InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Chopra discusses DIF restoration plan
On December 14, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra expressed concerns with the FDIC’s current plan to “restore the Deposit Insurance Fund to the statutory minimum in 2028.” The Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires the development and adoption of a Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) Restoration Plan (Plan) when the fund’s reserve ratio drops below 1.35 percent or is expected to within six months. According to the FDIC, “[e]xtraordinary growth in insured deposits during the first and second quarters of 2020 caused the reserve ratio to decline below the statutory minimum as of June 30, 2020.” The FDIC Board adopted the Plan in September 2020 to restore DIF’s levels to at least 1.35 percent by September 30, 2028, but noted during the Plan’s semiannual update for 2021 that “the overall economic outlook has strengthened relative to when the Plan was first adopted in September 2020,” and that “the banking system continues to appear better positioned to withstand losses when compared to prior periods of stress.” FDIC Chair Jelena McWilliams also commented that since it is difficult to predict deposit trends and potential losses, the agency will continue to monitor this space.
Chopra cautioned that “[g]iven the significant uncertainty in the projections embedded in this plan—and the ultimate goal to have the Deposit Insurance Fund well exceed the 1.35% statutory minimum—we must continue to carefully analyze this plan to probe whether any amendments are necessary prior to the next semi-annual update to the Board of Directors.” He further noted that the 2008 financial crisis highlighted the importance of “countercyclical policy,” and that “regulatory and supervisory safeguards should be strengthened in stronger economic times, when risks tend to build in the financial system and when bank profits are robust.”
FDIC proposes changes to deposit insurance regulations for trust accounts and mortgage servicing accounts
On July 20, the FDIC published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would amend the deposit insurance regulations for trust accounts and mortgage servicing accounts. The changes are intended to clarify the deposit insurance rules for depositors and bankers, enable more timely insurance determinations for trust accounts in the circumstance of a bank failure, and increase consistency of insurance coverage for mortgage servicing account deposits. According to the FDIC, some highlights include, among other things, that: (i) a deposit owner’s trust deposits would be insured up to $250,000 per beneficiary, but must not exceed five beneficiaries, regardless of if a trust is revocable or irrevocable, and regardless of contingencies or the allocation of funds among the beneficiaries; (ii) a maximum amount of deposit insurance coverage would be $1.25 million per owner, per insured depository institution for trust deposits; and (iii) “mortgage servicers’ advances of principal and interest funds on behalf of mortgagors in a mortgage servicing account would be insured up to $250,000 per mortgagor, consistent with the coverage for payments of principal and interest collected directly from mortgagors.” Additionally, the FDIC published a Fact Sheet on the NPRM, which provides an overview of simplifying deposit insurance rules for trust accounts and enhancing consistency for mortgage servicing account deposits. FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams released a statement specifying that the NPRM would, “merge the revocable and irrevocable trust categories into one uniform trust accounts category with one set of rules; establish a simple formula for calculating deposit insurance based on the number of beneficiaries; and eliminate the ability for a trust account to be structured to obtain unlimited deposit insurance at a bank, which is the case today, and certainly contrary to the spirit of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.” Comments on the NPRM will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
OCC counters CSBS’s arguments in fintech charter challenge
On April 29, the OCC responded to the Conference of State Bank Supervisors’ (CSBS) most recent challenge to the OCC’s authority to issue Special Purpose National Bank Charters (SPNB). As previously covered by InfoBytes, CSBS filed a complaint last December opposing the OCC’s alleged impending approval of an SPNB for a financial services provider, arguing that the OCC is exceeding its chartering authority.
The OCC countered, however, that the same fatal flaws that pervaded CSBS’s prior challenges (covered by InfoBytes here), i.e., that its challenge is unripe and CSBS lacks standing, still remain. According to the OCC, the cited application (purportedly curing CSBS’s prior ripeness issues) is not for an SPNB—the proposed bank would conduct a full range of services, including deposit taking. Further, the OCC stated, even it if was an application for a SPNB charter, there are multiple additional steps that need to occur prior to the OCC issuing the charter, which made the challenge unripe. As to standing, the OCC asserted that any alleged injury to CSBS or its members is purely speculative. Finally, the OCC contended that CSBS’s challenge fails on the merits because the challenge relies on the premise that the company’s application must be for a SPNB, not a national bank, because the company is not going to apply for deposit insurance but there is no requirement in the National Bank Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or the Federal Reserve Act that requires all national banks to acquire FDIC insurance.
FDIC proposal would prohibit misuse of its name or logo
On April 22, the FDIC proposed a rule implementing its authority to prohibit “making misrepresentations about deposit insurance or misusing the FDIC’s name or logo.” The proposed rule is intended to promote transparency on the FDIC’s processes for inspecting and enforcing potential breaches of prohibitions under the FDIC Act by “further clarify[ing] [] procedures for identifying, investigating, and where necessary taking formal and informal action to address potential violations of Section 18(a)(4).” Additionally, the proposed rule would establish a primary point of contact for the public to report or inquire about potential violations. The FDIC specified that the proposed rule is in response to the “increasing number of instances where financial services providers or other entities or individuals have misused the FDIC’s name or logo.”
Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
FDIC finalizes policy statement on bank employment standards
On July 24, the FDIC issued a final rule, which formalizes the agency’s Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) Section 19 policy statement covering individuals seeking to work in the banking industry who have been convicted of certain crimes. In general, Section 19 of the FDI Act prohibits, without the prior written consent of the FDIC, any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering—or who has entered into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with such an offense—from participating in the banking industry. In August 2018, the FDIC updated the statement of policy to, among other things, expand the criteria of de minimis offenses for which the FDIC will not require the filing of an application (covered by InfoBytes here), and in November 2019, the FDIC issued the proposed rule to finalize the policy statement (covered by InfoBytes here).
The final rule, among other things, (i) exempts all individuals whose covered offenses have been expunged; (ii) expands the scope of the de minimis exception for certain qualifying offenses involving the use of false or fake identification, as well as for small-dollar, simple theft offenses; (iii) eliminates waiting periods for applicants who have had only one qualifying covered offense; and (iv) allows a person with two de minimis offenses to qualify for the de minimis exception, and decreases the waiting period for two such offenses to three years (or 18 months for those who were 21 or younger at the time of the offense).
FDIC releases January enforcement actions
On February 28, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in January. The FDIC issued 18 orders, which “consisted of two consent orders; one civil money penalty; three removal and prohibition orders; eight section 19 orders; three terminations of consent orders and cease and desist orders; and one order terminating prompt corrective action.” Among the actions was a civil money penalty assessed against a Montana-based bank for allegedly violating the Flood Disaster Protection Act by failing to obtain adequate flood insurance coverage on certain loans and failing to provide borrowers with notice of the availability of federal disaster relief assistance. Separately, in a joint action with the California Department of Business Oversight, the agency issued a consent order against a California-based bank related to alleged weaknesses in its Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance program. Among other things, the bank was ordered to (i) retain qualified management to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations; (ii) “correct all violations of law to the extent possible”; (iii) implement a revised, written BSA compliance program to address BSA/AML deficiencies; (iv) establish a written Customer Due Diligence Program to ensure the reasonable detection of suspicious activity and the identification of higher-risk customers; (v) adopt a process for reviewing transaction monitoring alerts; and (vi) “ensure that suspicious activity monitoring system is independently validated.”
FDIC seeks to codify policy statement on bank employment standards
On November 19, the FDIC issued a proposed rule, which would formalize the agency’s Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) Section 19 policy statement covering individuals seeking to work in the banking industry who have been convicted of certain crimes. In general, Section 19 of the FDI Act prohibits, without the prior written consent of the FDIC, any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering—or who has entered into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with such an offense—from participating in the banking industry. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in August 2018, the FDIC updated the statement of policy to expand the criteria of de minimis offenses for which the FDIC will not require the filing of an application and (i) clarify when an expungement is considered complete for Section 19 purposes; (ii) recognize that convictions set aside based on procedural or substantive error should not be considered convictions under Section 19; and (iii) adjust the definition of “jail time” to not include “those on probation or parole who may be restricted to a particular jurisdiction.”
The proposal not only seeks to codify the policy statement but requests public comment on all aspects of the policy. According to Chairman McWilliams, the FDIC is particularly interested in “whether and how the FDIC should expand the criteria for what constitutes a de minimis offense.” Comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Fed cites control deficiencies in $1 million fine for BHC
On February 28, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against a bank holding company for alleged internal control deficiencies, resulting in unsafe and unsound practices in violation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act that caused a financial loss to the company. The consent order acknowledges that the company has since addressed the deficiencies that contributed to the loss and implemented additional improvements in its internal controls and audit programs. The Federal Reserve Board assessed a civil money penalty of $1,012,500.
8th Circuit: Bank that discharged employees as a “business necessity” did not violate Section 19 of the FDI Act
On August 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a lower court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of a national bank, holding that the bank did not violate the Federal Deposit Insurance Act’s Section 19 employment ban when it discharged African-American and Latino employees who previously had been convicted of crimes involving dishonesty. Under Section 19, individuals who have been convicted of a crime “involving dishonesty or a breach of trust” cannot be employed by a financial institution covered by federal deposit insurance. A bank that violates the ban is subject to criminal penalties, although an individual may request a waiver from the FDIC. According to the order, the bank screened all home mortgage division employees in 2012 and discharged anyone who was found to have a conviction without providing the option to apply for a waiver. The class members—who brought discrimination claims based on a disparate impact theory—complained that the bank’s automatic discharge of all affected employees impacted African Americans and Latinos at a higher rate than white employees, and contended that the bank could have prevented this result with an alternative such as giving employees “advance notice of the need for a Section 19 discharge, granting leave time to seek a waiver, and/or sponsoring a waiver.” The appellate court relied on data showing that approximately half of waiver applications are approved by the FDIC, and class members presented no data to show that sponsored waivers would ameliorate any racial disparity. In addition, the appellate court held that the bank’s decision to comply with the statute was a business necessity in light of the possibility of a $1 million-per-day fine “even if [the bank’s] policy of summarily terminating or not hiring any Section 19 disqualified individual creates a disparate impact.” Moreover, the appellate court stated that the class members “failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact,” and did not present a less discriminatory alternative that would serve the bank’s interests in compliance with the statute.
Federal Reserve Board fines national bank $8.6 million for legacy mortgage documentation deficiencies
On August 10, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) announced a settlement with a national bank for legacy mortgage servicing issues related to the improper preparation and notarization of lost note affidavits. Under the consent order, the Board assessed an $8.6 million civil money penalty for alleged safety and soundness violations under Section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The Board emphasized that the bank’s servicing subsidiary replaced the documents with properly executed and notarized affidavits and, as of September 2017, the subsidiary no longer participated in the mortgage servicing business. The Board also announced the termination, due to “sustainable improvements,” of a 2011 enforcement action against the national bank and its subsidiary related to residential mortgage loan servicing.