The public comment period for the banking agencies’ capital simplification rules for qualifying community banking organizations (i.e. the Community Bank Leverage Ratio proposal) are due on Tuesday, April 9th.
As previously discussed, the regulators have proposed a new, alternative, simplified capital regime for qualifying institutions that will deem an institution to be well-capitalized so long as it maintains a leverage ratio of at least 9% and adequately capitalized so long as it maintains a leverage ratio of at least 7.5%. While initially proposed last November, publication in the Federal Register was delayed until February of this year. As a result the comment period for the rule ends on Tuesday, April 9, 2019. Comments can be submitted online through Regulations.gov.
Through the publication of this blog post, the primary comments online appear to be the appropriate threshold for the new Community Bank Leverage Ratio. As background, EGRRCPA, the statutory basis for the reforms, obligates the regulators to apply a threshold of between 8% and 10%, and the regulators proposed 9%. Most of the submitted comments, including several from community bankers, comments from the Kansas Bankers Association and the Independent Bankers Association of Texas argue for a lower 8% ratio. Conversely, the Mercatus Center has submitted a comment supporting a 10% ratio.
The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) provided significant regulatory relief for community banks, including broad relief from the Volcker Rule’s prohibition on proprietary trading and investments in covered funds. As previously discussed, Section 203 of EGRRCPA provided an exemption from the Volcker Rule for institutions that are less than $10 billion and whose total trading assets and liabilities are not more than 5% of total consolidated assets. The exemption provides complete relief from the Volcker Rule by exempting such depository institutions from the definition of “banking entity” for purposes of the Volcker Rule.
On December 21, 2018, the financial regulatory agencies invited public comments on a proposal to implement the EGRRCPA changes to the Volcker Rule. The proposed rule provides that an insured depository institution is exempt from the Volcker Rule if “it has, and every company that controls it has, total consolidated assets of $10 billion or less and total trading assets and trading liabilities, on a consolidated basis, that are 5% or less of total consolidated assets.” While the proposed rule is not yet effective, the Federal Reserve has previously confirmed that it would not enforce the Volcker Rule in a manner inconsistent with EGRRCPA, so the proposed rule is effectively already in place.
Based on September 30, 2018 call report data, this change to the Volcker Rule exempted approximately 97.5% of the 5,486 U.S. depository institutions. (The actual number is probably slightly less, as some of those exempted depository institutions are affiliated with larger and/or foreign banks, each of which would remain subject to the Volcker Rule.) Of note, the $10 billion asset threshold is by far the most relevant determinant of the eligible relief. Based on that call report data (which necessarily excludes any trading assets and liabilities held by a parent company), only 0.15% of depository institutions had trading assets equal to at least 5% of their total assets (and only 0.16% of the institutions had trading assets equal to 3% or more of their total assets).
While few community banks ever engaged in proprietary trading before the Volcker Rule, EGRRCPA still provides meaningful relief from the compliance obligations of the Volcker Rule, the risk of inadvertently being deemed to engage in proprietary trading, or the prohibition from investing in covered funds (or the need to ensure that vehicles that were invested in qualified for an exemption from the covered fund definition).
On December 27th, Jonathan and I returned to the studio to record the latest podcast for The Bank Account. We haven’t discussed New Year’s Resolutions, but we’ll try to return to a little more normalcy in 2019!
For those that have missing our voices, (a) please seek help… that’s not normal and (b) we were also recently guests on the ABA Banking Journal Podcast. In a lively conversation with Evan Sparks and Shaun Kern, Jonathan and I discussed our 2019 M&A Outlook for the ABA Banking Journal. For those of you who have missed that podcast (or article), I encourage you to listen/read before listening to this podcast, as we follow-up on some of these themes.
Our first substantive conversation on this podcast is a look at some of the transactions announced in the Metro Atlanta market in 2018. With State Bank’s merger with Cadence, Fidelity Bank with Ameris Bank, and National Commerce with CenterState, the Atlanta banking market, and particularly the M&A market, will look radically different in 2019 and beyond.
Following the M&A discussion, our attention turned to the newly proposed Community Bank Leverage Ratio. While it is solely a proposed rule and, if adopted in its current structure, will be an entirely optional framework for banks under $10 billion in assets, it also provides the potential for significant regulatory relief for those institutions that can take advantage of the capital (particularly risk-based) relief.
On December 11, 2018 Kathleen Kraninger, the new Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, held a media conference. She introduced herself and answered media questions. Subsequent headlines have focused on among other things: (a) whether she would simply follow the recent course set by her predecessor Acting Director Mick Mulvaney, and (b) whether the Bureau’s recent name change would stick. Director Kraninger’s comments appeared to signal accountability, independence and curiosity. The impact on regulated institutions in 2019 and beyond remains to unfold. Here are some developments to watch in 2019.
Listening Tour 2019. Kraninger will be engaging in a listening tour to get to know the 1500 employees in the Bureau. For example, she plans to visit to San Francisco, Chicago, New York regional offices. She also indicated that she intends to connect with other regulators and constituencies including, state regulators, other related federal agencies, consumer advocates and regulated institutions. She also indicated she will work to have a productive relationship with House Financial Services Committee and its incoming chair Maxine Waters. Earlier this month, Waters released a statement requesting Kraninger undertake specific initiatives “to put consumers first by rolling back the anti-consumer actions taken by her predecessor and allowing the Consumer Bureau to resume its work of protecting hardworking Americans from unfair, deceptive or abusive practices.” New staffing alignments and other strategic changes may be borne form this listening tour.
Believes Regulated Industry Wants to Comply. In a nod to industry, Kraninger noted that institutions want to comply with consumer protection laws. The Bureau needs to give institutions clear rules in her view. However, she also signaled strong action for outliers, indicating that enforcement is a critical function and tool of the Bureau “fundamental to the agency’s mission.” She also noted that “bad actors” should expect repercussions under her watch.
On November 21, 2018, the Federal Reserve, Office of Comptroller of the Currency and the FDIC jointly published a notice of proposed rulemaking (the “NPR”) to provide an alternative capital system for qualifying banking organizations. Specifically, the regulators have proposed a new, alternative, simplified capital regime for qualifying institutions that will deem an institution to be well-capitalized so long as it maintains a leverage ratio of at least 9% and adequately capitalized so long as it maintains a leverage ratio of at least 7.5%.
The NPR seeks to implement the community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) mandated by Section 201 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (“EGRRCPA”). EGRRCPA requires the regulatory agencies to develop a CBLR of not less than 8 percent and not more than 10 percent for qualifying community banking organizations, and provides that organizations that meet such CBLR will deemed well capitalized for all purposes. EGRRCPA further provides that a qualifying community banking organization to be a depository institution or depository institution holding company with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion.
Summary of the NPR
The NPR establishes five criteria for an depository institution or holding company to be deemed a Qualifying Community Banking Organization:
Total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion;
Total off-balance sheet exposures of 25% or less of total consolidated assets;
Total trading assets and trading liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets;
MSAs of 25% or less of CBLR tangible equity; and
Temporary difference DTAs of 25% or less of CBLR tangible equity.
Under the NPR, the numerator of the CBLR would be CBLR tangible equity. CBLR tangible equity would be equal to total equity capital, determined in accordance with Call Report or Form Y-9C instructions, prior to including any minority interests, less (i) accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI), (ii) all intangible assets (other than MSAs) including goodwill and core deposit intangibles, and (iii) DTA’s arising from net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards.
The CBLR denominator would be average total consolidated assets, calculated in accordance with Call Report or Form Y-9C instructions, less the items deducted from the CBLR numerator, except AOCI. The NPR notes that the calculation is similar to the one used in determining the denominator of the tier 1 leverage ratio.
Under the NPR, a Qualifying Community Banking Organization may elect to use the CBLR framework at any time, so long as it has a CBLR greater than 9% at the time of the election. Under the CBLR framework, the Qualifying Community Banking Organization will be considered well capitalized so long as it has a CBLR greater than 9%. A qualifying depository institution that previously elected to use the CBLR framework but has fallen below 9% will not be required to convert back to the regular capital system. Instead, the following CBLR leves will serve as proxies for the PCA categories:
Adequately Capitalized – CBLR of 7.5% or greater;
Undercapitalized – CBLR of less than 7.5%; and
Significantly Undercapitalized – CBLR of less than 6%.
The framework for Critically Undercapitalized would remain unchanged at a ratio of tangible equity to total assets of 2% or below. Any institution that would be deemed Significantly Undercapitalized under the CBLR framework would be required to promptly provide its appropriate regulators sufficient information to calculate the PCA tangible equity ratio.
We have heard, read and seen (and internally had) some confusion regarding the joint proposed rulemaking regarding the potential simplification of the capital rules as they relate to Mortgage Servicing Assets (MSAs) and certain Deferred Tax Assets (DTAs).
In addition to simply being complicated regulations, the regulators also have two proposed rulemakings outstanding related to these items. In August 2017, the banking regulators jointly sought public comment on proposed rules (the “Transition NPR“) that proposed to extend the treatment of MSAs and certain DTAs based on the 2017 transition period. Then, in September 2017, the banking regulators jointly sought comment on proposed rules (the “Simplification NPR“) that proposed to alter the limitations on treatment of MSAs and certain DTAs (and also addressed High Volatility Commercial Real Estate or HVCRE loans).
The Simplification NPR also addressed the interplay of the Simplification NPR and the Transition NPR. The Simplification NPR provided that the Transition NPR, if finalized, would only remain effective until such time as the Simplification NPR became effective. Accordingly, the Simplification NPR, if adopted, will ultimately control, with no transition periods for MSAs and certain DTAs following January 1, 2018.
Net Operating Loss DTAs
Importantly, neither the Transition NPR nor the Simplification NPR have any affect on the Basel III capital treatment net operating loss (NOL) DTAs. DTAs that arise from NOL and tax credit carryforwards net of any related valuation allowances and net of deferred tax liabilities must be deducted from common equity tier 1 capital. Through the end of 2017, the deduction for NOL DTAs are apportioned between common equity tier 1 capital and tier 1 capital. In 2017, 80% of the NOL DTA is deducted directly from common equity tier 1 capital, while the remaining 20% is separately deducted from additional tier 1 capital. Starting in 2018, 100% of the NOL DTA will be deducted from common equity tier 1 capital.
The end of the transition period will have the effect of lowering the common equity tier 1 capital ratio of all institutions with NOL DTAs, although the tier 1 capital and leverage ratios should remain unchanged. This impact is entirely unaffected by the adoption (or non-adoption) of the Transition NPR and/or Simplification NPR.
Similarly, other aspects of NOL DTAs are unaffected by the proposed rules. Specifically, (i) GAAP still controls the appropriateness of valuation allowances in connection with the DTA, (ii) tax laws still control the length of time over which DTAs can be carried forward, and (iii) Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code still controls the limitation (and potential loss) of DTAs upon a change in control of the taxpayer.
Temporary Difference DTAs
Unlike Net Operating Loss DTAs, DTAs arising from temporary differences between GAAP and tax accounting, such as those associated with an allowance for loan losses and other real estate write-downs, can be included in common equity tier 1 capital, subject to certain restrictions. To the extent that such DTAs could be realized through NOL carryback if all those temporary differences were deemed to have been reversed, such DTAs are includable in their entirety in common equity tier 1 capital. Essentially, to the extent the temporary difference DTAs could be realized by carrying back against taxes already paid, then such DTAs are fully includable in capital. Carryback rules vary by jurisdiction; while federal law generally permits a bank to carry back NOLs two years, many states do not allow carrybacks.
While most payday lenders would need to make significant changes to their products and practices under the proposed rules, the final rules could well be delayed though legal challenges in court. The scope of the proposal is extraordinary, even requiring a new credit reporting system, that would need to be built, to facilitate the ability-to-repay requirements of the proposal. The CFPB is relying on its authority under the Dodd-Frank UDAAP provisions to issue the rules, which is admittedly very broad, but even that might not be enough to support this ambitious proposal.
Nevertheless, because we cannot predict how courts would ultimately rule on the CFPB’s authority, it’s important to understand the proposed rules, prepare comments, and consider what business model changes might be needed. This article therefore summarizes the key provisions of the proposal.
At almost 150 pages, there are many facets to the proposed rule that must be carefully analyzed. At the outset, we give credit to the FDIC for attempting to fine tune deposit insurance assessments beyond the blunt instrument that they have always been. We have long held the position that the FDIC should adopt more careful underwriting procedures, similar to private insurers, in order to better serve its function in the industry.
Under the proposal, a number of factors are used in a model to calculate a bank’s deposit insurance assessment rates: CAMELS ratings, Leverage Ratio, net income, non-performing loan ratios, OREO Ratios, core deposit ratios, one year asset growth (excluding growth through M&A, thankfully), and a loan mix index. All of these factors are intended to predict a bank’s risk of future failure, and all are worthy of discussion.
Putting aside our overall hesitancy to fully support faceless numerical models to draw important conclusions (anyone remember subprime lending?), we were initially drawn to the proposed implementation of the “loan mix index” as a factor for calculating deposit insurance assessment rates. As we have previously discussed, construction lenders have recently been disadvantaged by the new HVCRE rules under the Basel III capital standards. Once again, construction loans are the focus of regulatory scorn.
The poignant story on vets and car repossession is just one piece in the ongoing discussion about what actions the CFPB will take regarding provisions in consumer contracts limiting the consumer to arbitration in the event of a future dispute, referred to as “pre-dispute arbitration clauses.” Under Section 1028 of Dodd-Frank, the CFPB was required to conduct a study on use of arbitration clauses in connection with offering consumer financial products and services. If, through study, the CFPB finds that prohibiting or limiting the clauses in agreements between market participants it regulates and consumers “is in the public interest and for the protection of consumers,” it can impose regulations to that effect. Further, Section 1414 of Dodd-Frank already prohibits pre-dispute arbitration clauses in mortgage contracts.
With the CFPB recently releasing its final, 728-page arbitration study finding that arbitration agreements “limit relief for consumers,” indications are that the CFPB will conduct some rulemaking to curtail, or at least significantly limit, them in the consumer financial product market, and likely over industry objections. The study, which began in April 2012 and was followed by a preliminary report released in December 2013 before the final report was published, involved analysis of data from consumer contracts and the courts regarding the resolution of consumer disputes.
On August 4, 2014, FinCEN released proposed rules that would require banks and certain other financial institutions to identify the “beneficial owners” of their business entity customers and to verify the identity of each such beneficial owner (the “Proposal”). If the Proposal results in final rules that are substantially identical to the proposed rules, financial institutions might be unable to comply without violating the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).
Under the Proposal, “beneficial owners” would generally include at least one manager of the entity and each individual owning 25% or more of the entity. This could mean up to five individuals if no manager also owns 25% or more of the entity.
The Proposal would require a financial institution first to identify the customer’s beneficial owners. This should be reasonably manageable because institutions would be able to provide a certification form to its customer and require that the customer name its beneficial owners. Financial institution’s would not be required to take independent steps to verify the status of such persons as beneficial owners.
The potential legal conflict arises under the second prong of the Proposal, under which the financial institution would be required to verify the identity of those persons whom it has been told are the customer’s beneficial owners. The Proposal would require a financial institution to verify the identity of each beneficial owner using risk-based procedures that are “identical to the covered financial institution’s Customer Identification Program procedures required for verifying the identity of customers that are individuals.”
Whether in a deposit or loan context, banks often will obtain a single credit report or other consumer report for the combined purposes of an initial OFAC screen, to confirm the customer’s creditworthiness, and to verify the customer’s identity under the institution’s Customer Identification Program (“CIP”). Such reports are “consumer reports” under the FCRA and therefore subject to the FCRA’s rules, including with respect to when such reports may be obtained.
If you have any questions regarding anything discussed on this blog, the attorneys and other professionals of the Financial Institutions Group of Bryan Cave LLP are available to answer your questions. Please click here for a list of our Professionals or fill out the contact request form below.
Thank you for reaching out to us.
First, though, we have to tell you a couple of things:
Your email will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and us. Attorney-client relationships can only be created in writing, signed by both you and us.
Until you become a client:
You will not tell us anything you would not want made public.
We cannot respond to any question about the law or legal options.
We may represent a party adverse to you, now or in the future.
The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.