InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
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 guide encourages fintech/bank partnerships
On February 24, the FDIC’s technology lab, FDiTech, announced the release of a new guide intended to assist fintech companies and other third parties with bank partnerships. Conducting Business with Banks: A Guide for Fintechs and Third Parties identifies several areas for third parties to consider when exploring potential partnerships with banks relevant to navigating regulatory requirements and due diligence processes. These include being able to: (i) “[u]nderstand the framework of laws and regulations” applicable to banks, such as those “related to consumer protection, privacy and data security, . . . the Bank Secrecy Act[,] and federal anti-money laundering laws”; (ii) “[m]aintain a well-managed and financially strong business”; (iii) respond to requests for information from potential partners that demonstrate “product integrity, risk management mitigation, and consumer protection”; and (iv) demonstrate the ability to ensure ongoing compliance with applicable laws and regulations and that appropriate monitoring systems have been implemented. In addition, the guide also outlines special considerations for modelers, and emphasizes that banks will expect to understand a third party’s use of models and algorithms or other automated decision-making systems.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, FDiTech was established in 2019 to encourage innovation within the banking industry, support collaboration for piloting new products and services, eliminate regulatory uncertainty, and manage risks.
FDIC seeks input on modernization
On February 19, the FDIC issued a notice and request for comment regarding modernizing “its signage and advertising requirements to better reflect how banks and savings associations currently operate and how consumers use banking services.” The Request for Information (RFI) solicits input on how the agency “can revise and clarify its sign and advertising rules related to FDIC deposit insurance.” Major changes to these rules have not been made since 2006, and the agency states that “the rules do not reflect evolving banking channels and operation.” Accordingly, the RFI also requests suggestions about how the FDIC can use technology or other solutions to help consumers distinguish FDIC-insured entities from nonbanks, and to prevent consumers from being harmed by non-insured entities’ potentially misleading or fraudulent representations. The RFI lists 21 questions to focus the public input. Comments must be received by March 19.
U.S., EU discuss financial regulatory developments
On February 19, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a joint statement on the U.S. – EU Financial Regulatory Forum held February 11-12 in Washington, D.C. U.S. participants included officials from the Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, FDIC, SEC, OCC, and Treasury. Forum topics focused on five key themes: “(1) supervision and regulation of cross-border activities, particularly in the areas of derivatives and central clearing; (2) the importance of monitoring market developments, both in relation to financial assets classes, like leveraged loans and collateralized loan obligations, and reference rates, like the London Interbank Offered Rate; (3) implementation of international standards in banking and insurance; (4) regulatory issues presented by fintech/digital finance; and (5) EU regulations related to sustainable finance.”
Among other topics, participants discussed U.S. banking developments concerning prudential requirements for foreign banks, including tailoring standards based on risk; proposed amendments to the Volcker Rule; EU data protection rules; cross-border supervision and data flow in financial services; the transition period following the U.K.’s departure from the EU; and European Commission priorities such as preventing and combating money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Participants acknowledged the importance of fostering continued dialogue between the U.S. and the EU noting that, “[r]egular communication on supervisory and regulatory issues of mutual concern should foster financial stability, supervisory cooperation, investor protection, market integrity, and a level playing field.”
FDIC and OCC expand comment period for CRA proposal
On February 19, the FDIC and the OCC jointly released a statement extending the public comment period for the proposed Community Reinvestment Act regulations by 30 days. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, the two agencies initially released the notice of proposed rulemaking—which the agencies assert will provide clarity on what activities are eligible for CRA consideration—on December 12. The new comment deadline is April 8.
Agencies finalize Call Report capital-related reporting revisions
On February 19, the FDIC issued FIL-11-2020 announcing the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC have finalized capital-related reporting revisions (see Federal Register notice and FIL-10-2020) to the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for certain banks (FFIEC 031, 041, 051) as well as the Regulatory Capital Reporting for Institutions Subject to the Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework (FFIEC 101). Among other things, the final revisions include changes to the capital simplifications rule and the community bank leverage ratio rule, in addition to Call Report instructional revisions taking effect in 2021 concerning reporting home equity lines of credit that convert from revolving to non-revolving status. These reporting revisions are subject to approval by OMB.
FDIC issues 2020 stress testing scenarios
On February 14, the FDIC released economic scenarios—developed in coordination with the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) and the OCC—for certain supervised financial institutions with consolidated assets of more than $250 billion. The Dodd-Frank Act requires financial companies to run stress tests using the scenarios. According to the FDIC, the scenarios cover a baseline scenario that is “in line with a survey of private sector economic forecasters” and a severely adverse scenario “designed to assess the strength and resilience of financial institutions.”
As previously reported by InfoBytes, the OCC and the Fed both released their stress testing scenarios on February 6.
FFIEC releases 2020 HMDA reporting guide
On February 13, the FDIC issued FIL-9-2020 announcing the Federal Financial Institutions Examinations Council’s issuance of the 2020 edition of the “Guide to HMDA Reporting: Getting It Right!” The guide applies to HMDA data collected in 2020 that will be reported to supervisory agencies by March 1, 2021, and includes, (i) a summary of responsibilities and requirements; (ii) directions for assembling the necessary tools; and (iii) instructions for reporting HMDA data. According to the announcement, the 2020 edition provides information to assist HMDA compliance in the event of a merger or acquisition, as well as updates to the appendices to reflect amendments to Regulation C made by the CFPB that took effect January 1. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the amendments extend the current temporary threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit under HMDA rules for reporting data to January 1, 2022.
Mobile banking company approved for FDIC deposit insurance
On February 7, the FDIC approved a proposed national bank’s application for deposit insurance and consent to merge with its parent company. The FDIC found that financial projections show the bank, which will offer banking products through mobile, online, and phone-based banking channels, will be “well capitalized” based on initial paid-in capital funds of no less than $104.4 million to be provided through the transfer of assets and liabilities. During the first three years of operation, the bank must maintain a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 10 percent or greater, and may also be required to maintain higher minimum capital requirements as dictated by the bank’s operating plan or as required by the OCC pursuant to its regulatory authority. According to the FDIC, the proposed national bank will be located in Utah, and while it will have no branches, deposit-taking ATMs, or offices available to the public, it will offer full-service banking products and combine “traditional retail banking approaches with modern technology.”
The FDIC noted that deposit insurance will not take effect until the bank has been granted a charter and its banking operation has been fully approved by the OCC to operate as a depository institution (in August 2018, the OCC granted preliminary conditional approval of the bank’s de novo chapter application). According to the FDIC, approval is conditioned on the Federal Reserve Board granting final approval to the parent company to become a bank holding company.
Representatives hold hearing on “rent-a-bank” schemes
On February 5, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing titled “Rent-A-Bank Schemes and New Debt Traps: Assessing Efforts to Evade State Consumer Protections and Interest Rate Caps” to discuss policies relating to state interest rate caps and permissible interest rates on small dollar loans such as payday and car-title loans. As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in November, the OCC and the FDIC proposed rules meant to override the 2015 Madden v. Midland funding decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and reinforce that when a national bank or savings association, or state chartered bank, transfers a loan, the permissible interest rate after the transfer is the same as it was prior to the transfer. In January, however, a group of attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia submitted a comment letter to the OCC claiming the proposed rule would encourage predatory lending through “rent-a-bank schemes.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) During the hearing, Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), expressed concern that the two agency proposals would harm consumers by allowing non-banks to partner with banks and enable non-bank lenders to “peddle harmful short-term, triple-digit interest rate loans.” Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) echoed that concern when she suggested that “rent-a-bank” schemes allow non-banks to dodge state interest rate laws. Many Republicans had views differing from those expressed by Tlaib and Waters. North Carolina Representative Patrick McHenry remarked that the proposals from the OCC and the FDIC merely formalized the “valid when made” rule that had been in use for over a century. At the hearing, HR 5050, which would cap federal interest rates on certain small loans at 36 percent, was also discussed, with several Democrats stressing that the cap may negatively affect credit availability to some consumers.