On February 18, three federal banking agencies – the Federal Reserve Board, OCC, and FDIC – issued a joint notice seeking public comments on a proposed information collection form and its reporting requirements, FFIEC 102 – “Market Risk Regulatory Report for Institutions Subject to the Market Risk Capital Rule.” If finalized, market risk institutions will be required to file the proposed FFIEC 102 to allow the agencies to, among other things, assess “the reasonableness and accuracy of the institution’s calculation of its minimum capital requirements . . . and . . . the institution’s capital in relation to its risks.” The proposed FFIEC 102 sets forth reporting instructions for financial institutions to which the market risk capital rule applies, and specifies that reporting requirements would take effect starting March 31, 2015. Comments to the proposal must be submitted on or before March 20.
On February 18, Steven Antonakes, Deputy Director of the CFPB, delivered remarks before the Exchequer Club of Washington, D.C. regarding the CFPB’s risk-focused supervision program. In his remarks, Antonakes identified two key differences that distinguish the CFPB from other regulatory agencies: (i) there is a “focus on risks to consumers rather than risks to institutions;” and (ii) examinations are conducted by product line rather than an “institution-centric approach.” Antonakes further stated that the agency uses field and market intelligence, which includes both qualitative and quantitative factors for each product line, such as the strength of compliance management systems, findings from CFPB’s prior examinations, the existence of other regulatory actions, the consumer complaints received, and metrics gathered from public reports, to adequately assess risks to consumers from an institution’s activity in any given market. After the review period, an institution will receive a “roll-up examination report” or a “supervisory plan,” depending on size, that will summarize the findings of the review. If corrective action is warranted, a review committee will assess violation-focused factors, institution-focused factors, and policy-focused factors to determine whether the examination should be resolved through a supervisory action or a public enforcement action.
Special Alert: OCC Guidance Applies Consumer Protection Requirements to Overdraft Lines and Protection Services
UPDATE: On February 20, the OCC announced that it would be removing the “Deposited-Related Consumer Credit” booklet, originally issued on February 11, from its website. The OCC’s February 11 booklet seemingly required banks to change overdraft protection services, however the agency has since stated that the booklet was not intended to establish new policy. According to the OCC’s website, the agency will “[revise] the booklet to clarify and restate the existing law, rules, and policy.” When the OCC releases its amended version of the booklet, we will update the February 16 Special Alert to reflect the agency’s modifications.
On February 11, 2015, the OCC issued the “Deposit-Related Consumer Credit” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook, which replaced the “Check Credit” booklet. The booklet provides updated guidance and examination procedures that the OCC will use to assess a bank’s deposit-related consumer credit (DRCC) products, which include check credit (overdraft lines of credit, cash reserves, and special drafts), overdraft protection services, and deposit advances. In many respects, it tracks the CFPB’s proposed prepaid rule, which would apply the Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z to a broad range of credit features associated with prepaid products. Read more…
On February 11, Richard W. Fisher, outgoing President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, delivered remarks before the Economic Club of New York in New York City. In his remarks, he outlined four proposals to address concerns regarding the Fed’s independence and of critics who feel too much authority is concentrated in the New York Fed. His four proposals: (i) Rotate the Vice Chairmanship of the FOMC (currently the NY Fed President is the FOMC’s permanent vice-chair); (ii) supervise and regulate systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) by Federal Reserve Bank staff from a district other than the one in which the SIFI is located; (iii) grant Federal Reserve Bank Presidents an equal number of votes as Fed Governors, with each getting six votes, and this would replace the current system where the NY Fed gets a permanent vote and the remaining 11 Reserve Banks get four votes, with Cleveland and Chicago voting every two years and the remaining Reserve Banks voting every three years; and (iv) require the Chair of the Federal Reserve hold a press conference after every FOMC meeting. Currently, the Chair holds a press conference every quarter.
On February 10, the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is scheduled to hold its first full committee hearing on financial regulation, “Regulatory Relief for Community Banks and Credit Unions.” Officials from both federal and state banking regulators will give prepared remarks.
As previously reported in our Special Alert on January 29, the CFPB issued Compliance Bulletin 2015-01, which reminds supervised financial institutions of their obligations concerning the disclosure of confidential supervisory information to the CFPB and to third parties. For more information, please visit our CFPB Resource Center.
On January 26, the OCC named Michael Brickman as the Deputy Comptroller for Special Supervision. In his role, Brickman will manage the supervision of the OCC’s most problematic midsize and community banks, and will oversee the “development and implementation of rehabilitation or resolution strategies for assigned banks and savings associations.” Prior to joining the OCC in 2011 as Director for Special Supervision, Brickman held various positions at the Office of Thrift Supervision, including Conglomerate Examiner—Complex and International Organizations, Senior Advisor to the Managing Director of Supervision, and Director for Regional Activities.
On January 27, the CFPB issued Compliance Bulletin 2015-01 to remind supervised financial institutions of their obligations concerning the disclosure of confidential supervisory information (CSI) to the CFPB and to third parties. Specifically, the bulletin addresses the interaction between a financial institution’s obligations with respect to the CFPB and its contractual obligations under nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) with a third party that restrict the sharing of information. Such NDAs typically (i) restrict sharing protected information with any third party (which would include a supervisory agency) other than in connection with a subpoena or similar legal requirement and (ii) require the institution to advise the third party before it shares information as required by law (which again would include sharing protected information with a supervisory agency).
Supervised financial institutions and other persons, with limited exceptions outlined in the bulletin, are generally prohibited from disclosing CSI to third parties. According to the bulletin, a supervised financial institution should not rely on the provisions of an NDA to justify disclosing CSI in a manner not otherwise permitted, either through a valid exception or prior written approval from the CFPB. The bulletin appears to take the position that the fact that information has been shared with the CFPB is itself CSI. Read more…
CSBS Issues Policy, Draft Model Regulatory Framework, and Request for Comment Regarding State Regulation of Virtual Currency
As previously reported in our January 8 Digital Commerce & Payments alert and in InfoBytes, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) issued a Policy on State Regulation of Virtual Currency (the “Policy”), Draft Model Regulatory Framework, and a request for public comment regarding the regulation of virtual currency on December 16, 2014. The Policy and Draft Model Regulatory Framework were issued through the work of the CSBS Emerging Payments Task Force (the “Task Force”). The Task Force was established to explore the nexus between state supervision and the development of payment systems and is seeking to identify where there are consistent regulatory approaches among states.
On December 18, the FDIC announced the release of its Winter 2014 issue of Supervisory Insights, which focuses on effective interest rate risk management at community and mid-size financial institutions. Specific articles included in the publication are (i) “Effective Governance Processes for Managing Interest Rate Risk,” (ii) “Developing the Key Assumptions for Analysis of Interest Rate Risk,” (iii) “Developing an In-House Independent Review of Interest Rate Risk Management Systems,” and (iv) “What to Expect During an Interest Rate Risk Review.”
On December 17, the OCC announced the release of its semiannual report on key risk areas affecting the federal banking system. Specifically regarding community and midsize banks, the report identifies areas where the OCC intends to heighten its supervisory attention including, but not limited to, corporate governance, operational risk, cyber risk, and compliance risk, specifically related to fair lending and BSA/AML. Other notable takeaways from the report include continued improvement in the overall financial condition of community and midsize banks. However, the report also indicated that smaller banks, due to increased competition for loan demand and low investment yields, continue to experience pressure on earnings.
On December 16, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced its draft regulatory framework and requested public comment on specific questions intended to aid state regulators on the regulation of virtual currencies. The regulation of virtual currency activities currently varies from state to state. The draft framework is intended to create uniform state regulation. Comments are due by February 16, 2015.
On December 10, NY DFS Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky issued a bulletin to all New York state-chartered or licensed banking institutions regarding an updated IT examination process. Effective immediately, cybersecurity examinations will be included within the overall IT examination process. The DFS cybersecurity examinations will incorporate a number of new topics, including: (i) corporate governance; (ii) protections against intrusion, such as multi-factor or adaptive authentication, along with server and database configuration; (iii) information security testing and monitoring; and (iv) cybersecurity insurance coverage, along with other third-party protections. Ultimately, the new examination process will assess a bank’s cybersecurity protections, in addition to how it manages potential cyber risks and handles a cybersecurity attack.
On December 2, the FFIEC announced the release of its revised BSA/AML examination manual. The updated revisions address supervisory expectations and include regulatory changes since the manual’s last publication in 2010. Significantly modified sections of the examination include (i) Suspicious Activity Reporting, (ii) Currency Transaction Reporting, (iii) Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts Reporting, and (iv) Third-Party Payment Processors. The manual is available on the FFIEC BSA/AML InfoBase.
On July 24, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed HB 5342, which amends numerous provisions of state law applicable to state banks and credit unions, including requiring the Illinois Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation to adopt formal rules that guarantee consistency and due process during the examination process of state-chartered banks. The bill also allows the Secretary to establish guidelines “that (i) define the scope of the examination process and (ii) clarify examination items to be resolved.” In addition, the bill provides that an existing loan secured by an interest in real estate shall not, under certain circumstances, require a new appraisal of the collateral during renewal, refinancing, or restructuring. The changes became effective immediately.