III standing to pursue its claims because it failed to show that it had suffered an actual or imminent injury from the OCC’s decision to issue SPNB charters. The appellate court also found NYDFS’s claims to be “constitutionally unripe,” holding that NYDFS’s challenge is too speculative since no non-depository fintech companies have applied for or have been granted an SPNB charter. “It is unclear at this juncture whether New York law will ever be preempted in the ways [NYDFS] fears,” the appellate court wrote. However, the 2nd Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to decide the remaining issues on appeal and did not address the district court’s finding that “the ‘business of banking’ under the NBA unambiguously requires the receipt of deposits.” The appellate court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice.
NYDFS Superintendent Linda Lacewell issued a statement following the 2nd Circuit’s decision, in which she reiterated the importance of “guarding against any encroachment on the state regulatory system” and urged the OCC to reconsider its policy.
Fed amends Reg. D, invites comments on FedNow transfers
On June 2, the Federal Reserve Board announced the approval of a final rule amending Regulation D, which eliminates “references to an interest on required reserves” rate and “to an interest on excess reserves” rate and replaces them with a reference to “a single interest on reserve balances” rate. The final rule also simplifies “the formula used to calculate the amount of interest paid on balances maintained by or on behalf of eligible institutions in master accounts at Federal Reserve Banks.” The final rule is effective July 29.
Earlier, on June 1, the Fed also issued a proposed rule, which would create a new, comprehensive set of rules for governing funds transfers over the FedNow Service. Specifically, the proposed rule would amend Regulation J by establishing a new subpart C to specify terms and conditions for the processing of funds transfers by Reserve Banks. It would also grant Reserve Banks the authority to issue operating circulars for the FedNow Service, and would include, among other things, a requirement that a beneficiary’s bank agree to “make funds available to the beneficiary immediately after it has accepted the payment order.” The Fed is also proposing changes and clarifications to subpart B, which governs the Fedwire Funds Services, “to reflect the fact that the Reserve Banks will be operating a second funds transfer service in addition to the Fedwire Funds Service.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed intends to implement the FedNow Service—a “round-the-clock real-time payment and settlement service”—through a phased approach with a target launch date sometime in 2023 or 2024. Comments on the proposed rule are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
FDIC announces West Virginia disaster relief
On June 1, the FDIC issued FIL-38-2021 to provide regulatory relief to financial institutions and help facilitate recovery in areas of West Virginia affected by severe storms. The FDIC acknowledged the unusual circumstances faced by institutions affected by the storms and suggested that institutions work with impacted borrowers to, among other things, (i) extend repayment terms; (ii) restructure existing loans; or (iii) ease terms for new loans to those affected by the severe weather, provided the measures are done “in a manner consistent with sound banking practices.” Additionally, the FDIC noted that institutions “may receive favorable Community Reinvestment Act consideration for community development loans, investments, and services in support of disaster recovery.” The FDIC will also consider regulatory relief from certain filing and publishing requirements.