Bank Lawyer's Blog

Rent Seeking "Reform"

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. responds to a New York Times editorial that claimed that President Obama has been frustrated throughout his two terms by the "political dysfunction" caused by a recalcitrant Republican-led Congress. In his response, Jenkins touches upon a subject near and dear to community bankers and, not coincidentally, to the author of this rag sheet.

If Mr. Obama was “deeply frustrated,” the reason was the American people’s lack of support for his agenda. And what the Times calls his regulatory strategy would better be described as unbridled rent seeking.

That’s the term economists use for exercising government power to create private gains for political purposes. Consider:

Mr. Obama’s bank policy dramatically consolidated the banking industry, which the government routinely sues for billions of dollars, with the proceeds partly distributed to Democratic activist groups.

His consumer-finance agency manufactured fake evidence of racism against wholesale auto lenders in order to facilitate a billion-dollar shakedown.

His airline policy, urged by labor unions, led to a major-carrier oligopoly, with rising fares and profits.

His FDA is seeking to extinguish small e-cigarette makers for the benefit of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma (whose smoking-cessation franchise is threatened by cheap and relatively safe electronic cigarettes).

His National Labor Relations Board, by undermining the power of independent franchisees, is working to cartelize the fast-food industry for the benefit of organized labor.

We could go on. Mr. Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisers complains about the increasing cartelization of the U.S. economy—as if this were not a natural output of regulation. In a much-noted Harvard Business Review piece this spring, James Bessen, an economist, lawyer and software entrepreneur, cites increased “political rent seeking” to explain the puzzle of rising corporate profits in the absence of job creation and economic growth.

The truth is, government playing neutral arbiter over the private economy doesn’t produce rents. A stable and predictable regulatory system produces only mingy or non-existent rents.

Jenkins' allegation that "rent seeking" regulatory "reform" that has resulted in thousands of pages of new regulations that burden banks big and small, as well as pushing the envelope on "disparate impact" and other theories designed to squeeze blood and money out of banks through regulatory enforcement actions, is leading to the "caterlization" of the U.S. economy in general and the U.S. banking system in particular, strikes a chord in many ears It's not the only reason for the consolidation of the banking business, but it's one of them, and a not insignificant one.

As to the ideologues who deny any regulatory burden exists, or if does exist, isn't having a negative effect on community banks (based, I assume, upon Vladimr Lenin's assertion that "A lie told often enough becomes the truth"), the House Financial Services Committee recently published a raft of contrary opinions from the folks on the firing line. Read 'em and weep.

As to where the community banking business, and the country in general, are headed, I have to agree with the conclusion of the CEO of a Mid-Western community bank, communicated to me in an email this weekend: "This doesn't end well."

No, it doesn't. Unless, of course, you're a rent seeker.

The Marijuana Minefiled Continues To Claim Banks

No matter how many times commentators like this curmudgeon warn banks that decide to dip their toes in the toxic waters of banking marijuana businesses, some banks not only don't "get it," they don't get it that they don't get it. At least, they don't until the regulators whack them upside the head.

The latest slow learner is apparently Millennium Bank, a small ($73 million) bank in Des Plaines, Illinois. According to the American Banker's Kevin Wack (paid subscription required), in March 2016, that bank entered into a consent order with the FDIC and Illinois banking authorities that "a source familiar with the matter" claimed "stemmed from the bank's involvement in serving pot businesses." As consultant Steven Kemmerling notes, there is no "template" for banks serving marijuana businesses to navigate the mysterious waters of the FinCEN "guidance" issued in March 2014, which purported to give financial institutions a path to serving marijuana businesses that were engaged in state-legal, federal-illegal activities. The consent order itself does not mention marijuana, and its numerous requirements could be interpreted as an indictment that the bank in question did not have even a basic BSA program required to meet applicable law and regulation. Kemmerling anticipates additional consent orders "as regulators continue to refi9ne how to safely bank marijuana." In other words, the smoke has not yet cleared on how to break federal criminal laws without, you know, getting your writs slapped.

The fact that the consent order (found here) nowhere uses the word "marijuana" indicates that the bank regulators are not anxious to admit that they are tacitly permitting (according to the article by Mr. Wack) 301 banks to engage in activities that are literally illegal. As Alabama Law Professor Julie Anderson Hill pointed out in an excellent law review article that we discussed last year, the regulators who fudge on these activities face another potential risk.

If the Federal Reserve provided payment services to a cannabis credit co-op, the Federal Reserve and its employees would be engaging in money laundering. They might also be conspiring to manufacture and distribute marijuana, aiding and abetting the manufacture and distribution of marijuana, and acting as accessories after the fact for the manufacture and distribution of marijuana. 

When marijuana advocates ask the bank regulators for "clarification," they are praying for rain in Death Valley. What's needed is action from the US Congress, action that would make banking state-legal marijuana businesses also legal under federal law. At that point, more "clarification" on BSA procedures might actually be useful. Don't expect Congressional action this year.

Incidentally, all those banks that are chomping at the bit to get their hands on drug money might want to consider the long-term effects of legalized recreation marijuana use. Trail blazer Colorado is experiencing some kick back from being the Mile High State.

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

I am giving a one-hour webinar for BankersHub on July 19 on the banking and credit union regulators' expectations for technology service agreements. You can find information here.

The CFPB's Worst Nightmare: The US Constitution

A couple of months ago, we discussed the possibility that a case involving the CFPB and PHH Mortgage might go against the CFPB, including a potential finding that the CFPB's very existence (as created by the Franken-Dodd Monster) is unconstitutional. The prior blog post linked to a Forbes article by former White House official Susan Dudley in which Ms. Dudley listed the various arguments on which a finding of unconstitutionality could be based.

Long-time bank lawyer (and current Dorsey & Whitney partner) Joe Lynyak gave his analysis of the same topic in an article in the Westlaw Journal's "Bank and Lender Liability" entitled "The Constitutionality of the CFPB —An Exegesis." That's an imposing title, but at only four pages, it's worth a read, especially if, like this blogger, you've been wishing upon a star that the CFPB might, at best, take a long walk off a short pier, or, at worst, get its extremely large, flapping wings clipped.

Joe lists a number of the same arguments against the CFPB that Ms. Dudley also discussed, including:

• All authority is vested in a single director with extraordinarily broad power, no oversight by a board or commission, and tenure that can be shortened only by removal by the president "for cause."
• Unique existence as a bureau" within the Federal Reserve, an independent entity whose budget (and, therefore, the CFPB's budget, which the Federal Reserve is mandated to fund) is immune from Congressional oversight or control or, for that matter, any oversight or control by the FRB.
• "Broad administrative authority to examine and supervise a wide range of consumer financial firms, with administrative hearing authority to enforce orders requiring corrective measures. Favorable hearing determinations by an administrative judge can be summarily reversed by the director."
• The ability of the bureau to exercise such broad enforcement authority over any "unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice," which "need not be illegal; instead, it may be merely unfair in the view of the bureau."
• The ability of the CFPB ignore the due process rights of people and entities subject to its jurisdiction by regulating via enforcement orders — a practice that in many cases obviates the responsibility to extend the protections afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act (the In every instance
  governmental agency power has remained subject to acceptable levels of oversight by the three branches of the federal government —at least until now. APA affords the opportunity for public comments and dialogue prior to the exercise of an
  agency rulemaking)."
• The CFPB's"position that statutes of limitation do not apply to its enforcement activities, with the result being that targeted institutions have been sanctioned for conduct occurring well beyond the five-year federal agency statute of limitations governing agency enforcement actions that seek monetary penalties."

As to the PHH case, Joe does what many weak-kneed commentators often fail to do: he offers an actual opinion.

As to whether the CFPB’s current structure can withstand a constitutional challenge¸ it is suggested that the correct answer to that question is no. Although the necessities of a federal agency’s administrative mission concededly require flexibility, in the CFPB’s case the outer parameters of permissible agency boundaries have been far exceeded.

A review of the somewhat patchwork set of judicial decisions addressing this issue indicates that courts balance several factors against an infringement on the president’s right to dismiss agency officials without cause.

[...]

In light of the clear efforts of consumer proponents of the CFPB to statutorily insulate the bureau from any meaningful oversight, it is very probable that the CFPB will be found to be unconstitutionally structured.

After dropping that "hot sports opinion" on his audience, he then offers some insight into what festivities might ensue as supporters and opponents of The Adjustment Bureau attempt to either resurrect it or to decapitate it, drive a stake through its heart, and set the remains on fire.

Importantly, should the CFPB’s structure be struck down, the bureau’s prior actions and interpretative pronouncements (now spanning more than five years in length) arguably will become void. Also (and absent judicial mischief that might create a solution to the absence of a reasonable degree of executive oversight), any corrective measures to remedy a constitutional infirmity relating to the CFPB must be considered and adopted by Congress.

Finally, if the CFPB is found to be operating on a constitutionally infirm basis, legislative efforts to defend the bureau will encounter an interesting role reversal.

In the past few years, critics of the CFPB have attempted to amend the bureau’s statutory structure. These attempts have been soundly defeated by supporters who have effectively filibustered any such efforts. (The most frequent attempts for statutory changes have involved proposing a commission form of agency governance, as well as imposing congressional oversight through the budget process.)

Even though it might be relatively simple to minimally modify the CFPB’s structure in order to pass constitutional muster, opponents of the bureau could filibuster any attempt to cure the statutory difficulties without obtaining the concessions demanded by critics. Although this result seems highly likely if the CFPB is found to be unconstitutional, the belief that the bureau has brought about a paradigm shift in consumer protection may prevent consumer advocates from both anticipating this result and compromising sooner rather than later.

I'd pay for tickets and movie theater popcorn prices just to see all that unfold.

On Independence Day, it's pleasant to contemplate the possible demise of a tyrannical overlord, especially one whose minions clothe themselves in the mantle of "doing god's work," the US Constitution be damned.

Defrauding Yourself: A New Frontier Of Legal Theory Temporarily Closed

As we discussed a few years ago, the current administration's Department of Justice has been a huge fan of FIRREA, using its civil money penalties potential to squeeze blood out of bank turnips on the theory that a bank committed a "fraud" that "affected" a federally insured financial institution, that "affected" insitution being the bank that (allegedly) "effected" the fraud. It's a useful theory that permits the DOJ to avoid having to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt," as would be the standard in a criminal prosecution, but only by the lesser "preponderance of the evidence" standard applicable to civil lawsuits. Using FIRREA also permits the DOJ to issue pre-filing administrative subpoenas in order to go on "fishing expeditions" (which, unlike grand jury proceedings, are not subject to secrecy protections of the law). Moreover, the statute of limitations under FIRREA is a long 10 years, so there's a nice long period of time to beat potential defendants about the head and shoulders without having to actual file a lawsuit against them and to put your evidence where your threats are: in front of a judge.

As we said in 2013, defendants have vigorously opposed the ingenious use of FIRREA.

Defendants have argued, among other things, that “affecting” a financial institution under FIRREA means harming or victimizing the financial institution, and that the financial institution itself cannot have “affected” itself where the government’s theory is that it is the perpetrator, rather than the victim, of the alleged fraud. Thus far, the DOJ has been successful at the district court level, but appellate courts have yet to weigh in on this legal theory.

Recently, a federal appeals court did weigh in and, while not deciding that this stretching of the concept of "affecting" was out of bounds, nevertheless poked the DOJ in the eye. Outrageously, the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York actually overturned an award against the Bank of America on the grounds that when the claim is based on "fraud," the government actually has to introduce evidence of fraud. Imagine that!

The appeals court panel threw out a $1.27 billion penalty against Bank of America over mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit, in what had become known as the “Hustle” case a civil lawsuit that the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan filed against Bank of America in 2012. It alleged that a precrisis Countrywide program called Hustle had generated shoddy mortgages and then misrepresented those loans when selling them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had to be bailed out by the government during the financial crisis.

The panel said the jury’s findings in 2013 that the loans sold to Fannie and Freddie were below the quality that had been promised might be considered an “intentional breach of contract.” But it said those transgressions didn’t constitute fraud, overturning the jury verdict that had been a signature win for government officials widely criticized for bringing few cases tied to the 2008 crisis.

Josh Rosenkranz, who represented Ms. Mairone, said the ruling shows “this case was a massive government overreach from inception,’’ in which prosecutors “tried to take an allegation of garden variety breach of contract and turn it into a fraud with crushing and career-ending penalties.’’

[...]

“Critically, the Government presented no proof at trial that any quality guarantee was made with fraudulent intent at the time of contract execution,” the panel said. “In essence, the Government’s theory would convert every intentional or willful breach of contract…into criminal fraud.”

At a hearing in December, U.S. Appeals Judge Reena Raggi questioned whether the government was stretching the bounds of what constitutes fraud. “What you’re asking for is a major change in how we view breach,” Judge Raggi said at the hearing.

I guess the government stretched the bounds to the breaking point.

The DOJ will likely appeal the decision. The battle is also likely to last for a few more years, at least. Given the unpredictability of which clown might be chosen to run the circus this November, there is no guarantee that a change of administration would have any effect on the use of FIRREA by the DOJ to find banks defrauding themselves here, there, and everywhere "by a preponderance of the evidence." However, it's nice to see someone occasionally slap the backs of the federal government's "massively overreaching" hands.

Will PHH Clip The CFPB's Wings?

In a recent hearing before a federal appeals court, some of the justices appeared to be sympathetic to arguments by mortgage giant PHH Mortgage that the CFPB is unconstitutional. In Forbes, Susan Dudley, Director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center and a former White House official in the "W" administration, explores the arguments in favor of knocking the CFPB off its high horse and finds that they might have traction. She cites the following critical passage from PHH's brief:

The Director is not answerable to the President, as he is removable only for cause. Nor is Congress able to rein in the Director using its power over the purse, as he has the sole power to fund his agency from the Federal Reserve System’s operating expenses, and Congress is prohibited from reviewing the Director’s budget determinations. The Director is not checked by the deliberative decision-making process of a multi-member commission structure, nor is he checked by a short tenure, as he serves a fixed five-year term. And far from a limited scope of power, the Director wields vast authority under eighteen statutes previously enforced by seven different agencies. Never before has so much power been accumulated in the hands of one individual so thoroughly shielded from democratic accountability. The combination of these unprecedented structural features violates the separation of powers.

As Dudley correctly observes, the CFPB is unique. Other federal regulatory bodies are either executive branch agencies or independent commissions. In either case, they are subject to executive and/or legislative control directly or through an oversight body composed of members selected by the president and confirmed by Congress. Most are also subject to control through the appropriations process, giving another body control of the purse strings.

The CFPB is controlled not by a commission, but by a single director (currently, King Richard Cordray, Champion of Jeopardy) who is subject to removal by the president only "for cause." Other agency heads can be removed for wearing a tie with an offensive motif. calling the First Lady "Babe," or for an infinite variety of spurious reasons. Moreover, the CFPB's budget cannot be controlled by Congress. The FRB, is required to fund it by law, and Congress has no oversight.

This lack of checks and balances has concerned us since the CFPB sprang from the nether regions of Lizzie Warren, who deliberately concocted the Adjustment Bureau to be completely outside the control of anyone other than the reichsführer who runs it on any given day, which Warren originally intended be herself. The Director would be guided only by his or her knowledge of what was best for all consumers, applying truth, justice, and anti-abusiveness as Gaia gave him or her to see the light.

About six months ago, I attended a conference at which one of the panelists was a millennial former member of the CFPB's enforcement "arm" who recently rushed out the revolving D.C. door into a high-paying job with a banking law firm where he, naturally, advised those being persecuted prosecuted by the CFPB. In addition to possessing his generation's endearing narcissism and lack of respect for his elders, he scoffed, with a self-satisfied smirk, at concerns about the lack of controls over the CFPB because the Adjustment Bureau had been around for several years "and nothing horrible had occurred." One of the older panelists interjected one word: "Yet." I might have added: "Ask PHH."

As Dudley points out, even if the appeals court rules in favor of the petitioner, there are half-steps between nothing and abolishing the CFPB in its entirety as being an unconstitutionally created monster of Franken-Dodd. It could strike down the sole director structure; it could strike down the provision of Franken-Dodd that permits the president to fire the director only for cause; it could strike down the funding structure; it could do none of the above or all of the above. Whatever it decides, the decision is almost certainly to be appealed. By the time it reaches the SCOTUS, who knows what the composition of that august body might be, given the insanity that is the current season of "Election 2016"?

Nevertheless, Dudley asserts that "the future of something President Obama considers one of his main accomplishments is hanging in the balance."Here's hoping that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gives the CFPB a little nudge in the "right" direction.

Barney Bites Bernie (And Neel)

Now that hell has frozen over, I find that all kinds of amazing things are occurring, one of which has created the danger of ripping a huge hole in the space-time continuum: I find myself in agreement with Barney Frank.

While watching the PBS News Hour this past Thursday night, who should pop up but the former House Banking Committee Chair and favorite Bank Lawyers Blog Bullseye, Barney, who was interviewed by Jeffrey Brown about Frank's reaction to statements by Neel Kashkari, currently president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and former Bush Bailout TARP Toolmaker, and the ever-cranky Bernie Sanders, Gen Y's favorite "Democratic Socialist," about "To Big To Fail Banks." Sanders also alleged that the way to break up big banks is to reimpose the Glass-Steagall on commercial banks. Frank, now that he's out of the political arena and no longer feels compelled to be what every politician feels he or she must be, i.e., a caster of shade upon of the truth, was remarkably critical of two gents who are spouting the Democrat Party line about the evils of Wall Street's "TBTF" banks.

Barney may have gained some objectivity, but he's lost none of the pungent-tongued arrows from his verbal quiver.

In the first place, both Senator Sanders and Mr. Kashkari continue to evade the biggest question. That is, how big is too big? The crisis which touched off when Lehman Brothers couldn’t make its payment, Lehman Brothers was about $650 billion in assets. We have banks four and five times that size

And the question is, does everybody have to be smaller than Lehman Brothers is today? But that would have consequences. Getting there would be a problem. By the way, it should be very clear, Glass-Steagall doesn’t do it. There is a disconnect between Senator Sanders insisting that the banks be broken down to the point where they won’t by their own size threaten, if they have too much debt, to undermine it.

And Glass-Steagall — Glass-Steagall would reduce — it wouldn’t do anything to Goldman Sachs and to Morgan Stanley, which are almost Glass-Steagall-ized themselves. But looked at Citicorp, or J.P. Morgan Chase, or Bank of America, Wells Fargo, even if they were subject to Glass-Steagall, they would still be well beyond the size that Lehman Brothers was.

There is just a disconnect between saying we’re going to do Glass-Steagall and getting the banks down to a size where, if there was a complete failure, you would get damaged by it.

The entire response above by Frank is remarkable for the fact that he's right. It's obvious that he's not been spending his time since retirement sampling the wares of Mar Jane-related "legal" businesses in Colorado.

Frank also jumped all over Kashkari's comparison of the 2008 meltdown to the S&L crisis of the 1980s, and Kashkari's statement that the reason the S&L crisis didn't bring the economy down was because none of the S&Ls was "too big to fail." Again, Frank asks why Kashkari won't tell us how big is too big? He also correctly notes that the bailout of the S&Ls cost a lot more than the bail out of big banks in 2008, although he does not also observe that this was because the 2008 TARP allowed the big banks to survive, while the S&L "bailout" allowed them to fail (or most of them, at any rate (outside the Southwest Plan thrifts), and established the Resolution Trust Corporation, staffed by the FDIC, to liquidate their assets. If the politicians, including Frank, had stayed out of it in the 1980s and let the initial bailout template concocted by the former Federal Savings and Loan Corporation play out, there's a chance that the money from that bailout might also have been largely repaid.

Frank says the primary risk is not size but "indebtedness," and on this point he's got a point. However, I disagree with his assertion that his bloated namesake, Dodd-Frank, has dealt successfully with the risk of bank's engaging in excessive borrowing and hinky derivatives that made "The Big Fail" such a hit (his misapprehension of the effect of the Volcker Rule has been lambasted previously), and his assertion that now, no bank is too big to fail. 

If a large institution can’t pay its debts, it fails. It is not too big to fail. It is put out of business, by law. No federal official can advance any money to pay its debts under the law until it is dissolved.

TARP also required legislation to create, and the wide-open authority it provided the federal government to bail out banks was induced by panic among folks at the highest levels of the federal government (including Frank) of immanent widespread economic collapse. We'll see how effective Franken-Dodd is when the next crisis hits, as it inevitably will. There's no prohibition on a future panicked Congress changing the rules on the spur of the moment to do what Frank claims can never again be done.

To prove that I haven't completely turned to the dark side, I think his statements about overturning Citizens United are bunk. Nevertheless, all-in-all, startlingly, he makes a lot of sense.

False Promise

Former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaac once called Franken Dodd "the worst piece of financial legislation in modern history" and blasted the law's "Durbin amendment," in particular, as "pure and simple, special-interest politics."

I think the Durbin amendment is really a terrible precedent," Isaac says. "It weakens the banking industry at a time when we need it strong, and the folks who supported the Durbin amendment should be ashamed of themselves."

The subsequent cap placed on interchange fees by the FRB in response to Turban Durbin's amendment caused many bankers and credit union executives, and their trade group representatives, to predict that the only result would be to fatten the pockets of retailers at the expense of both financial institutions and their customers. Over five years down the road, that dire prediction appears to have been spot on, according to a recent opinion piece in the American Banker by the CEOs of the ICBA, CUNA, and NAFCU (people who sometimes are at each others throats on bank vs. credit union issues).

The price controls lawmakers were able to impose on those providing electronic payment options have resulted in an $8 billion annual handout to retailers that they have not passed on to consumers. Five years after the Federal Reserve issued a rule to implement the amendment, retailers have kept most of this revenue — an estimated $32 billion — for themselves.

While Congress may have thought this legislation would provide a benefit to consumers, data from a survey of merchants contained in a recent Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond study indicates that the amendment is simply not working as intended. The report found that "few merchants are found to reduce prices or debit restrictions as debit costs decrease." This just reinforces the argument that the Durbin amendment is essentially a merchant handout from Congress.

Consumer research echoes the reality that retailers are not passing on this revenue in the form of savings for customers. In September, Phoenix Marketing International conducted its fourth annual survey of nearly 2,000 consumers and found that the vast majority of shoppers have not experienced a price drop at the point of sale. In fact, in each of the 15 categories measured, at least 92% of shoppers reported that prices rose or stayed the same over the past year.

The authors further assert that the retailers' trade association claims of several years ago that retailers were passing along the savings to customers, and, more recently, that the fee reduction benefited banks and credit unions, as bald-faced lies.

A study released last week by the Credit Union National Association reported estimated reduced revenue of $1.1 billion for credit unions resulting from Dodd-Frank's regulatory costs, all of which the report attributed to the swipe fee provision. Real data in the form of costs of processing changes and declining fees since 2011 debunks claims that credit unions and small banks below $10 billion in assets are not feeling the pinch. Further, there has been a decline in the interchange rate since the price controls went into effect. It continues to remain around 4 or 5 cents below where it was pre-Durbin, according to a survey by the National Association of Federal Credit Unions.

The authors conclude that rather than trying to blow smoke up the nether regions of financial institutions and consumers, perhaps retailers' time would be better spent figuring out ways to pass along the savings on interchange fees to consumers. Don't believe that conclusion any more than you should the retailers' claims. What financial institutions really want is the repeal of the Durban amendment and the Fed's limit on interchange fees. That won't happen in 2016, but perhaps the next Pontifex Maximus of the Disunited States of America can spare a moment from building "the greatest border wall of all time, a wall that will make the Great Wall of China look like Tom Sawyer's picket fence" to promote some Republican-sponsored legislation to benefit community banks and credit unions for a change, instead of the Wal Marts and Home Depots of the world.

Yes, I know: and perhaps pigs will sprout wings.

Yes, Virginia, There Is A Regulatory Burden On Small Banks

Preston Ash of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, sent me (on New Years Eve, no less) an article co-authored by Preston and Christoffer Koch and Thoma F. Siems of the Dallas Fed, entitled "Too Small to Succeed?--Community Banks in a New Regulatory Environment." Notwithstanding my semi-inebriated initial misunderstanding as to whether or not Ash was calling me out for stealing his idea for an article, it quickly was made clear to me that the authors wanted to share their thoughts with me because we all are thinking along the same lines (as evidenced by my blog post of December 27, 2015) to wit: the regulatory burden on community banks is reducing their number.

An excerpt from their article:

In 1992, community banks accounted for 64 percent of $4.6 trillion in total banking assets. By 2015, their market share had dropped to 19 percent of $15.9 trillion in total assets (Chart 1). Despite this decrease, community banks still account for the largest share of small-business loans. Currently, small- and medium-sized banks hold 55 percent of small-business loans and 75 percent of agricultural loans.

In twenty-three years, total assets of financial institutions in the U.S. have nearly quadrupled, yet community banks share of that total has shrunk from nearly two-thirds to less than one-fifth. At the same time that the big banks were getting bigger, they were leaving it to the incredibly shrinking community banking segment to make the majority of small business loans and three-quarters of all agricultural loans. The large banks are growing ever larger, yet are failing to serve the majority of the nation's main job creators, small businesses, leaving that task to the ever-decreasing number of remaining community banks.

After noting what we (and many others) have observed, that the lack of new charters since 2008 is an "alarming" contributing factor to decreasing the total number of community banks, the authors state that from their own conversations with bankers in their district, bankers seem to believe that the top reason for the shrinkage is "regulatory burden." The authors ask, "Are their concerns justified?" Among the factors that lead them to conclude in the affirmative are the following:

• Call reports have grown from 30 pages in the 1980s to 84 pages today.
• "At the end of 1970, Call Reports contained 53 items that banks filled out; this past quarter's filing included 2,379 items, with recent additions of more off-balance sheet and memoranda items."
• "From 2001-10, 10 major banking acts became law, totaling 1858 pages."
• "Feldman, Schmidt and Heinecke (2013) at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis find that the median reduction in profitability (return on assets) for the smallest banks—those banks with assets less than $50 million—is 14 basis points if they have to increase staff by one-half of a person and 45 basis points if they increase staff by two people." In other words, the smaller the bank, the more of a proportionate burden it is to hire the staff to comply with increased regulatory compliance and reporting requirements.

The authors conclude that community bankers have a legitimate beef.

[S]maller community banks appear to have a valid concern that their compliance burden is rising and the playing field is becoming more uneven. Regulatory oversight should match the level of risk an institution poses to the financial system and economy at large. Otherwise, more banks may become too small to succeed.

It's not just bloviating bloggers who are sounding the trumpet for regulatory relief. Some actually responsible regulators are also playing the same tune. Of course, it's a presidential election year and the masters of gridlock in D.C. are not likely to cooperate on much until the grass crown is awarded to the next Cynic-in-Chief. Still, bank lobbyists need to use this ammunition to fire away at their senators and congresspersons, because this is a trend that will not likely reverse itself of its own accord.

A Generation Later Rapidly Approaches

My last post, on small banks and credit unions doing "good works" for the communities they serve, prompted this email from the CEO of a community bank in the Midwest:

I recently read a quote from Margaret Thatcher where she said that if all the Good Samaritan had was good intentions he would not be remembered. He also had money. When privately owned banks go away, taking prosperous small businesses with them, who will remember a generation later? Very sad.

That post also prompted a credit union executive to unsubscribe from the blog, on the basis, I presume, that I ended mu post with "Merry Christmas" as opposed to "Happy Festivus."

While I didn't intend to anger or depress anyone, my community banking correspondent is correct to be pessimistic. The number of banks is decreasing rapidly, and the evidence is coming from all quarters.

Minnesota Business Magazine asks if the regulatory burden is "killing small banks" and answers itself in the affirmative.

In banking, numbers tell the story. If so, these numbers have the making of a tragedy: In 2000 there were 513 community banks in Minnesota. Now we have 332, a drop of 35% in just 15 years. What’s going on?  There are two factors at play according to Joe Witt, president of the Minnesota Bankers Association. One is increased competition from large players like Wal-Mart entering the financial services industry and from tax-exempt organizations like credit unions. “Right off the top they’ve got a 30% or 40% operating cost advantage,” says Witt.

But the dominant factor that is causing small banks to sell out or close shop is what Witt calls the “cumulative effect” of government regulations.

[...]

The problem with adding regulation isn’t that small banks can’t adhere to the standards, it’s that they simply can’t keep up.

“We are getting paddled and beaten in terms of additional compliance responsibilities,” says Bill Patient, vice president of compliance at BankCherokee in St. Paul. “Everyone is in the same playing field and working with the same regulations.”

Patient says that beyond just the sheer pages of new documents, the hardest part for small banks is spending time to understand new rules and regulations. Compliance officers must sort through the new laws to figure out what they mean, how the rules work with current regulations and which rules apply to their institution. Many small banks have no compliance officers on staff, and the increased workload can be devastating for small institutions.

The article also notes other factors, like the difficulty of making a buck in banking with narrow interest rate margins and the Fed's artificially low rates, as well as the dearth of new charters since 2008 to replace banks failing or merging. Nevertheless, bankers believe its the regulatory burden that is the major factor driving the trend, a trend that has seen the annual rate of decrease in the number of banks in Minnesota double post-Dodd-Frank from 2% to 4%.

Several years ago Witt sent a letter outlining his concerns to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In the letter he quoted a banker who said, ”We used to do banking in compliance with the laws and regulations. Now we do compliance and hope that it allows us to do some banking.”

The magazine echoes my correspondent in its view of the collateral damage from this incredibly shrinking universe of community banking.

Losing community banks isn’t simply about less choice for consumers. In rural communities, the local bank can be the lifeblood of the town, and being a small town bank might not be worthwhile anymore, says David Reiling, president of Sunrise Banks in Minneapolis. “There’s a lot more risk and the return may be uncertain at best.”

Clinton Promises to Fly Beyond Dodd-Frank

Hillary Clinton, in trying to out-Warren Warren, is ensuring that many bankers, of whatever stripe, will have to take a moment to ponder what a Clinton presidency might mean for the entire banking business before pushing the lever for her in November 2016. Unlike many Republican candidates, who publicly promise to roll back Dodd-Frank's more onerous provisions (regardless of private intent), Hillary promises to take Dodd-Frank to places that even its most ardent supporters have only dreamed about.

But it’s not enough simply to protect the progress we have made," Clinton wrote. "As president, I would not only veto any legislation that would weaken financial reform, but I would also fight for tough new rules, stronger enforcement and more accountability that go well beyond Dodd-Frank."

On Clinton's wish list are the usual proposals to strengthen the Volcker Rule, reimpose Glass-Steagall, break up big banks, restrain "risky" derivative trading, put Jamie Dimon in thumb screws, and force Wall Street interns to entertain donors to the Clinton Foundation at various strip clubs, she gets into the ominous "bad bankers" proposals that threaten to turn a danger of "trickle down" of big-bank regulation onto community banks into a virtual Niagra Falls.

• Extend the statute of limitations for major financial crimes to 10 years
• Require financial firms to admit wrongdoing as part of settlements 
• Increase transparency about terms of settlement and fines actually paid to the government
• Penalize executives when their firm pays a fine

She also wants the SEC and CFTC to be "independently funded," just like the CFPB. That way, behavioral psychologist and utopian intellectuals can team up to remove any checks-and-balances on the social engineering agendas of the Progressives that Hillary is courting in her bid to grab the grass crown. As King Richard and his minions have been attempting to do with the CFPB.

Her desire to insert "strong regulators" into bank regulatory agencies also bodes ill for community banks. If you love the way that for the last eight years, bank regulators have second-guessed executive decision making on a continuous basis, used regulatory power to attempt to choke off bank access to legal but politically and/or "morally" disfavored businesses, and pushed the envelope of theories like "disparate impact" to find discrimination where no one has ever found it before in order to reward favored constituencies, you'll love another eight years under the current president's "logical successor." At least she's giving you a "heads up" and not hiding the ball. Don't say you weren't warned.

Now, if the opposing party could only nominate something other than the south end of a horse traveling north to run against her. If they can find one, that is.