InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal Regulators Propose Framework for State Supervision of Appraisal Management Companies
On March 24, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the FDIC, the CFPB, the FHFA, and the NCUA proposed a rule to implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s minimum requirements for registration and supervision of Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs). While current federal regulations mandate that appraisals conducted for federally related transactions must comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), this rule would represent the first affirmative federal obligations relating to the registration, supervision, and conduct of AMCs.
Generally, the proposed rule would establish a framework for the registration and supervision of AMCs by individual states that choose to participate, and for state reporting to the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). Although state participation is optional, AMCs would be prohibited from providing appraisal management services for federally related transactions in states that do not establish such a program.
Comments on the proposal will be due 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
Scope of Proposal
The proposal defines an AMC as any person that (i) provides appraisal management services to creditors or secondary mortgage market participants; (ii) provides such services in connection with valuing a consumer’s principal dwelling as security for a consumer credit transaction (including consumer credit transactions incorporated into securitizations); and (iii) within a given year, oversees an appraiser panel of more than 15 state-certified or state-licensed appraisers in a state or 25 or more state-certified or state-licensed appraisers in two or more States. “Appraisal management services” include, among other things, recruiting, selecting, and retaining appraisers and contracting with state-certified or –licensed appraisers to perform appraisal assignments. Notably, the rule would apply to appraisals for any consumer credit transaction secured by the consumer’s principal dwelling, whereas current federal regulations apply only to appraisals for transactions that involve an entity regulated by a federal financial regulatory agency and that require the services of an appraiser (federally related transactions).
The definition of AMC does not cover commercial real estate transactions or securitizations involving commercial real estate mortgages and would not apply to a department or division of an entity when such a department or division provides appraisal management services only to that entity. However, affiliate AMCs would be covered, even if they only provide services to their affiliated entity.
Minimum Requirements for State Supervision Programs
The rule would require participating states to implement, within 36 months after the final rule takes effect, a licensing program within a state agency that has authority to: (i) review and approve or deny an AMC’s application for initial registration; (ii) review and renew or refuse to renew an AMC’s registration periodically; (iii) examine the books and records of an AMC operating in the state and require the AMC to submit reports, information, and documents; (iv) verify that the appraisers on the AMC’s appraiser list, network, panel, or roster hold valid state certifications or licenses, as applicable; (v) conduct investigations of AMCs to assess potential violations of applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; (vi) discipline, suspend, terminate, and refuse to renew the registration of an AMC that violates applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders; and (vii) report an AMC’s violation of applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders, as well as disciplinary and enforcement actions and other relevant information about an AMC’s operations, to the ASC.
Requirements for AMCs
The rule would require an AMC to register with, and be subject to supervision by, a state appraiser certifying and licensing agency in each state in which the AMC operates. As proposed, an AMC that is a subsidiary owned and controlled by a federally regulated insured depository institution or an insured credit union would be exempt from state registration requirements.
In addition, an all AMCs would be required to (i) use only state-certified or state-licensed appraisers for federally related transactions; (ii) establish processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC engages appraisers who have the requisite education, expertise, and experience necessary to complete competently the assignment for the particular market and property type; (iii) establish processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that the AMC conducts its appraisal management services in accordance with TILA requirements relating to appraisal independence; and (iv) require appraisers to perform appraisal assignments in accordance with USPAP.
Prudential Regulators Finalize Midsize Bank Stress Test Guidance
On March 5, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC issued final guidance for stress tests conducted by banking institutions with more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Under Dodd-Frank Act-mandated regulations adopted in October 2012, such firms are required to conduct annual stress tests. The guidance discusses (i) supervisory expectations for stress test practices, (ii) provides examples of practices that would be consistent with those expectations, and (iii) offers additional details about stress test methodologies. Covered institutions are required to perform their first stress tests under the Dodd-Frank Act by March 31, 2014.
House Democrats Request Guidance On Banking Access For Marijuana Businesses
On March 5, a group of 16 Democratic U.S. House members sent letters to the leaders of the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the FDIC, and the NCUA requesting that the agencies issue guidance that would provide legitimate marijuana businesses access to the federal banking system. Last November, those agencies declined to provide such guidance, stating that the DOJ and FinCEN first needed to agree on a framework to apply BSA/AML provisions to banks seeking to serve marijuana businesses. With FinCEN and DOJ having recently issued such guidance, the lawmakers renewed their push for legitimate marijuana businesses—now operating in 20 states and the District of Columbia—to have “equal access to banking services as other licensed businesses.”
FDIC Releases Interagency Mortgage Examination Procedures
On February 25, the FDIC issued FIL-9-2014 to notify supervised institutions of new consumer compliance examination procedures for the mortgage rules issued pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, that took effect nearly two months ago. FDIC examiners will use the revised interagency procedures to evaluate institutions' compliance with the new mortgage rules. The FDIC states that during initial compliance examinations, FDIC examiners will expect institutions to be familiar with the mortgage rules' requirements and have a plan for implementing the requirements. Those plans should contain “clear timeframes and benchmarks” for updating compliance management systems and relevant compliance programs. “FDIC examiners will consider the overall compliance efforts of an institution and take into account progress the institution has made in implementing its plan.”
OCC, FDIC Enforcement Action Targets Vendors' Risk Management
On January 17, the OCC released a cease and desist order entered jointly by the OCC and the FDIC with two affiliated technology service providers that offer payment and other technology solutions for banks. Without describing the specific circumstances leading to the action, the order states that the regulators had reason to believe the service providers were operating without (i) an internal auditor or an integrated risk-focused audit program; (ii) a comprehensive due diligence program or formal policies to evaluate vendor risk; (iii) an enterprise-wide risk assessment; (iv) effective business continuity or disaster recovery planning; (v) procedures to identify software vulnerabilities; and (vi) an effective log review program to identify threats. The regulators did not assess a penalty, but will require the vendors to implement numerous risk management enhancements. Under the order, the technology service providers or their board must, among other things, (i) fill specific management positions; (ii) implement an audit program; (iii) conduct a security risk assessment; (iv) develop a vendor management program; (v) implement business continuity/disaster recovery plans; and (vi) submit quarterly progress reports to regulators and client banks.
Regulators Alter Volcker Rule On TruPS CDOs
On January 14, the Federal Reserve Board, the CFTC, the SEC, the OCC, and the FDIC issued an interim final rule to permit banking entities to retain interests in certain collateralized debt obligations backed primarily by trust preferred securities (TruPS CDOs) from the investment prohibitions of section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, known as the Volcker rule. The change allows banking entities to retain interest in or sponsorship of covered funds if (i) the TruPS CDO was established, and the interest was issued, before May 19, 2010; (ii) the banking entity reasonably believes that the offering proceeds received by the TruPS CDO were invested primarily in Qualifying TruPS Collateral; and (iii) the banking entity’s interest in the TruPS CDO was acquired on or before December 10, 2013, the date the agencies finalized the Volcker Rule. With the interim rule, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the FDIC released a non-exclusive list of qualified TruPS CDOs. The rule was issued in response to substantial criticism from banks and their trade groups after the issuance of the final Volcker Rule, and followed the introduction of numerous potential legislative fixes. On January 15, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on the impact of the Volcker rule during which bankers raised concerns beyond TruPS CDOs, including about the rule’s potential impact on bank investments in other CDOs, collateralized mortgage obligations, collateralized loan obligations, and venture capital. Committee members from both parties expressed an interest in pursuing further changes to the rule, including changes to address the restrictions on collateralized loan obligations.
Prudential Regulators Announce Final Changes To Call Report
On January 14, the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, and the FDIC announced final changes to the Call Report to implement the Basel III capital standards and consumer data collection after delaying certain changes last year. The agencies now plan to implement in March 2014 the proposed reporting requirements for (i) depository institution trade names; (ii) a modified version of the reporting proposal pertaining to international remittance transfers; (iii) the proposed screening question about the reporting institution’s offering of consumer deposit accounts; and (iv) for institutions with $1 billion or more in total assets that offer such accounts, the proposed new data items on consumer deposit account balances. The agencies would then implement the proposed breakdown of consumer deposit account service charges in March 2015, but only for institutions with $1 billion or more in total assets that offer consumer deposit accounts. The proposed instructions for these new items also were revised. In addition, the agencies will not at this time proceed with the proposed annual reporting by institutions with a parent holding company that is not a bank or savings and loan holding company of the amount of the parent holding company’s consolidated total liabilities.
Senators Seek More Transparency In Federal Agency Settlements
On January 8, Senate Banking Committee members Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) released the “Truth in Settlements Act.” The legislation would mandate that for any criminal or civil settlement entered into by a federal agency that requires total payments of $1 million or more, the agency must post online in a searchable format a list of each covered settlement agreement. The list must include, among other things: (i) the total settlement amount and a description of the claims; (ii) the names of parties and the amount each settling party is required to pay; and (iii) for each settling party, the amount of the payment designated as a civil penalty or fine, or otherwise specified as not tax deductible. The bill also would require that public statements by an agency about a covered settlement describe: (i) which portion of any payments is a civil or criminal penalty or fine, or is expressly specified as non-tax deductible; and (ii) any actions the settling company is required to take under the agreement, in lieu of or in addition to any payment. The bill would exempt disclosure of information subject to a confidentiality provision, but would in cases where partial or full confidentiality is applied, require the agency to issue a public statement about why confidential treatment is required to protect the public interest of the U.S. The bill also would require public companies to describe in their annual and periodic SEC reports any claim filed for a tax deduction that relates to a payment required under a covered settlement. In announcing the legislation, Senator Warren stated that the bill is needed to “shut down backroom deal-making and ensure that Congress, citizens and watchdog groups can hold regulatory agencies accountable for strong and effective enforcement that benefits the public interest.”
Federal Court Dismisses FCA Claims Against Bank's Outside Directors
On January 3, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a relator failed to support allegations that the outside directors of a failed bank misrepresented to the FDIC the quality of the bank’s collateral on real estate loans, and dismissed those claims. U.S. v. Veluchamy, No. 11-4458, 2014 WL 51398 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2014). The relator alleges that the outside directors, as well as bank managers and employees and the bank’s appraisal company, violated the False Claims Act by engaging in a scheme to defraud the FDIC by misrepresenting the loan-to-value ratios for real estate lending and submitting fraudulent Call Reports based on overvalued appraisals. The court held that the bank’s outside directors were not shown to be involved in the day-to-day operations of the bank, and that the relator failed to demonstrate the directors had knowledge of or contributed to the alleged scheme. The court denied motions to dismiss filed by the other defendants. The court also held that the relator’s claims were not barred by prior public disclosure of the allegations. The court explained that a Material Loss Review issued by the FDIC’s inspector general following the bank’s failure did not include “critical elements” of the relator’s fraud claims, and that a prior state court employment case filed against the bank by the relator also did not reveal essential elements of the current claims.
FDIC Responds To Concerns Over Bank Formations, Need For De Novo Policy Changes
On December 30, the FDIC responded to a recent joint letter from the AABD and ICBA expressing concern with the lack of new bank charters and proposing policy reforms to encourage more de novo applications. As the trade groups pointed out, the FDIC has only approved deposit insurance for one de novo bank since 2011, a dramatic shift from many years of de novo bank formation averaging over 170 per year. FDIC Director Doreen Eberley acknowledged the concern, but defended FDIC policy and cited cyclical conditions as a potential explanation for the current situation rather than any FDIC policy change. Ms. Eberley reasserted the FDIC’s commitment to assisting with potential de novo community bank formations.