InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies release proposed community bank Volcker Rule exemption
On December 18, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the SEC, and the CFTC (collectively, the Agencies) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend regulations implementing Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act (known as, the “Volcker Rule”) to be consistent with Sections 203 and 204 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.) Consistent with Section 203 of the Act, the proposal would exempt community banks from the restrictions of the Volcker Rule if they, and every entity that controls them, have (i) total consolidated assets equal to or less than $10 billion; and (ii) total trading assets and liabilities that are equal to or less than five percent of their total consolidated assets.
The proposal also, consistent with Section 204 of the Act, would permit a hedge fund or private equity fund organized and offered by a banking entity to share a name with a banking entity that is its investment advisor, if (i) the advisor is not an insured depository institution, does not control a depository institution, and is not treated as a bank holding company under the International Banking Act; (ii) the advisor does not share a name with any such entities; and (iii) the shared name does not include "bank."
Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
FHFA proposes new process for validating, approving credit score models
On December 13, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a proposed rule to establish new requirements for the verification of credit score models used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), as mandated by Section 310 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Under the proposed rule, the Enterprises will use a four-phase process to validate and approve credit score models including: (i) soliciting applications from credit score model developers; (ii) reviewing submitted applications for completeness, which includes the receipt of all required fees; (iii) conducting a credit score assessment, which would require the Enterprises to evaluate each credit score model for “accuracy, reliability and integrity, independent of the use of the credit score in the Enterprise’s systems, as well as any other requirements established by the Enterprise”; and (iv) assessing the model in conjunction with the Enterprises’ business systems. Additionally, the FHFA stated it will not require either of the Enterprises to use a third-party credit score model; however, any credit score used by the Enterprises as a condition to purchase of a loan “must be produced by a model that has been validated and approved by the Enterprise based on the standards and criteria in the [EGRRCPA] and FHFA regulations.” Comments will be due 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FHFA stated in July that it would set aside an ongoing initiative to evaluate the potential impact of a new credit score model on “access to credit, safety and soundness, operations in the mortgage finance industry, and competition in the credit score market,” in order to focus on implementing Section 310.
Agencies issue guidance on 37 key data fields for HMDA examinations
On December 7, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC issued guidance regarding the HMDA key data fields that Federal Reserve examiners use to evaluate the accuracy of HMDA data collected since January 1 pursuant to the CFPB’s October 2015 and August 2017 amendments and the May 2018 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) exemptions (all of which have been previously covered by InfoBytes here, here, and here).
The guidance cites to the October 2017 list of 37 key data fields identified by the agencies and notes that “[o]nce examiners have selected a random sample of entries from an institution’s HMDA Loan Application Register (HMDA LAR) and have received the corresponding loan files, they would verify the accuracy of the applicable HMDA key data fields in the entries in the HMDA LAR sample(s) against information in the loan files.” Additionally, for institutions eligible for the partial exemption granted by the Act, and covered by the Bureau’s August interpretive and procedural rule (InfoBytes coverage here), the guidance notes that these institutions are responsible for collecting, recording, and reporting only 21 of the 37 designated HMDA key data fields, as the exemption covers the other 16 fields.
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council members are currently developing a set of revised interagency HMDA examination procedures regarding HMDA requirements relating to data collected from January 1, 2018 onward.
FDIC updates Affordable Mortgage Lending Guide
On December 6, the FDIC issued FIL-84-2018 announcing updates to the Affordable Mortgage Lending Guide, Part I: Federal Agencies and Government Sponsored Enterprises (Guide), which reflect current information available about mortgage products offered through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Guide covers federal programs targeted to a variety of communities and individuals including rural, Native American, low- and moderate-income, and veterans, and is designed to provide community banks resources “to gain an overview of a variety of products, compare different products, and identify next steps to expand or initiate a mortgage lending program.” Updates to the Guide include, among other things, (i) revisions to the Program Matrix; (ii) changes to student loan debt in FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac programs; and (iii) updates to certain FHA loan insurance products, USDA single family housing programs, and various Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac products.
FDIC encourages more de novo bank applicants, launches initiatives to streamline and promote transparency in deposit insurance applications
On December 6, the FDIC announced several initiatives designed to streamline and promote transparency in the federal deposit insurance application process, while encouraging more applications from de novo banks. According to FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams, the “application process should not be overly burdensome and should not deter prospective banks from applying.” As part of its initiative, the FDIC issued a request for information (RFI) soliciting feedback on all aspects of the deposit insurance application process—the RFI applies to all institutions, including those with less than $1 billion in total assets, as well as traditional community banks. The RFI seeks comments on: (i) suggestions for modifying the application process as it relates to traditional community banks; (ii) potential ways to “support the continuing evolution of emerging technology and fintech companies . . . [and whether there are] particular risks associated with any such proposals”; (iii) aspects of the application process such as legal, regulatory, economic, or technological factors that may discourage potential applications; and (iv) other suggestions for addressing stakeholder concerns regarding the application process, as well as methods for improving effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency. Comments on the RFI will be accepted for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
The FDIC also discussed a new, voluntary process for new deposit insurance applicants to request feedback on draft applications before filing formal submissions. “The new process is intended to provide an early opportunity for both the FDIC and organizers to identify potential challenges with respect to the statutory criteria, areas that may require further detail or support, and potential issues or concerns,” the announcement stated.
In addition to updating publications related to the application process (available through FIL-83-2018), the FDIC also released FIL-81-2018 and FIL-82-2018, which respectively provide application processing timeframe guidelines and an overview of the review process for draft deposit insurance proposals.
Agencies encourage financial institutions to explore innovative industry approaches to BSA/AML compliance
On December 3, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released a joint statement along with federal banking agencies—the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC (together, the “agencies”)—to encourage banks and credit unions to explore innovative approaches such as artificial intelligence, digital identity technologies, and internal financial intelligence units to combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial threats when safeguarding the financial system. According to the agencies, private sector innovation and the adoption of new technologies can enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance programs. Moreover, new innovations and technologies can also enhance transaction monitoring systems. Specifically, the agencies urged banks to test innovative programs to explore the use of artificial intelligence. However, the agencies emphasized that while feedback on innovative programs may be provided, the “pilot programs in and of themselves should not subject banks to supervisory criticism even if the pilot programs ultimately prove unsuccessful. Likewise, pilot programs that expose gaps in a BSA/AML compliance program will not necessarily result in supervisory action with respect to that program.” The joint statement further specifies that the agencies will be willing to grant exceptive relief from BSA regulatory requirements to facilitate pilot programs, “provided that banks maintain the overall effectiveness of their BSA/AML compliance programs.” However, banks that maintain effective compliance programs but choose not to innovate will not be penalized or criticized.
According to Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Sigal Mandelker, “[a]s money launderers and other illicit actors constantly evolve their tactics, we want the compliance community to likewise adapt their efforts to counter these threats,” pointing to the recent use of innovative technologies to identify and report illicit financial activity related to both Iran and North Korea.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, earlier in October the agencies provided guidance on resource sharing between banks and credit unions in order to more efficiently and effectively manage their BSA/AML obligations.
(See also Federal Reserve Board press release, FDIC press release and FIL-79-2018, NCUA press release, and OCC press release and Bulletin 2018-44.)
FDIC releases October enforcement actions, includes BSA and TILA violations
On November 30, the FDIC announced a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in October. Included among the actions is an order to pay a civil money penalty of $9,600 issued against a Louisiana-based bank for alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act in connection with alleged failures to obtain flood insurance coverage on loans at or before origination or renewal.
Consent orders were also issued against three separate banks related to alleged weaknesses in their Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and/or BSA/anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance programs. (See orders here, here, and here.) Among other things, the banks are ordered to: (i) implement comprehensive written BSA/AML compliance programs, which include revising BSA risk assessment policies, developing a system of BSA internal controls, and enhancing suspicious activity monitoring and reporting and customer due diligence procedures; (ii) conduct independent testing; and (iii) implement effective BSA training programs. The FDIC further requires the Florida and New Jersey-based banks to conduct suspicious activity reporting look-back reviews.
In addition, a Kentucky-based bank was ordered to pay a civil money of $300,000 for allegedly violating TILA by “failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose required information related to the [b]ank’s Elastic line of credit product” and Section 5 of the FTC ACT by “using a processing order for certain deposit account transactions contrary to the processing orders disclosed in the [b]ank’s deposit account disclosures.”
There are no administrative hearings scheduled for December 2018. The FDIC database containing all 17 enforcement decisions and orders may be accessed here.
FFIEC issues second Examination Modernization Project update
On November 27, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) issued the second update on the status of its Examination Modernization Project. The project’s objective is to identify and assess measures to improve the community bank safety and soundness examination process, pursuant to the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act’s review of regulations. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in March, the FFIEC released the first update, which identified four areas with potential for the most “meaningful supervisory burden reduction.” The second update focuses on tailoring examination plans and procedures based on risk in order to reduce burden. Specifically, after a review of risk-based procedures and processes, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, the NCUA, the OCC, and the State Liaison Committee have committed to issue reinforcing and clarifying examiner guidance to their examination staffs on risk-focused examination principles for community financial institutions, if necessary. The guidance covers, among other things, the following practices (i) consideration of the unique risk profile, complexity, and business model of the institution when developing the exam plan; (ii) tailoring of the document request list based on the financial institution’s business model, complexity, risk profile and planned scope of review; and (iii) applying examination procedures in a way that reduces the level of review of low risk institutions or low risk areas.
The FFIEC noted it may take further action to improve the examination process as the project progresses.
Agencies issue joint proposal on community bank leverage ratio for qualifying organizations
On November 21, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC jointly announced a proposed rule to simplify capital requirements for qualifying community banking organizations that opt into the community bank leverage ratio framework. Among other criteria, qualifying organizations must have “less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, limited amounts of certain assets and off-balance sheet exposures, and a community bank leverage ratio greater than 9 percent.” FDIC FIL-77-2018 provides an overview of the proposed regulation amendments—required under Section 201 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act—which would allow qualifying organizations to satisfy (i) generally applicable leverage and risk-based capital requirements; (ii) the prompt corrective action framework’s well-capitalized ratio requirements; and (iii) any other generally applicable capital and leverage requirements. Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Agencies propose $400,000 threshold for residential appraisal requirement
On November 20, the OCC announced a joint notice of proposed rulemaking with the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, which raises the threshold for residential real estate transactions requiring an appraisal to $400,000 from its current level of $250,000. According to the OCC, the proposal is in response to feedback that the current exemption threshold has not increased to keep pace with the price appreciation in the residential real estate market. The proposal includes the rural residential appraisal exemption included in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, among other things, the proposal implements the Dodd-Frank Act mandate that institutions appropriately review appraisals for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.