InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
GAO Releases Report on Mortgage Servicing
On July 25, the GAO released a report titled “Mortgage Servicing: Community Lenders Remain Active under New Rules, but CFPB Needs More Complete Plans for Reviewing Rules.” At the request of the House Committee on Financial Services, the GAO report outlines and analyzes the effect of the CFPB’s 2013 mortgage-servicing rules and the banking regulators’ implementation of the Basel III framework on credit unions and community banks’ (collectively, community lenders) mortgage servicing activities. Specifically, the GAO report examines (i) community lenders’ participation in the mortgage servicing market, as well as the potential effect of the new mortgage servicing rules on them; (ii) the potential impact that the Basel III framework could have on community lenders’ decisions to hold or sell Mortgage Servicing Rights (MSR); and (iii) regulators’ processes for estimating the impact of the new regulations.
Overall, the GAO report suggests that community lenders’ decisions to sell or hold MSRs likely will not be affected by the new capital treatment of MSRs under the Basel III framework because their concentration of MSRs is limited: “Most representatives of community banks said that regulatory changes to the capital treatment of MSRs did not require them to sell MSRs or raise additional capital.” Although officials from two community banks with larger concentrations of MSRs suggested that “the rules would prevent the bank from growing as much as it would like,” the GAO concludes that community lenders’ participation in MSR sales is based on several factors other than MSR capital treatment, including volatility in the value of MSRs, compliance risk, and interest rates and prepayments.
According to the report, the new mortgage servicing regulations increased compliance costs for community lenders, but have yet to affect adversely their participation in the mortgage servicing market. In fact, the GAO found that, between 2008 and 2015, the share of mortgages serviced by community lenders doubled. The report states that community lenders continue to service mortgage loans held in portfolio or hold MSRs, despite the increase in regulatory requirements and compliance costs, because such activities generate income and help them to maintain strong customer relationships. Regarding profitability, representatives from one credit union noted that “servicing mortgages provides it with the opportunity to develop borrowers into full members with checking and savings accounts and car loans.” Community lenders further highlighted the significance of working directly with customers encountering errors or difficulty during the loss mitigation process: “Representatives at several industry associations and community lenders [told the GAO] that community banks and credit unions preferred to retain MSRs even if they sold the mortgages in the secondary market because they were able to maintain close customer contact should issues arise.” The report recognizes that, for community lenders servicing 5,000 or fewer mortgages, the CFPB’s exemptions for small servicers and creditors were helpful to their businesses and customers. Still, some community lenders reported having to adjust their business practices to manage increased compliance costs, highlighting increases in fees and interest rates, as well as changes to product offerings.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB must retrospectively review the effectiveness of its mortgage servicing rules by January 2019. According to the report, as of April 2016, the CFPB’s plans for retrospective review are incomplete because agency officials determined that, among other things, it was “too soon to identify the relevant data and because the agency wanted the flexibility to design the most effective method to analyze the rules.” The report states that, without having finalized a review plan, including outlining its proposed methodologies for seeking public input, the CFPB risks not having sufficient time to complete an effective review. As such, the GAO recommends that the CFPB “complete a plan to identify the outcomes [it] will examine to measure the effects of the regulations, including the specific metrics, baselines, and analytical methods to be used.”
CSBS Names Charles Cooper Chairman of Board of Directors; Calls for Regulatory Collaboration
On May 24, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced several new officers, including Charles G. Cooper, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Banking, who will serve as the chairman of the CSBS Board of Directors. In his new role, Cooper delivered remarks at the State-Federal Supervisors Forum on May 26, addressing the following current issues facing the banking industry: (i) community banking; (ii) cybersecurity; and (iii) financial services provided by non-depository institutions, commenting on the expansion of the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry to include check cashers, debt collectors, and money service businesses. Cooper emphasized the significance of community banks, stating, “[t]heir role in providing credit and banking services is just as important as that of the largest financial intuitions.” Observing the decline in the number of community banks, Cooper called on Congress to implement “right-size regulation through legislation,” and stressed that regulators “need to continue to right-size [their] regulatory and supervisory processes.” Regarding cybersecurity, Cooper mentioned the CSBS Executive Leadership on Cyber Security (ELOC) program, which is intended to “bring [the] cyber issue out of the backroom and into the Board room.” Finally, Cooper concluded by calling on state and federal regulators, including the newer CFPB and FinCEN agencies, to “commit to working better together.”
FDIC Provides Commentary on Responsibilities and Duties of Banks' Boards of Directors
On April 5, the FDIC issued a special Corporate Governance Edition of its Supervisory Insights publication titled, “21st Century Reflections on the FDIC Pocket Guide for Directors.” The new edition provides guidance to community bank boards of directors as well as an expanded, community bank-focused commentary on the FDIC Pocket Guide for Directors, which was issued in 1988. It covers a range of topics, such as the proper roles of directors and officers, as well as objectives for the development of policies and procedures for risk management and strategic planning. While the existing version of the Pocket Guide remains unchanged, this edition of Supervisory Insights incorporates more recent guidance and resources that the FDIC has provided since 1988. For example, the FDIC emphasizes that, “[i]n addition to covering areas outlined in the Pocket Guide and Safety and Soundness Standards, community bank directors should ensure that senior management has established appropriate risk management policies and procedures in Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance, information technology and cyber risk, and compliance with Community Reinvestment Act and consumer protection laws and regulations.”
OCC Announces Workshop for Bank Directors
On May 2 through May 4, the OCC will host a workshop in Wilmington, Delaware for directors of national community banks and federal savings associations. With a focus on directors’ duties and core responsibilities, the workshop will discuss major laws and regulations and is intended to increase familiarity with the examination process. The OCC is limiting the workshop’s capacity to the first 35 registrants.
CFPB Adopts Procedural Rule Establishing Application Process for the Designation of Rural Areas
On March 3, the CFPB adopted a procedural rule to establish an application process for identifying an area as rural or underserved that the CFPB, pursuant its authority under the Dodd-Frank Act, had not yet designated as rural. In December 2015, Congress passed the FAST Act, which contained several provisions intended to provide regulatory relief to community banks, including implementing a process under which banks and other stakeholders could petition the CFPB for rural or underserved designations in certain areas for the purposes of Federal consumer financial law. The CFPB’s recently issued procedural rule establishes such an application process. Under the process, banks must submit an application—by mail, email or hand delivery—to the CFPB Rural Application Coordinator containing, among other things, the following: (i) identifying information for the proposed designated rural area; (ii) justification for the proposed designation, providing supporting information from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Agriculture, and the State Bank Supervisor; and (iii) the area’s population density, including comparative information regarding “the population density of any nearby area with a greater population density that has been designated by the Bureau as a rural area.” The CFPB will begin accepting applications on March 31, 2016.
OCC to Host Credit and Compliance Risks Workshops
On March 22, the OCC will host a Credit Risk workshop for directors of national community banks and federal savings associations. The workshop will focus on credit risk within the loan portfolio, including identifying trends and recognizing problems. In addition, the workshop will address (i) the board and management’s roles; (ii) how to stay informed of changes in credit risk; and (iii) how to effect change. On March 23, the OCC will host a separate Compliance Risk workshop that will include lectures, discussions, and exercises on key elements of a robust compliance risk management system. Topic discussions will include the BSA, Community Reinvestment Act, and the TRID rule. Both workshops will take place in Santa Ana, California; capacity is limited to the first 35 registrants.
FDIC Issues Quarterly Banking Profile for Third Quarter 2015
The FDIC published its most recent Quarterly Banking Profile, summarizing the latest financial results for the banking industry. According to the FDIC’s findings, community banks reported net income of $5.2 billion in the third quarter of 2015, up 7.5% from the previous year. The Profile’s featured article – Financial Performance and Management Structure of Small, Closely Held Banks – indicates that closely held banks are outperforming widely held banks in operational efficiency and financial performance. The FDIC’s research suggests that management structures in which a bank’s managers are members of the ownership group or ownership insiders prove beneficial in that principal-agent problems are minimized because the “manager can be expected to act in the interests of the owners because the manager is an owner.” Although the Profile comments on the disadvantages of the organizational form of closely held banks, including succession issues and difficulty in raising capital, the researchers conclude that the “favorable comparisons between closely held and widely held community banks suggest that the closely held organizational form is by no means an impediment to performance, and may well be one of the keys to the success of closely held banks.”
FDIC Scott Strockoz to Serve as Acting National Director of Minority and Community Development Banking
On January 15, the FDIC announced that Robert W. Mooney, national director for Minority and Community Development Banking, retired at the end of 2015. Scott D. Strockoz will serve as acting national director for Minority and Community Development Banking. Strockoz currently serves as deputy regional director in the New York Region and oversees examination activities regarding financial institutions’ compliance with consumer protection, fair lending, and community reinvestment laws and regulations. Strockoz “holds examiner commissions in both risk management and consumer protection and has additionally served as review examiner, field supervisor, acting regional director, and acting associate director, Compliance and Consumer Protection.”
GAO Publishes Report Regarding the Impact of Dodd-Frank Regulations on Community Banks, Credit Unions, and Systemically Important Institutions
On December 30, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its fifth report mandated by Section 1573(a) of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 (Act), which amended Dodd-Frank, and requires the GAO to annually review financial services regulations, including those of the CFPB. The report reviews 26 Dodd-Frank rules that became effective from July 23, 2014 through July 22, 2015 to examine whether the agencies conducted the required regulatory analyses and coordination. In addition, it examines nine Dodd-Frank rules that were effective as of October 2015 to determine their impact on community banks and credit unions. Finally, the report assesses Dodd-Frank’s impact on large bank holding companies. The GAO found that the agencies conducted the required regulatory analyses for rules issued under Dodd-Frank and reported required coordination. In addition, surveys of community banks and credit unions suggest that the Dodd-Frank rules under review have resulted in an increased compliance burden, a decline in certain business activities in some cases (e.g., loans that are not qualified mortgages), and moderate to minimal initial reductions in the availability of credit. Although “regulatory data to date have not confirmed a negative impact on mortgage lending,” “these results do not necessarily rule out significant effects or the possibility that effects may arise in the future.” Finally, the GAO concluded that the full impact of Dodd-Frank on large bank holding companies remains uncertain, but summarized the results of certain analyses in the report.
FAST Act to Provide Regulatory Relief to Community Banks
On December 4, President Obama signed into law H.R. 22, the “Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act” (FAST Act). Although a transportation bill on its surface, the bill also contains various provisions that are intended to provide regulatory relief to community banks and improve the efficiency of state financial regulation. Significant provisions in the bill include: (i) establishing a process that allows parties, including banks and other stakeholders, to petition the CFPB for “rural” or “underserved” designations in certain areas for the purposes of the CFPB’s ability-to-repay rule; (ii) expanding the CFPB’s ability to exempt creditors serving rural or underserved areas from escrow requirements; (iii) granting greater flexibility to the CFPB in regards to treating a balloon loan as a qualified mortgage, if a community bank or creditor operating in a rural or underserved area extended the loan; (iv) increasing the threshold for 18-month exam cycles for well-capitalized banks from $500 million to $1 billion; and (v) authorizing the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System – which state regulators use to license various nonbank financial services industries, such as money transmitters, payday lenders, and debt collectors – to process background checks for non-mortgage license applicants.
In addition, the act provides relief to all financial institutions meeting certain criteria from annual Gramm-Leach-Bliley privacy notice requirements. Pursuant the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and Regulation P, financial institutions were required to submit privacy notices, physically, or with consent electronically, to customers; in 2014, the CFPB amended Regulation P permitting institutions to post privacy notices online without customer consent, so long as certain criteria were met. The FAST Act’s statutory change in Section 75001 removes some of the criteria so that financial institutions do not have to send annual privacy notices so long as (i) their information sharing practices have not changed since its last notice; and (ii) they do not engage in information sharing that requires providing customers with an opt-out under the GLBA.