InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fed updates legal interpretations related to several regulations
On December 30, the Federal Reserve Board added several new frequently asked questions related to legal interpretations of the Board’s regulations, including Regulations H, O, W, and Y, as well as questions concerning covered savings associations. The Fed noted that, unless specified, the FAQs are staff interpretations and have not been approved by the Board. Future revisions or supplements may be released as necessary or appropriate.
- Regulation H: Five new FAQs discuss (i) branch closing procedures and required notices; (ii) the ability to conduct branch activities should a bank relocate its main office; (iii) when a bank may acquire a debt obligation under its general powers to lend under state law; and (iv) public welfare investments made by state member banks involving housing projects with multiple residential buildings.
- Regulation O: A revised FAQ states that banks may not offer discounts on loan origination fees to an insider if the discount is not available to members of the public with one exception: a bank is not prohibited from “extending credit to an insider as part of a benefit or compensation program that (i) is widely available to employees of the member bank and (ii) does not give preference to any insider of the member bank over other employees of the member bank.”
- Regulation W: Thirty-four new FAQs address various topics related to (i) provisions concerning nonaffiliate and affiliate lending and extensions of credit under the attribution rule; (ii) valuation and timing principles; (iii) revolving credit facilities and loan commitments involving nonaffiliates; (iv) asset purchases from affiliates; (v) a bank’s acquisition of another company’s shares and liabilities; and (vi) exemptions.
- Regulation Y: Nine new FAQs discuss (i) circumstances under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHC Act) where “a bank or company that holds bank shares in a fiduciary capacity [would] be considered to have sole discretionary authority to exercise voting rights”; (ii) tying restriction qualifications, exceptions, and safe harbor; (iii) factors considered in the acquisition of bank securities or assets; (iv) trustee powers; (v) filing requirements for persons acquiring ownership or control of shares; (vi) appraisal standards for federally-related transactions; and (vii) rules for engaging in an activity that is complementary to a financial activity. The Fed notes that while these FAQs refer at times to bank holding companies, the FAQs are also applicable to foreign banking organizations that are subject to the BHC Act in the same manner as a bank holding company under the International Banking Act of 1978.
- Covered Savings Associations: Twenty-nine new FAQs address topics related to covered savings associations (CSAs) and companies that control a CSA pursuant to Section 5A of the Home Owners’ Loan Act. Among other things, the FAQs address (i) the scope of Section 5A; (ii) a CSA’s membership in the Federal Reserve System; (iii) filing requirements; (iv) requirements applicable to a CSA or a company controlling a CSA, as well as mutual CSAs and mutual holding companies controlling a CSA; (v) transactions involving a CSA or a company controlling a CSA; and (vi) the termination of an election to operate as a CSA.
FDIC releases November enforcement actions
On December 30, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in November. During the month, the FDIC made public fourteen orders consisting of “three Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalty, one Consent Order, three Termination of Consent Orders, one Order Terminating Supervisory Prompt Corrective Action Directive, one Amended Supervisory Prompt Corrective Action Directive, two Orders of Prohibition from Further Participation, and three Section 19 Orders.” Among the orders is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Nebraska-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. 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 a loan 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 and/or the servicer 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 $6,500 civil money penalty.
The FDIC and the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation also issued a consent order to a California-based bank, which alleged that the bank had unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to management, capital, asset quality, liquidity and funds management, and violations of law. The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, retain qualified management and “maintain its total risk-based capital ratio in such an amount as to equal or exceed 12 percent.”
FDIC publishes new primary purpose exception to the brokered deposit rule
On December 31, the FDIC published a notice in the Federal Register of a new business relationship that may now qualify for the primary purpose exception to the brokered deposits rule through a new designated exception. According to the notice, the following additional business arrangement meets the primary purpose exception: “[t]he agent or nominee is ‘engaged in the business of placing’ customer funds at IDIs [insured depository institutions], in a custodial capacity, based upon instructions received from a depositor or depositor’s agent specific to each IDI and deposit account, and the agent or nominee neither plays any role in determining at which IDI(s) to place any customers’ funds, nor negotiates or set rates, terms, fees, or conditions, for the deposit account.” Notice or application to the FDIC is not required to rely on this exception. The notice also pointed out “that a depositor or depositor’s agent that meets the deposit broker definition and uses the services of a custodial agent that meets this designated exception to place deposits would result in such deposits being classified as brokered deposits,” and that “[t]he involvement of the non-discretionary custodial agent does not change the classification of deposits placed by, or through the facilitation of, an entity that otherwise meets the deposit broker definition.” Full compliance with the new brokered deposit rule became required on January 1, 2022.
Treasury issues final rule supporting the Covid-19 response
On January 6, the U.S. Treasury Department issued the final rule for the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) program, which was established under the American Rescue Plan Act, and has delivered approximately $350 billion to state, local, and Tribal governments for Covid-19 pandemic relief. According to Treasury, the “SLFRF program ensures governments have the resources needed to respond to the pandemic, including providing health and vaccine services, supporting families and businesses struggling with the pandemic’s economic impacts, maintaining vital public services, and building a strong and equitable recovery.” Highlights of the final rule include providing additional clarity and flexibility for recipient governments by, among other things: (i) expanding the list of eligible uses for funds; (ii) increasing support for public sector hiring and capacity; (iii) streamlining options to provide premium pay for essential workers; and (iv) broadening eligible water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure projects. The rule is effective April 1, 2022.
The same day, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced that its efforts to spur mortgage servicers’ participation in the California Mortgage Relief Program, which is funded by Treasury under the American Rescue Plan Act, has “helped forge a national model to protect homeowners impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.” According to the announcement, among other things, DFPI “issued a historic reporting requirement for residential mortgage servicing licensees to report how they would be protecting homeowners through increased mortgage relief staffing, mitigation efforts such as repayment plans, and state and federal mortgage relief funding,” and “encouraged mortgage lenders and servicers to work with affected customers and communities to avoid foreclosures.”
FTC comments on CFPB’s big tech payments inquiry
On December 21, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan submitted a comment in response to the CFPB's Notice and Request for Comment inquiring about the CFPB’s October orders issued to six large U.S. technology companies seeking information and data on their payment system business practices. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In her comment, Khan noted her three areas of concern that she hopes can help to inform the CFPB’s inquiry, including that big tech companies’ (i) “participation in payments and financial services could enable them to entrench and extend their market positions and privileged access to data and AI techniques in potentially anticompetitive and exploitative ways”; (ii) “use of algorithmic decision-making in financial services amplifies concerns of discrimination, bias, and opacity”; and (iii) “increasingly commingled roles as payment and authentication providers could concentrate risk and create single points of failure.” Khan noted that “[t]he potential risks created by Big Tech’s expansion into payments and financial services are notable and demand close scrutiny,” and stated that she will be monitoring “this inquiry and the findings it produces to help inform the FTC’s work.”
VA extends suspension of certain property inspection requirements for Covid-19 forbearance cases
On December 21, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-21-27 to extend the suspension of certain inspection requirements for properties purchased with loans guaranteed by the VA where the borrower has been negatively impacted by Covid-19. In 2020, the VA temporarily suspended its requirement to conduct a property inspection before the 60th day of delinquency for borrowers whose loans are currently in forbearance and were current or had not reached the 60th day of delinquency when the borrower requested CARES Act forbearance. Circular 26-21-27 sunsets on October 1, 2022.
President Biden signs NDAA into law
On December 27, President Biden signed S. 1605 the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022” (NDAA) into law. The NDAA provisions include Section 6107, which requires the Treasury Secretary to conduct a briefing within one year of the law’s enactment before the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on the delegation of examination authority under the Bank Secrecy Act. Additionally, Section 6207 expands the coverage of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act protections related to the termination of residential or motor vehicle leases and telephone service contracts. Specifically, Section 6207 makes those protections applicable to members of the Foreign Service who are posted abroad at a Foreign Service post.
OCC revises CRA small and intermediate bank asset-size threshold adjustments
On December 30, the OCC announced revisions to the asset-size thresholds used to define small and intermediate small banks and savings associations under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Effective January 1, a small bank or savings association will mean an institution that, as of December 31 of either of the past two years, had assets of less than $1.384 billion. An intermediate small bank or savings association will mean an institution with assets of at least $346 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two years, and less than $1.384 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two years. The adjustments follow a final rule issued last month, which rescinded the OCC’s 2020 CRA rule and replaced it with a rule based largely on the prior rules adopted jointly by the federal banking agencies in 1995, as amended. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Under the 2021 final rule, banks are evaluated under different CRA examination procedures based on their asset-size threshold amounts. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC also announced joint annual adjustments to the CRA asset-size thresholds used to define “small bank” and “intermediate small bank” in December.
Jelena McWilliams to resign as FDIC chairman
On December 31, Jelena McWilliams announced her resignation as FDIC Chairman effective February 4. McWilliams, who was appointed in 2018, noted in her resignation letter to President Biden that throughout her tenure at the agency the FDIC “has focused on its fundamental mission to maintain and instill confidence in our banking system while at the same time promoting innovation, strengthening financial inclusion, improving transparency, and supporting community banks and minority depository institutions, including through the creation of the Mission Driven Bank Fund.” She also credited FDIC staff for taking swift measures to maintain stability and provide flexibility for banks and consumers impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.
McWilliams’ resignation follows a conflict among members of the FDIC Board of Directors related to a joint request for information (RFI) seeking public comment on revisions to the FDIC’s framework for vetting proposed bank mergers. Last month, FDIC Board member Martin J. Gruenberg and Rohit Chopra (who has an automatic board seat as Director of the CFPB) issued a joint statement announcing that the FDIC Board of Directors voted to launch a public comment period on updating the FDIC’s regulatory implementation of the Bank Merger Act. Gruenberg and Chopra indicated at the time that the Board members taking part in this action had approved the RFI. Shortly following the announcement, the FDIC released a statement disputing that any action had been approved. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Chopra issued a follow-up statement challenging the view that only the FDIC Chairperson has the right to raise matters for discussion in Board meetings, and called for “immediate[]” resolution of the conflict, stating that “[a]bsent a return to legal reality and constructive engagement, board members will need to take further steps to exercise independence from management and to ensure sound governance of the [FDIC].” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
CFPB examines pandemic’s effects on consumer finances
On December 21, the CFPB released a data point report discussing the results of a Making Ends Meet survey, which examined consumers’ financial health during the Covid-19 pandemic. Using the results from the survey as well associated credit bureau data, the Bureau found that while consumers “were much more likely to face income drops during the pandemic,” their “financial well-being scores improved on average through the end of the survey period (February 2021).” The Bureau reported that this may be attributed to pandemic-assistance policies, including unemployment insurance and pandemic-specific loan and rent flexibilities, many of which have ended or will end soon. Among the report’s observations, the Bureau noted a pattern between credit card debt and credit card utilization rates, where “credit card debt increased and decreased as cash assistance policies started and stopped.” Additionally, with the exception of federal student loan borrowers who received an automatic zero-payment-due plan, the Bureau found that roughly “80 percent of consumers who received rent, mortgage, credit card, or other forbearance suffered a significant income drop.” Recognizing that these policies helped protect consumers impacted by pandemic, the Bureau cautioned that “their expiration may lead to increased consumer distress unless the economic recovery is strong and equitable enough to make up for the loss of protections.”