InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
House Financial Services Committee questions financial agency representatives on technological implementations
On December 5, the U.S. House Financial Services Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion held a hearing on “Fostering Financial Innovation: How Agencies Can Leverage Technology to Shape the Future of Financial Services.” The Committee invited representatives to testify from the SEC, OCC, FDIC, CFPB, NCUA, and the Federal Reserve. The representatives fielded an array of questions focused on artificial intelligence, cryptocurrencies, and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and broadly focused on the need to balance technological innovation within the financial sector with managing risk.
On cryptocurrencies, congressional representatives posed questions on the nature of criminal activity among other risks. The discussion addressed bank risks related to crypto assets—while banks do not hold crypto assets, the representative from the Federal Reserve noted how banks may face liquidity risks when holding deposits from crypto-related companies. On CBDCs, the Committee asked for an update on the U.S. CBDC; the Federal Reserve representative mentioned the Fed’s current research on CBDC technologies but noted that the agency is still “a long way off from thinking about the implementation of anything related to a CBDC.”
On the topic of artificial intelligence, agency representatives discussed how banks are using the technology for fraud monitoring and customer service. The discussion addressed how artificial intelligence technology can create deepfakes using generative models to mimic an individual’s appearance or voice, and thus help scammers bypass traditional security checks. In response, some countries have implemented a secure digital ID that biometrically syncs to one’s smartphone, and the NCUA noted that it is currently evaluating this technology.
FDIC OIG makes recommendations based on material loss report
On November 28, the OIG for the FDIC delivered a material loss review report. The report’s objectives were twofold: first, to determine why a bank’s issues led to a material loss to the deposit insurance fund; and second, to review the FDIC’s supervision of the bank and make recommendations to prevent similar losses in the future.
The report outlined 11 recommendations for the FDIC to implement so it can improve its supervision process over the banking sector. The recommendations include: (i) to evaluate if and why banks may wait to issue CAMELS ratings downgrades until they issue a Report of Examination; (ii) to identify whether the training curriculum should be adjusted to emphasize why timely ratings changes are important; (iii) to review FDIC examination guidance to determine if enhancements are necessary to highlight when a bank’s practices do not align with its policies, and make recommendations; (iv) to evaluate and update examination guidance to require supervisory actions when it violates its risk-appetite statement metrics; (v) to comprehensively review the FDIC manual for any updates to the examination guidance pertinent to evaluating the stability of uninsured deposits; (vi) to comprehensively review the FDIC manual to determine if any updates are required to the examination guidance pertinent to banks’ deposit outflow assumptions for liquidity stress testing; (vii) to revisit examination guidance to determine if any updates are required for monitoring other banks, horizontally, for similar risk characteristics; (viii) to revisit examination guidance to determine if any updates are required regarding incorporating shared risk characteristics that lead to risk in the FDIC’s supervisory approach; (ix) to explore research methods to monitor large bank reputational risk; (x) to evaluate if Chief Risk Officers should place more consideration on unrealized losses and declines in fair value; and (xi) to work with other federal regulators on evaluating necessary rule changes, such as the adoption of noncapital triggers.
FDIC issues QBP for 3Q 2023
On November 29, the FDIC released the Third Quarter 2023 Quarterly Banking Profile for FDIC-insured community banks, reporting an aggregate net income of $68.4 billion in the third quarter of 2023, which is down $2.4 billion (3.4 percent) from the previous quarter. The FDIC said higher realized losses on securities and lower noninterest income were among the causes of the decreased net income for the quarter. The FDIC emphasized, among other things, that the banking industry is still facing significant effects from current economic conditions, especially regarding commercial real estate values and other downside risks. According to the remarks provided by FDIC Chairman Gruenberg, such issues will remain areas of attention by the FDIC.
FDIC issues final rule on special assessment, moves to collect $16.3 billion
On November 16, the FDIC approved a final rule to implement a special assessment to recover Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) losses from protecting uninsured depositors, following the failure of two banks earlier this year. According to the fact sheet, banks that benefited most from assistance provided under systemic risk determination will pay to recover the losses. The FDIC aims to collect $16.3 billion from 114 financial institutions at a quarterly rate of 3.36 basis points over eight quarterly assessment periods, and an annual rate of 13.4 basis points “an increase from the 12.5 basis point annual rate in the [May] proposal.”
The FDIC stated that if enough funds were collected to cover actual or estimated losses, it could cease collection efforts early. Alternatively, if losses surpass the collected amount within the initial eight-quarter collection period, the collection period can be extended for additional quarters. The FDIC also added that if actual losses exceed the collected amounts after the receiverships for both banks end, it can impose a one-time final shortfall assessment.
The special assessment does not apply to any financial institution with less than $5 billion in total assets. The final rule will be effective April 1, 2024, and the first collection for the special assessment is due June 28, 2024.
Regulators address concerns at Senate Banking Committee hearing, receive written concerns regarding Basel III
On November 14, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing where regulators, Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr, FDIC Chair Martin Gruenberg, NCUA Chair Todd Harper, and acting Comptroller of Currency Michael Hsu, testified regarding the Basel III Endgame proposal. Gruenberg’s prepared remarks noted that Basel III reforms are a “continuation of the federal banking agencies’ efforts to revise the regulatory capital framework for our nation’s largest financial institutions, which were found to be undercapitalized and over-leveraged during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.” The proposal would raise capital requirements for large banks (covered by InfoBytes here).
Concerning Basel III, Senator Tester (D-MO) mentioned he has “some concerns about the proposed changes and how its impact will be on workers’ and households’ and small businesses’ access to credit and overall vibrancy of our capital markets.” “These rules don’t affect any banks in Montana, but they do affect the big guys that affect Montana,” he noted.
Among other testimonies, Senator Warner (D-VA) expressed concerns regarding the timeline of the comment period and potential changes to the proposal. Specifically, Sen. Warner mentioned that comments may not be received until after the rule is close to finalization. Fed Vice Chair Barr noted that the regulators have yet to evaluate comments on the proposal, as most are expected to come through mid-January, and that depending on the substance of some comments, they are open to making appropriate changes to the proposal. Acting Comptroller of the Currency Hsu’s written testimony echoed Barr’s remarks, stating “[w]e will consider all comments, including alternative approaches.”
Moreover, on November 12, a group of Republican lawmakers of the committee also sent a letter to the OCC, FDIC, and the Fed. In the letter, the senators argued that the proposal would restrict billions of dollars in capital, resulting in costlier and more limited access to credit for millions of consumers, impacting affordable housing, mortgage lending, small business lending, and consumer access to credit cards and home equity lines. The proposal was also criticized for its potential to disadvantage U.S. companies globally and harm middle-market private entities and small businesses. Moreover, the letter suggested that the proposal could negatively impact pension funds, increase fees for risk hedging, and decrease returns for retirees.
Also on November 12, several banking industry groups sent a letter to the Fed, FDIC, and the OCC requesting them to issue a revised proposal. The letter alleges violations of the Administrative Procedures Act because the data used to inform the interagency proposal is not publicly available. The groups also argued that the proposed rule repeatedly utilizes non-public analyses based on the agencies’ “supervisory experience” to support different aspects of the rule. Regarding sensitive data, the groups say, “Nothing prevents the agencies from releasing such data and analyses in a manner that is anonymized or aggregated to the extent necessary to protect bank or other party confidentiality.” The senators also believe the proposal would impose “significant harm” throughout the economy “particularly in the face of current economic headwinds and tightening credit conditions.”
2nd Circuit affirms dismissal of whistleblower lawsuit alleging FCA violations
On October 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed a district court order dismissing a whistleblower lawsuit alleging violations of the False Claims Act (FCA). The three-judge panel concluded that they did not need to “address the public disclosure bar because the [second amended complaint]… fails to state a claim for a violation of the FCA.” According to the panel, the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant knowingly made a misrepresentation material to the government’s decision and that “failure to adequately plead either of these requirements is fatal to a relator's claim."
The original whistleblower complaint, filed in 2014, alleged that the defendant covered losses on loans that it acquired by taking advantage of a shared loss agreement with the FDIC. The complaint also stated that the defendant knowingly reported write-downs on loans already paid off, sold, or irrelevant to the portfolio. The FDIC declined to intervene, and the case was dismissed. The plaintiff appealed and oral arguments were heard on October 12; however, the order found that the plaintiff failed to identify a false claim or false record and did not establish scienter or motive to commit fraud.
Agencies revise TCPA examination procedures
On November 2, the OCC published revisions to the interagency examination procedures for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which are utilized by the FDIC, NCUA, and the OCC. The OCC also announced that it is rescinding the “‘Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Junk Fax Protection Act’ section of the ‘Other Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations’ booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook” and explained that OCC examiners will rely on the new interagency procedures.
The revisions were made to reflect amendments to the TCPA that became effective on October 25, 2021. “The revised interagency examination procedures address:
- provisions governing how customers can revoke consent under the TCPA;
- special exemptions from the customer consent provisions of the TCPA for banks using automated communications to notify customers of potential account fraud; and
- safe harbors for callers that check a reassigned number database maintained by the Federal Communications Commission.”
The revised examination procedures booklet can be found here.
Request for GAO examination of agencies’ role in Basel III endgame proposal
The Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (R-NC), and Representative Andy Barr (R-KY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy, sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting the GAO to “examine the role U.S. federal banking agencies played in work at the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to develop the recent Basel III Endgame proposal, which calls for massive increases in capital requirements for already well-capitalized U.S. financial institutions.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the federal banking agencies issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would substantially revise the capital requirements of large U.S. banking organizations. According to the letter, Congress has very little insight into the basis of such policy changes that “would fundamentally change the policy of the U.S. banking system.”
The letter requests the GAO to evaluate each federal banking agency’s participation in the development of Basel III Endgame. GAO’s evaluation should include: (i) a summary of each material proposal submitted by a federal banking agency to the Basel Committee; and (ii) a summary of concerns raised by a federal banking agency with respect to a consultative document or other proposal considered by the Basel Committee.
Further, the letter requests the GAO prioritize each proposal or concern from the federal banking agencies related to:
- Any proposals or concerns from the federal banking agencies that did not receive a fulsome response by the Basel Committee.
- Any evidence or rationale supporting the requirement that a “corporate entity (or parent) must have securities outstanding on a recognized securities exchange for an exposure to that entity (or parent) to be eligible for the reduced risk weight for investment-grade corporate exposures;”
- The absence of a tailored approach to “high-fee revenue banks under the Basel III Endgame business-indicator approach to operational risk capital”;
- The calibration of the “scaling factor, multiplier, dampener, and other coefficients for that business-indicator approach”; and
- The calibration of the “correlation factors and the profit-and-loss attribution test thresholds for the models-based measure of market risk capital.”
Regulators release final principles for climate-related financial risk management
On October 25, the Fed, OCC, and FDIC issued final interagency guidance titled Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions. The principles are intended to help the largest institutions supervised by the Federal banking agencies, i.e., those with over $100 billion in assets, manage climate-related risk.
These climate-related risks include both physical and transition risks. Physical risks include “hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and heatwaves, and chronic shifts in climate, etc.,” while transition risks “refer to stresses to institutions or sectors arising from the shifts in policy, consumer and business sentiment, or technologies associated with the changes… [towards] a lower carbon economy.”
These climate-related risks affect the values of assets of liabilities and damage property, leading to a loss of income, defaults, and liquidity risks. The agencies created these principles to direct board of directors and managers make sound business practices with making progress toward mitigating climate-related financial risks.
CFPB Director Rohit Chopra, a member of the FDIC Board of Directors, shared remarks on the final principles, noting that climate change poses a dual challenge to protect infrastructure and fortify the financial system. He also stressed the need for regulatory guidance to convey clear and practical rules. FDIC Chairman Gruenberg also shared a statement on the final principles, highlighting the FDIC’s focus on the financial aspects of climate change, clarifying its role in managing risks rather than setting climate policy and encouraging cooperation among federal banking agencies to ensure consistency in addressing climate-related financial risks.
FDIC issues NPR to revise Federal Deposit Insurance Act regulations on Section 19
On October 24, FDIC announced a proposed rule to implement the Fair Hiring in Banking Act (FHB Act). The proposed rule amends 2 C.F.R. part 303, subpart L, and part 308, subpart M. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) prohibits a person from participating in the affairs of an FDIC-insured institution if he or she has been convicted of an offense involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering, or has entered a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such an offense, without the prior written consent of the FDIC, among other provisions. The proposed rule would incorporate several statutory changes to the FDI Act, such as:
- Excluding certain offenses from the scope of the FHB Act based on the amount of time that has passed since the offense occurred or since the individual was released from incarceration;
- Clarifying that the FHB Act does not apply to the following offenses, if one year or more has passed since the applicable conviction or program entry: using fake identification, shoplifting, trespassing, fare evasion, and driving with an expired license or tag;
- Excluding certain offenses from the definition of “criminal offenses involving dishonesty,” including “an offense involving the possession of controlled substances”;
- Excluding certain convictions from the scope of the FHB Act that have been expunged, sealed, or dismissed. While existing FDIC regulations already exclude most of those offenses, the proposed rule would modestly broaden the statutory language concerning such offenses to harmonize the FDIC’s current regulations concerning expunged and sealed records with the statutory language; and
- Prescribing standards for the FDIC’s review of applications submitted under the FHB Act.
The proposed rule also provides interpretive language that addresses, among other topics, when an offense “occurs” under the FHB Act, whether otherwise-covered offenses that occurred in foreign jurisdictions are covered by the FDI Act, and offenses that involve controlled substances.
Comments will be accepted for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.