InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal banking agencies release policy statement on interagency notification of enforcement actions
On June 12, the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC (collectively, “Federal Banking Agencies” or “FBAs”) published in the Federal Register a policy statement on interagency notification of formal enforcement actions to assure ongoing coordination after the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council rescinded its 1997 revised policy statement on “Interagency Coordination of Formal Corrective Action by the Federal Bank Regulatory Agencies.” According to the new policy statement, when making a determination to bring a formal enforcement action, an FBA should evaluate whether a potential enforcement action involves the interests of another FBA and if so, should notify the agency prior to notifying the financial institution about the pending action. The notice to the FBA should contain enough information for the agency to take necessary action to examine or investigate the financial institution. The statement clarifies that the policy is not intended to substitute or replace the informal communication that routinely occurs between FBAs in advance of an enforcement action.
FDIC FIL addendum: Federal banking agencies will not enforce Volcker rule for financial institutions exempt under S.2155
On June 4, the FDIC issued FIL-31-2018, which contains an addendum describing legislative changes to Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act (Volcker rule) under the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155/P.L. 115-174) that are applicable to FDIC-insured depository institutions with total assets under $10 billion. (See previous InfoBytes coverage on S.2155 here.) Effective immediately, any financial institution that “‘does not have and is not controlled by a company that has (i) more than $10,000,000,000 in total consolidated assets; and (ii) total trading assets and trading liabilities as reported on the most recent applicable regulatory filing filed by the institution, that are more than 5 percent of total consolidated assets’” is exempt from the rule. As result, the federal banking agencies will no longer enforce the Volcker rule for qualifying financial institutions in a manner inconsistent with the statutory amendments to the Volcker rule, and announced plans “to address these statutory amendments outside of the current notice of proposed rulemaking.”
The federal banking agencies responsible for developing the proposal (the Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, FDIC, OCC, and SEC) also formally announced on June 5 a joint notice and request for public comment on the proposed revisions. Comments will be accepted for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
Visit here for InfoBytes coverage on the federal banking agencies’ proposed revisions to the Volcker rule announced May 30.
Federal Reserve Board issues proposed joint revisions to Volcker rule
On May 30, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) announced proposed revisions designed 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 Volcker rule). The proposal, subject to public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, was developed in coordination with the OCC, FDIC, SEC, and CFTC, and would modify regulations finalized in December 2013 to reduce compliance costs for banks. Two information collections were issued along with the proposal: Information Schedules and Quantitative Measurements Daily Schedule.
According to a Board memo, the proposed amendments would tailor Volcker rule requirements to better align with a bank’s level of trading activity and risks. The proposal would establish the following three categories based on trading activity: (i) “significant trading assets and liabilities,” which would consist of banks with gross trading assets and liabilities of at least $10 billion, and require a comprehensive compliance program tailored to reflect the Volcker rule’s requirements; (ii) “moderate trading assets and liabilities,” which would include banks with gross trading assets and liabilities of at least $1 billion but less than $10 billion, and impose reduced compliance obligations; and (iii) “limited trading assets and liabilities,” which would include banks with less than $1 billion in gross trading assets and liabilities, and subject them to the lowest level of regulatory compliance.
In addition, the proposal would, among other changes:
- provide more clarity by revising the definition of “trading account” to be an account used to buy or sell financial instruments recorded at fair value under commonly used accounting definitions;
- clarify that banks whose trades do not exceed appropriately developed internal risk limits are engaged in permissible market-making-related activity;
- streamline the criteria that applies when a bank relies on the hedging exemption from the proprietary trading prohibition, and remove a requirement that a trade “demonstrably reduces or otherwise significantly mitigates” a specific risk;
- ease the documentation requirement banks face when demonstrating trades are hedges, and eliminate requirements that a bank with only moderate or limited trading activity must develop “a separate internal compliance program for risk-mitigation hedging”;
- eliminate the 60-day rebuttable presumption for trades;
- expand the scope of the “liquidity management exclusion” in the Volcker rule to allow banks to use foreign exchange forwards, foreign exchange swaps, and physically settled cross-currency swaps as a part of liquidity management activities;
- limit the impact of the Volcker rule on foreign banks’ activity outside of the U.S.; and
- simplify the type of trading activity information that banks will be required to provide to the agencies.
Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell noted that after nearly five years of experience applying the Volcker rule, the proposed rule is a way to “allow firms to conduct appropriate activities without undue burden, and without sacrificing safety and soundness.”
Federal Reserve Board Governor Lael Brainard also commented that “[r]ather than requiring banking institutions to undertake specific quantitative analyses prescribed by the regulators, the proposed revisions would require banking institutions to establish internal risk limits to achieve the principle of not exceeding the reasonably expected near-term demands of customers, subject to supervisory review.”
Federal Reserve Board Vice Chair of Supervision Randal Quarles stated that while the regulatory relief bill signed into law on May 24 exempts banks with less than $10 billion in total assets from the Volcker rule (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the “proposed rule, however, would recognize that small asset size is not the only indicator of reduced proprietary trading risk.” Furthermore, the proposed rule is a “best first effort at simplifying and tailoring the Volcker rule” and does not represent the “completion of [the Board’s] work.”
Federal Reserve meeting to consider proposed overhaul of Volcker Rule set for May 30
On May 23, the Federal Reserve Board issued a notice announcing it will meet on May 30 to consider a proposal to modify the Volcker Rule. Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act currently restricts banks from engaging in proprietary trading and restricts their ownership of certain funds. As previously discussed in InfoBytes, last month the House passed the “Volcker Rule Regulatory Harmonization Act,” which, among other things, would provide clear exemptions for banking entities with $10 billion or less in consolidated assets or those comprised of five percent or less of trading assets and liabilities. A similar exemption is also included in the bipartisan Senate financial regulatory reform bill, S.2155, which was signed by President Trump on May 24. (See InfoBytes coverage on S.2155 here.)
Federal Reserve Governor discusses potential impact of digital innovations on the financial system
On May 15, Federal Reserve Board Governor Lael Brainard spoke at a digital currency conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to discuss how digital innovations may impact the financial system, specifically in the areas of payments, clearing, and settlement. Brainard discussed, among other things, the importance of understanding the impact these innovations may have on (i) investor and consumer protection issues, and (ii) cryptocurrency and distributed ledger technology governance, particularly with respect to Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering concerns. In addition, Brainard commented on the inherent risks and challenges surrounding the concept of a central bank digital currency, and noted that at this time, “there is no compelling demonstrated need for a Fed-issued digital currency [because] [m]ost consumers and businesses in the U.S. already make retail payments electronically using debit and credit cards, payment applications, and the automated clearinghouse network. Moreover, people are finding easy ways to make digital payments directly to other people through a variety of mobile apps.” Brainard noted, however, that the Federal Reserve is monitoring these technological developments as “digital tokens for wholesale payments and some aspects of distributed ledger technology—the key technologies underlying cryptocurrencies—may hold promise for strengthening traditional financial instruments and markets” in the coming years.
Federal Reserve Governor discusses Community Reinvestment Act modernization
On May 18, Federal Reserve Board Governor Lael Brainard spoke before a community development conference in New York City to discuss the Community Reinvestment Act’s (CRA) role in supporting low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods and the importance of “refreshing” CRA regulations to accommodate for, among other things, technology-driven changes that have made banking accessible via online and mobile platforms. Brainard covered five principles for CRA modernization, including (i) updating CRA regulations to accommodate different business models that serve the needs of LMI communities while still sustaining branches; (ii) clarifying performance measures for productive CRA investment activities and finding ways to “reduce the distortions that lead to some areas becoming credit ‘hot spots’ and others credit deserts”; (iii) tailoring CRA regulations and evaluation methods to take into account banks of different sizes and business models; (iv) improving and promoting consistency and predictability across and within agencies; and (v) ensuring that the revised CRA regulations continue to “mutually reinforce[e] laws designed to promote an inclusive financial services industry” as well as “fair access to credit.”
District Court rules that Federal Reserve Banks are not federal agencies under False Claims Act
On May 9, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) against a national bank and its predecessors-in-interest (defendants), which alleged that the defendants presented false information to Federal Reserve Banks (FRBanks) in connection with their applications for loans. The court held that allegations of false or fraudulent claims being presented to the FRBanks cannot form the basis of an FCA action because the FRBanks cannot be characterized as the federal government for purposes of the FCA.
The relators in the action originally brought a whistleblower lawsuit against the bank, alleging that the defendants inaccurately represented their financial condition in order to be eligible to borrow from the FRBanks’ discount window at lower interest rates. By way of background, in order for liability to incur under the FCA, a false or fraudulent claim must be made to the federal government or its agents. Therefore, the court needed to resolve two legal issues: (i) whether FRBanks should be characterized as the government or its agents for purposes of the FCA, and (ii) whether the federal government paid any portion of the loans the defendants received or reimbursed the FRBanks for issuing the loans.
In supporting its conclusion that FRBanks are not government actors, the court reasoned that the Federal Reserve Act (FRA), which created the Federal Reserve districts and FRBanks, did not designate the FRBanks as part of an executive department or agency. The court also noted that although the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Board) is a federal agency, each FRBank operates as a private corporation owned by private stockholders, receives no government appropriations, and generates its own income from interest earned on government securities. Furthermore, the court reasoned that the Board provides only general policy supervision, FRBank employees are not government employees, and FRBanks lack the ability to promulgate regulations and operate independently of the Board and the government.
In resolving the second issue, the court agreed with the defendants’ argument that the bank’s loan requests did not create FCA liability for claims, because the relators did not, and could not, “allege that the [g]overnment either provided any portion of the money loaned to the defendants, or reimbursed [FRBanks] for making the loans.”
Federal Reserve Board to vote on national bank’s asset growth restriction
On May 10, Federal Reserve Board (Board) Chairman Jerome H. Powell responded to Senator Elizabeth Warren’s request concerning a formal commitment by the Board to vote on whether a national bank’s remediation plans to improve its compliance and operational risk management program meet the terms set forth by the Board’s February 2 order to cease and desist (Order). (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) According to Powell, the decision to lift the asset growth restriction placed on the bank as part of the Order will be determined by a vote of the Board of Governors. In addressing an additional request made by Sen. Warren that the third-party review of the bank’s remedial actions required by the Order be publicly released, Powell stated that when the third-party review is ready, “we will review that report to determine whether and to what extent the report can be publicly disclosed without impairing protected interests.” Powell noted that typically evaluations of that kind are not released to the public because they contain confidential supervisory information that would, if disclosed, “likely impair the effectiveness of the supervisory process,” among other things.
Federal banking agencies seek comments on proposal to revise regulatory capital rules
On May 14, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC published a joint notice and request for comment on a proposal to revise regulatory capital rules to, among other things, identify which credit loss allowances are “eligible for inclusion in regulatory capital” under changes made to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP), described within Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13 (ASU 2016-13). The proposed rulemaking would provide (i) banking organizations subject to the agencies’ regulatory capital rules with “the option to phase in the day-one adverse effects on regulatory capital that may result from the adoption of the new accounting standard;” (ii) amendments to certain regulatory disclosure requirements to reflect applicable changes to U.S. GAAP covered under ASU 2016-13; (iii) amendments to stress testing regulations, which would grant covered banking organizations that have adopted ASU 2016-13 an extension until the 2020 stress test cycle to “include the effect of ASU 2016-13 on their provisioning for purposes of stress testing;” and (iv) conforming amendments to other regulations referencing credit loss allowances. Comments must be submitted by July 13.
Global banking firm fined $110 million for alleged FX violations
On May 1, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) and the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) announced (press releases available here and here) a combined nearly $110 million settlement with a global banking firm to resolve allegations that the bank engaged in unsafe and unsound practices in its foreign exchange (FX) trading business. According to consent orders issued by the Fed and NYDFS, the bank did not maintain sufficient policies and procedures to identify and prevent “unsafe and unsound” activities conducted by certain FX traders. Among other things, between 2008 and 2012 (NYDFS’ time frame goes through 2013), certain FX traders allegedly disclosed confidential customer information and trading activity with competitors through electronic chatrooms. NYDFS additionally alleged that the traders discussed coordinating their trading activities and other ways to manipulate currency prices to increase trading profits, and claimed that while the bank had policies in place intended to prevent such activity, the policies were not adequately enforced.
The bank did not admit to any wrongdoing in agreeing to the terms of the settlement, and the Fed and NYDFS noted the bank’s full cooperation with the investigations. In addition to the fine, the bank is prohibited from employing certain traders involved and is required to improve its internal controls and programs to comply with applicable New York State and federal laws and regulations, submit a written plan to improve its compliance risk management program, and provide an enhanced written internal audit program.