InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal District Court Rejects Putative Class Challenge To Servicer's Compliance With IFR Order
On May 12, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky held that it lacks jurisdiction to review allegations that a mortgage servicer operating under an OCC consent order was negligent in its maintenance of records related to the order. Harris v. Citimortgage, Inc., No. 13-783, slip op. (W.D. Ky. May 12, 2014). The case stems from an amended OCC consent order entered in 2013 as part of the government’s decision to halt the Independent Foreclosure Review Process. The borrower in this action claimed, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated borrowers, that one of the settling servicers failed to keep up-to-date records and failed to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of those records, resulting in the borrower’s foreclosure status being incorrectly classified and the borrower being paid less money under the order than she would have been if she her status had been properly classified. The court explained that the consent order requires the OCC to validate the categorization of borrowers, and that the payments to borrowers are established by the OCC at its discretion. To assess the borrower’s negligence claim, the court would be required to review the OCC’s validation of the borrower’s categorization and payment, which the court is prohibited from doing under federal law. The court dismissed the borrower’s action.
GAO Recommends Enhanced Oversight Of Independent Foreclosure Review Settlements
On April 29, the GAO published a report on its examination of the 2013 amended consent orders that ended the Independent Foreclosure Review process. After testing the regulators' major assumptions, the GAO concludes “that the final negotiated amount generally fell within a reasonable range.” However, the GAO criticizes the regulators for not defining specific objectives for the $6 billion in foreclosure prevention actions required by the settlements, for not analyzing available data, such as servicers' recent volume of foreclosure prevention actions, and for not analyzing approaches by which servicers' actions could be credited toward the total of $6 billion. In addition, the GAO found that while the OCC and the Federal Reserve are verifying servicers' foreclosure prevention policies, they are not testing policy implementation. The GAO believes that without specific procedures, regulators cannot assess implementation of the principles and may miss opportunities to protect borrowers. The GAO recommends that the OCC and the Federal Reserve Board “should define testing activities to oversee foreclosure prevention principles and include information on processes in public documents.” The GAO also believes the regulators should release publicly information on the processes used, such as how decisions about borrower payments were made, and that “[i]n the absence of information on the processes, regulators face risks to public confidence in the mortgage market, the restoration of which was one of the goals of the file review process.”
OCC Proposes Large Bank Assessment Increase
On April 28, the OCC published a proposed rule that would increase assessments on national banks and federal savings associations with total assets over $40 billion. The OCC proposes to increase the marginal assessment rate for such institutions by 14.5% beginning September 30, 2014; specific assessments would range from 0.32% to 14%, depending on the total assets of the institution as reflected on its June 30, 2014 call report. The average increase in assessments for covered institutions would be 12%. The OCC attributes the increased assessments to new supervisory and regulatory initiatives that require additional resources, with most of those resources allotted for large bank supervision and regulation. The OCC notes it did not raise marginal rates on the assets of these institutions between 1995 and 2013, and lowered marginal rates for these institutions in 2008 when it added a new asset bracket for assets in excess of $250 billion. Comments on the proposed rule are due June 12, 2014.
Congressman Cummings Returns To Scrutiny Of Independent Foreclosure Reviews
On April 24, House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) expressed renewed interest in the termination of the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR). In a letter to Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), Congressman Cummings requested a hearing on “the widespread foreclosure abuse and illegal activities engaged in by mortgage servicing companies” and to “examine why the [Fed] and the [OCC] appear to have prematurely ended the Independent Foreclosure Review” through revised consent orders issued in January 2013. The request is based on “new evidence” obtained by Congressman Cummings, including claims that outside consultants retained as part of the IFR “had identified very high error rates in several categories of review” at certain institutions just before the revised consent orders were announced. In addition to these concerns, Congressman Cummings raised questions about how regulators arrived at the compensation amounts servicers were required to pay under the settlements, and how regulators determined that the allegedly harmed borrowers would benefit more from the settlement than if the IFR had been completed. Last year, Congressman Cummings, together with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), raised similar concerns about the regulators’ decision to cease the IFR by entering into revised consent orders.
Banking Agencies Issue Revised CRA Exam Procedures
On April 18, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve Board released revised Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examination procedures applicable to institutions with total assets greater than $1.202 billion as of December 31 of either of the previous two calendar years. The procedures incorporate revisions to the CRA interagency questions and answers issued in November 2013. Those revisions generally were intended to: (i) clarify how the agencies consider community development activities that benefit a broader statewide or regional area that includes an institution’s assessment area; (ii) provide guidance related to CRA consideration of, and documentation associated with, investments in nationwide funds; (iii) clarify the consideration of certain community development services, such as service on a community development organization’s board of directors; (iv) address the treatment of loans or investments to organizations that, in turn, invest those funds and use only a portion of the income from their investment to support a community development purpose; and (v) clarify that community development lending performance is always a factor considered in a large institution’s lending test rating.
Comptroller Curry Takes Vendor Management Message To Third-Party Providers
On April 16, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry spoke to attendees of the Consumer Electronics Show Government Conference, taking his concerns about banks’ vendor relationships and cybersecurity risks to potential third-party technology service providers. Comptroller Curry explained the banking system’s vulnerability to cyberattacks given its significant reliance on technology and telecommunications, and expressed particular concern about potential attacks on community banks. He reiterated several of the specific risk issues he recently discussed with community bankers. Comptroller Curry (i) outlined risks related to the consolidation of bank vendors; (ii) identified as a “special problem” banks’ reliance on foreign vendors, and cautioned banks to consider the legal and regulatory implications of where their data is stored or transmitted; and (iii) expressed concern about vendors’ access to important and confidential bank and customer data. He assured attendees that the OCC is not trying to discourage the use of third-party vendors, but in explaining the OCC’s particular focus on controls and risk management practices employed by vendors that provide services to banks and thrifts, Comptroller Curry advised vendors of the OCC’s authority under the Bank Service Company Act to issue enforcement actions and its authority to examine vendors designated as Technology Service Providers. He reported that banks have asked the OCC to more actively supervise critical service providers and stated that in working to protect the banking system the OCC will have to “look beyond individual financial institutions to the range of vendors and customers that have access to some part of its infrastructure and systems.”
House Committee Members Express Concerns About Operation Choke Point
On April 8 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing with the general counsels of the federal banking agencies regarding, among other things, Operation Choke Point, the federal enforcement operation reportedly intended to cut off from the banking system certain lenders and merchants allegedly engaged in unlawful activities. Numerous committee members from both sides of the aisle raised concerns about Operation Choke Point, as well as the federal government’s broader pressure on banks over their relationships with nonbank financial service providers, including money service businesses, nonbank lenders, and check cashers. Committee members asserted that the operation is impacting lawful nonbank financial service providers, who are losing access to the banking system and, in turn, are unable to offer needed services to the members’ constituents. The FDIC’s Richard Osterman repeatedly stated that Operation Choke Point is a DOJ operation and the FDIC’s participation is limited to providing certain information and resources upon request. Mr. Osterman also asserted that the FDIC is not attempting to, and does not intend to, prohibit banks from offering products or services to nonbank financial service providers operating within the law, and that the FDIC’s guidance is clear that banks are neither prohibited from nor encouraged to provide services to certain businesses, provided they properly manage their risk. Similarly, the OCC's Amy Friend stated that the OCC wants to ensure that banks conduct due diligence and implement appropriate controls, but that the OCC is not prohibiting banks from offering services to lawful businesses. She stated the OCC has found that some banks have made a business decision to terminate relationships with some nonbank providers rather than implement additional controls.
Prudential Regulators Finalize Leverage Ratio Rule For Largest Institutions
On April 8, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the OCC adopted a final rule, effective January 1, 2018, requiring certain top-tier U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) to maintain a minimum supplementary leverage ratio buffer of 2% above the minimum supplementary leverage ratio requirement of 3%. The final rule applies to BHCs with more than $700 billion in total consolidated assets or more than $10 trillion in assets under custody (Covered BHCs), and to insured depository institution subsidiaries of those BHCs (Covered Subsidiaries). A Covered BHC that fails to maintain the supplemental leverage buffer would be subject to restrictions on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments. Covered Subsidiaries must also maintain a supplementary leverage ratio of at least 6% to be considered “well capitalized” under the agencies’ prompt corrective action framework. The final rule is substantially similar to the rule the agencies proposed in July 2013. Concurrent with the final rule, the agencies also (i) proposed a rule that would modify the denominator calculation for the supplementary leverage ratio in a manner consistent with recent changes agreed to by the Basel Committee, which would apply to all internationally active banking organizations, including those subject to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio final rule; and (ii) proposed a technical correction to the definition of “eligible guarantee” in the agencies’ risk-based capital rules. The agencies are accepting comments on both proposals through June 13, 2014. Separately, the FDIC Board adopted as final its Basel III interim final rule, which is substantively identical to the final rules adopted by the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC in July 2013.
Comptroller Curry Calls On Banks To Offer Payday Loan Alternatives
On April 1, Comptroller Thomas Curry delivered remarks in which he urged banks to offer alternatives to “high cost payday loans.” The Comptroller defended his agency’s guidance on deposit advance products and stated that “properly managed small-dollar loan programs do not exhibit the same level of risks [the OCC] identified with deposit advance products, and that such loans can be made available to consumers.” He added that many of the risks identified with regard to deposit advance guidance, including the product’s short-term balloon payment feature, were specific to that product. He encouraged banks to offer “responsible” small-dollar loan programs comprised of products with reasonable terms, and to report payment information for such products to credit bureaus. In addition to helping consumers, the comptroller believes such programs (i) can be offered at an incremental cost to banks; (ii) can help build banks’ reputations and expand existing customer relationships; and (iii) can potentially be eligible for positive CRA consideration. The remarks did not provide specific guidance on the pricing and other small dollar loan terms that the OCC would consider appropriate.
OCC Issues Booklet On Wage Garnishment
On April 1, the OCC issued a booklet titled “Garnishment of Accounts Containing Federal Benefit Payments.” The booklet, a new addition to the Comptroller’s Handbook, includes interagency guidance and examination procedures and reflects a June 2013 interim rule that amended federal regulations governing the garnishment of certain federal benefit payments that are directly deposited to accounts at financial institutions. The booklet (i) establishes procedures that financial institutions must follow when they receive a garnishment order against an account holder who receives certain types of federal benefit payments by direct deposit; and (ii) requires financial institutions that receive such a garnishment order to determine the sum of such federal benefit payments deposited to the account during a two-month period and ensure that the account holder has access to an amount equal to that sum or to the current balance of the account, whichever is lower.