InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal Reserve Governor discusses CRA modernization feedback
On February 1, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard spoke at the “Research Symposium on the Community Reinvestment Act” hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia to discuss the need to update Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations. Brainard summarized comment letters received in response to the OCC’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) published last August (previously covered by InfoBytes) seeking input on ways to transform or modernize the CRA regulatory framework, and discussed the following six key takeaways:
- There is broad support for the CRA among commenters—including academics, financial institutions, banking trade associations, community organizations, consumer groups, and citizens—who, among other things, applaud the volume of CRA loans and investments that support low-and-moderate income households and communities.
- There is general agreement among commenters for the need to modernize—but not completely overhaul—CRA assessment areas, while retaining its core focus.
- Commenters support different performance tests for different types of banks. According to Brainard, there is broad agreement that “CRA regulations cannot be one-size-fits-all” and should be tailored to banks of different sizes, as well as different business models.
- CRA modernization should keep the focus on underserved areas. Commenters discussed concerns about “CRA hotspots and credit deserts,” and the need for incentives to ensure CRA capital can reach underserved communities has been a common theme at regional roundtables.
- Commenters offered recommendations on how to increase the “consistency and predictability of CRA evaluations and ratings.”
- Roundtable discussions as well as commenters have emphasized the “historical context of the CRA as it relates to redlining practices,” and demonstrated strong support for the CRA to retain its underlying focus of reaching all underserved borrowers, including low-income communities and communities of color.
OCC revises the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual
On January 31, the OCC announced an updated version of its “Subsidiaries and Equity Investments” booklet of the Comptroller’s Licensing Manual. According to Bulletin 2019-4, the revised booklet now provides additional guidance describing activities that the OCC has determined may be performed in operating subsidiaries and servicer corporations, or through pass-through investments.
OCC allows institutions affected by severe winter weather to close
On January 30, the OCC issued a proclamation permitting OCC-regulated institutions, at their discretion, to close offices affected by severe winter weather in the Midwest and Northeast regions of the United States “for as long as deemed necessary for bank operation or public safety.” In issuing the proclamation, the OCC noted that it expects that only those bank offices directly affected by potentially unsafe conditions will close and that institutions should make every effort to reopen as quickly as possible to address the banking needs of their customers. The proclamation directs institutions to OCC Bulletin 2012-28 for further guidance on natural disasters and other emergency conditions.
Final rule subject to approval will require federally regulated lending institutions to accept private flood insurance
Recently, the FDIC and OCC approved a joint final rule governing the acceptance of private flood insurance policies. (The final rule must also be approved by—and is still under review with—the other agencies jointly issuing the rule: the Federal Reserve Board, Farm Credit Administration, and National Credit Union Association.) The final rule amends regulations governing loans secured by properties in special flood hazard areas to implement the provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert Waters) concerning private flood insurance (see previous InfoBytes coverage of the proposed rule here). The National Flood Insurance Act and the Flood Disaster Protection Act require flood insurance on improved property that secures a loan made, increased, extended, or renewed by a federally regulated lending institution (lending institution) if the property is in a special flood hazard area for which flood insurance is available under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Biggert Waters required the Agencies to adopt regulations directing lending institutions to accept insurance that meets the definition of “private flood insurance” in lieu of NFIP flood insurance.
The final rule, once approved by all five regulators, will institute the following provisions to take effect July 1:
- Lending institutions must accept private flood insurance policies meeting the definition of “private flood insurance.”
- Lending institutions may rely on a “streamlined compliance aid provision” to determine, without further review, that a policy meet the definition of “private flood insurance” if the policy (or an endorsement to the policy) contains the following language: “This policy meets the definition of private flood insurance contained in 42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7) and the corresponding regulation.”
- Lending institutions may choose to accept private policies that do not meet the statutory criteria for “private flood insurance” as long as the policies meet certain criteria and the lending institutions document that the policies offer “sufficient protection for a designated loan, consistent with general safety and soundness principles.”
- Lending institutions may exercise discretion when accepting non-traditional flood coverage issued by “mutual aid societies,” subject to certain conditions including that the lending institutions’ primary federal supervisory agency has determined that the plans qualify as flood insurance. However, the final rule does not require lending institutions to accept coverage issued by mutual aid societies.
OCC announces adoption of 18-month examination cycle final rule
On January 17, the OCC announced, together with the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, the final rule amending regulations governing eligibility for the 18-month on-site examination cycle, pursuant to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The final rule was published without change from the interim rule issued in August 2018 (covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule allows for qualifying insured depository institutions with less than $3 billion in total assets (which is an increase from the previous threshold of $1 billion) to be eligible for an 18-month on-site examination cycle. The agencies reserve the right to adopt a more frequent schedule than 18 months for qualifying institutions if deemed “necessary or appropriate.” The final rule is effective January 28.
OCC releases recent enforcement actions
On January 18, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. The new enforcement actions include civil money penalties, a formal agreement, and removal/prohibition orders.
Formal Agreement. On December 31, the OCC entered into an agreement with a San Francisco bank to address alleged unsafe or unsound practices related to the bank’s enterprise governance, concentrations of credit, and credit risk management. Among other conditions, the agreement requires the bank to (i) establish a three-year strategic plan outlining goals and objectives related to the bank’s risk profile and liability structure, among other concerns; (ii) receive a “written determination of no supervisory objection” prior to increasing concentrations in unguaranteed portions of Small Business Administration (SBA) loans, and establish a concentration risk management program; (iii) engage an independent consultant to conduct quarterly asset quality reviews of the bank’s loan portfolio to, among other things, identify and stratify risk; (iv) establish and maintain a credit risk rating system; (v) revise its loan policies and procedures, including changes to its SBA lending program; (vi) submit revised policies and procedures concerning the maintenance and documentation of appropriate allowances for loan and lease losses; and (vii) prepare an employee compensation plan, which establishes criteria used when determining compensation levels, including those involving the bank’s SBA managers, business development officers, underwriters, and loan officers.
Regulators encourage financial institutions to work with borrowers impacted by government shutdown; FHA also issues shutdown guidance
On January 11, the Federal Reserve Board, CSBS, CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC (together, the “Agencies”) released a joint statement (see also FDIC FIL-1-2019) to encourage financial institutions to work with consumers impacted by the federal government shutdown. According to the Agencies, borrowers may face temporary hardships when making payments on mortgages, student loans, auto loans, business loans, or credit cards. FDIC FIL-1-2019 states that prudent workout arrangements, such as extending new credit, waiving fees, easing limits on credit cards, allowing deferred or skipped payments, modifying existing loan terms, and delaying delinquency notice submissions to credit bureaus, will not be subject to examiner criticism provided the efforts are “consistent with safe-and-sound lending practices.”
Separately, on January 8, Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Commissioner Brian Montgomery issued a letter regarding the shutdown reminding FHA-approved lenders and mortgagees of their ongoing obligation to offer special forbearance to borrowers experiencing loss of income and to evaluate borrowers for available loss mitigation options to prevent foreclosures. In addition, FHA also encourages mortgagees and lenders to waive late fees and suspend credit reporting on affected borrowers.
Federal Reserve issues proposal amending stress test requirements
On January 8, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that would revise company-run stress test and supervisory stress test requirements to conform with Section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Similar to the previously issued NPRs by the FDIC and the OCC (covered by InfoBytes here), the proposed rule will, among other things, change the minimum threshold for applicability from $10 billion to $250 billion in consolidated assets and revise the frequency of required company-run stress tests for most state member banks from annual to biannual. However, the proposed rule notes that certain state member banks will still be required to conduct annual stress tests, such as (i) those that are subsidiaries of global systemically important bank holding companies; (ii) bank holding companies that have $700 billion or more in total assets; or (iii) cross-jurisdictional activity of $75 billion or more. Furthermore, the proposed rule will remove the “adverse” stress testing scenario—which the Board states has provided “limited incremental information”—and require stress tests to be conducted under the “baseline” and “severely adverse” stress testing scenarios. Comments on the NPR must be received by February 19.
U.S. government watchdog studies fintech lending trends, recommends need for clarity on use of alternative data
In December, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled “Financial Technology: Agencies Should Provide Clarification on Lenders’ Use of Alternative Data,” which addresses emerging issues in fintech lending due to rapid growth in loan volume and increasing partnerships between banks and fintech lenders. The report also addresses fintech lenders’ use of alternative data to supplement traditional data used in making credit decisions or to detect fraud. The report notes that many banks and fintech lenders would benefit from additional guidance to ease the regulatory uncertainty surrounding the use of alternative data, including compliance with fair lending and consumer protection laws. The report’s findings cover the following topics:
- Growth of fintech lending. GAO’s analysis discusses the growth of fintech lending and several possible driving factors, such as financial innovation; consumer and business demand; lower interest rates on outstanding debt; increased investor base; and competitive advantages resulting from differences in regulatory requirements when compared to traditional state- or federally chartered banks.
- Partnerships with federally regulated banks. The report addresses two broad categories of business models: bank partnership and direct lending. GAO reports that the most common structure is the bank partnership model, where fintech lenders evaluate loan applicants through technology-based credit models, which incorporate partner banks’ underwriting criteria and are originated using the bank’s charter as opposed to state lending licenses. The fintech lender may then purchase the loans from the banks and either hold the loan in portfolio, or sell in the secondary market.
- Regulatory concerns. GAO reports that the most significant regulatory challenges facing fintech lenders relate to (i) compliance with varying state regulations; (ii) litigation-related concerns including the “valid when made” doctrine and “true lender” issues; (iii) ability to obtain industrial loan company charters; and (iv) emerging federal initiatives such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) special-purpose national bank charter, fragmented coordination among federal regulators, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) “no-action letter” policy.
- Consumer protection issues. The report identifies several consumer protection concerns related to fintech lending, including issues related to transparency in small business lending; data accuracy and privacy, particularly with respect to the use of alternative data in underwriting; and the potential for high-cost loans due to lack of competitive pressure.
- Use of alternative data. The report discusses fintech lenders’ practice of using alternative data, such as on-time rent payments or a borrower’s alma mater and degree, to supplement traditional data when making credit decisions. GAO notes that while there are potential benefits to using alternative data—including expansion of credit access, improved pricing of products, faster credit decisions, and fraud prevention—there are also a number of identified risks, such as fair lending issues, transparency, data reliability, performance during economic downturns, and cybersecurity concerns.
The GAO concludes by recommending that U.S. federal financial regulators, including the CFPB, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the OCC communicate in writing with fintech lenders and their bank partners about the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process. According to the report, all four agencies indicated their intent to take action to address the recommendations and outlined efforts to monitor the use of alternative data.
OCC issues statement on student loan rehabilitation programs
On December 27, the OCC released Bulletin 2018-48, which announces an update to the “Student Lending” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook to include information about the rehabilitation programs for private education loans authorized under Section 602 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act), signed into law in May 2018. Section 602 amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to give student loan borrowers the option to request the removal of student loan default information from their credit report, if, among other things, (i) the lender offers a Section 602 rehabilitation program that has been approved by the bank’s appropriate federal regulator; (ii) the borrower meets the bank’s program criteria, including a demonstrated willingness and ability to repay the loan; and (iii) the borrower has not previously removed a default on the same loan. Although the Act does not require lenders to offer a Section 602 rehabilitation program, those that do are entitled to a safe harbor from claims of inaccurate reporting for removing a default.
The Bulletin also details the process for obtaining regulatory approval for a Section 602 rehabilitation program. The Bulletin notes that banks intending to establish a Section 602 program must seek written approval from their supervisory office concerning the proposed program, and that the office will review the program to ensure it is consistent with the Act’s minimum requirements, other applicable laws and regulations, and safe and sound banking principles. The OCC will provide feedback or notify the bank of its decision within 120 days of the request.