InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
HUD and Banking Regulators Offer Borrower and Institution Relief Following Hurricane Sandy
Recently, HUD has made a series of announcements regarding housing relief for individuals displaced by Hurricane Sandy. For example, on October 30 HUD granted a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and forbearance on foreclosures of FHA-insured mortgages. Similar announcements have followed for victims in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Also on October 30, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC issued a statement on supervisory practices impacted by the hurricane. For example, the regulators stated that “prudent efforts to adjust or alter terms on existing loans in affected areas should not be subject to examiner criticism.”
Federal Banking Regulators Issue Guidance Regarding Supervision of Technology Service Providers
On October 31, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) issued a revised Supervision of Technology Service Providers Booklet (TSP Booklet). The revised TSP Booklet, which is part of the FFIEC Information Technology Examination Handbook, provides guidance for examiners and financial institutions on the supervision of technology service providers by describing the federal banking regulators’ statutory authority to supervise third-party service providers, outlining the regulators’ risk-based supervision program, and providing the Uniform Rating System for examinations. The TSP Booklet clarifies that outsourced activities should be subject to the same risk management, security, privacy, and other internal controls and compliance policies as if such functions were performed internally, and that a financial institution’s board of directors and management have the responsibility for ensuring that outsourced activities are conducted in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Concurrent with the release of the updated TSP Booklet, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC issued new Administrative Guidelines for the Implementation of Interagency Programs for the Supervision of Technology Service Providers. The Guidelines are separate from the FFIEC IT Examination Handbook and describe how the agencies implement their interagency supervisory programs. The Guidelines are primarily a resource for examiners and include the reporting templates used by examiners.
Independent Financial Regulators Express Opposition to Senate Regulatory Analysis Bill
On October 26, the leaders of the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the FDIC, the CFPB, the NCUA, and the SEC sent a letter to Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Collins (R-ME) opposing S. 3468, which would authorize the President to require that regulations promulgated by the independent regulatory agencies be subject to regulatory review in the same manner as other federal agencies, including central review of certain rules by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The regulators note that the bill, which was introduced by Senator Portman (R-OH) with the support of Senator Warner (D-VA) in August 2012, may be considered soon for markup by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs led by Mr. Lieberman and Ms. Collins. The letter argues that by giving the President unprecedented authority to influence policy and rulemaking functions of independent regulatory agencies through review of regulations, the bill would undermine congressional intent to create certain agencies that could exercise policymaking functions independent of any Administration.
Federal Regulators Finalize Bank Stress Test Rules
On October 9, the OCC and the FDIC each finalized a rule to implement the company-run stress test requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. The stress tests are exercises designed to gauge the losses that covered institutions might experience under hypothetical scenarios established by the regulators. The OCC and FDIC rules apply to covered institutions with average total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion. Covered institutions with assets over $50 billion are subject to the stress test requirements immediately. They will be required to submit results in January 2013 of stress tests based on data as of September 30, 2012 and scenarios that the FDIC and the OCC plan to publish next month. Implementation of the stress test requirements for institutions with assets of $10 billion to $50 billion will not begin until October 2013. Also on October 9, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) finalized two stress test-related rules. The first rule establishes the stress test requirements for bank holding companies, state member banks, and savings and loan companies with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. As with the OCC and FDIC rules, the FRB rule delays implementation of stress test requirements for covered institutions with $50 billion or less in assets until the fall of 2013. Additionally, the results of that first test will not have to be publicly disclosed. The second FRB rule establishes the company-run stress test requirements for bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, and nonbank financial companies designated as systemically important by the Financial Stability Oversight Council. These institutions are required to conduct two internal stress tests each year, in addition to a stress test performed by the FRB. Like the OCC and the FDIC, the FRB expects to release its stress test scenarios in November.
State Regulators Oppose Basel III Capital Requirements
On October 3, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced its opposition to the “highly reactionary” approach federal regulators have proposed to implement the Basel III capital accord. Although they support higher levels and improved quality of capital, the state regulators argue that the transaction-level approach proposed by federal regulators is too complex and leaves the financial system susceptible to more volatility. Instead, the state regulators favor an approach based on risk management and the supervisory process. Further, the state regulators charge that the federal proposal, including the proposed specific risk-weighted asset requirements, lack empirical support. The CSBS argues that the proposed standardized risk-weighted assets present a specific challenge to mortgage lending, and in other areas would replace supervisory judgment and institution-specific analysis. The state regulators believe that implementing Basel III as currently proposed will only increase industry costs, limit credit availability, and force industry consolidation.
CFPB Continues Credit Card Enforcement Activity
On October 1, the CFPB announced a coordinated enforcement action taken by federal regulators against a major credit card company and several of its subsidiaries alleged to have violated multiple consumer financial protection laws. According to the CFPB, the investigations conducted by it and other federal regulators and a state regulator revealed that the companies (i) charged illegal late fees, (ii) discriminated on the basis of age in the offering of credit, (iii) engaged in deceptive marketing, and (iv) failed to properly report consumer credit disputes. To resolve the allegations, the companies agreed to enter into several different consent orders. Two orders obtained by the CFPB and a joint CFPB/FDIC order require three of the subsidiaries collectively to refund approximately $85 million to approximately 250,000 customers and pay a cumulative $18 million in civil money penalties. Likewise, the OCC issued a consent order that includes an additional $500,000 penalty, and provides for restitution that overlaps with the broader restitution ordered by the CFPB. Finally, an order obtained by the Federal Reserve Board, requires the company, and certain of its subsidiaries, to pay an additional $9 million penalty. Furthermore, pursuant to the various orders, the companies agreed to undergo an independent audit and implement enhanced compliance systems to address the alleged illegal practices. This is the third public CFPB-led enforcement action aimed at credit card companies, and the first to go beyond allegations regarding ancillary products and resolve alleged violations of the CARD Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
Federal Reserve Board Reports on CFPB Consumer Protection Unit
This week, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Federal Reserve Board issued an evaluation of the CFPB’s Consumer Response Unit, which is responsible for managing the CFPB’s consumer complaint system. The report provides a concise overview of the CFPB’s consumer complaint process and includes the OIG’s evaluation of that process. Specifically, the OIG concludes that the CFPB’s consumer complaint process is reasonable, generally compliant with the Dodd-Frank Act, and consistent with industry best practices. However, the report also indicates that the CFPB Consumer Response Unit could improve its process by further addressing (i) inaccurate manual data entry of consumer complaints, (ii) inconsistent complaint management system data, (iii) lack of a finalized agency-wide privacy policy, (iv) lack of a comprehensive quality assurance program, and (v) lack of a centralized tracking system for quality assurance reviews.
Federal Regulators Host Webinar on SCRA Compliance
On September 10, federal banking regulators, the CFPB, and the FHFA conducted a webinar on federal servicemember financial protections, recent changes to the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act (SCRA), and recent changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac short sale procedures for servicemembers and loan modification options for servicemembers. The event featured compliance and enforcement updates from the CFPB, the DOJ, and the OCC. Ann Thompson from the CFPB Office of Nonbank Supervision described recent joint agency guidance regarding servicemembers with Permanent Change of Station (PCS) Orders as an extension of the CFPB's mortgage servicing exam procedures. Ms. Thompson explained that the CFPB will look at bank and nonbank servicers' policies and procedures to determine their adequacy for handling servicemembers with PCS orders. If there are deficiencies, the CFPB may take supervisory or enforcement actions to support implementation of the guidance. Eric Halperin from the DOJ's fair lending unit provided an update on enforcement activity and described a recent SCRA enforcement action against a national bank that covered all aspects of SCRA, not just foreclosure protections, as the model for the DOJ moving forward. Finally, Kimberly Hebb from the OCC offered some considerations for institutions seeking to comply with SCRA. She explained that the SCRA compliance process need not stand alone. For example, with regard to the law's rate reduction requirements, compliance steps could be incorporated into existing processes for error resolution. Ms. Hebb also stressed documentation and record keeping, pointing out that while the law does not include a specific record retention requirement, examiners will want to see the full scope of compliance processes documented for use in determining compliance.
Banking Regulators Extend Comment Period for Three Proposed Capital Rules
On August 8, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC announced an extension of the comment period for three proposed regulatory capital rules. The proposed rules were announced in June with a comment period closing September 7, 2012. The regulators are now giving interested parties until October 22, 2012 to submit comments.
Federal Reserve Board Announces Sanctions Against Mortgage Servicer
On August 7, The Federal Reserve Board announced that it assessed a $3.2 million monetary penalty against MetLife, one of fourteen servicers against which federal regulators took corrective actions in April 2011. According to the announcement, the assessment order is similar to those entered with the five servicers involved in the state-federal mortgage servicing settlement announced earlier this year, though the amount of the fine here is substantially smaller. Because MetLife was not a party to that multi-party servicing agreement, the order contemplates steps the parties would take if MetLife subsequently enters into such an agreement, which would require MetLife to provide monetary relief to consumers. The resolution of these issues will allow MetLife to pursue its planned exit from banking.