Bank Lawyer's Blog

Save Me From Myself

Marvin Umholtz's latest CU Strategic Hot Topics email newsletter contains a lengthy discussion of a position paper issued late last month by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), which calls on the CFPB to restrict bank and credit union overdraft fees to the "reasonable and proportional" standard applied to credit card penalty fees by the terms of CARD Act, notwithstanding the fact that there is no express statutory requirement to apply such a limitation to overdraft fees. The NCLC argues that the CFPB has such authority by virtue of its ability to ban "unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices."

Of particular interest to Marvin, and to me, is the use of behavioral economic theory (previously discussed here) as support for the argument that overdraft fees are inherently "abusive" and "unfair."

This correspondent found of particular interest the NCLC white paper’s discussion about how the CFPB should leverage unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices authorities to price-control overdraft fees. It argued that overdraft fees were inherently unfair because they were not avoidable by a reasonable consumer. The NCLC said, “Accordingly, the analysis should take into [account] consumers’ likely knowledge gaps and their optimism bias, which has been shown by behavioral economics research. The information differential between banks and consumers is stark. As discussed in Sections II and III.B, supra, banks use sophisticated systems to keep track of consumers’ transactions and maximize overdrafts. In contrast, behavioral economics research shows that consumers are over-optimistic and tend to discount the likelihood of negative events. Nor do they have the capacity to quickly and accurately assess the risks associated with such contingencies. This gives banks the opportunity to attract consumers with, for example, a promise of ‘free checking,’ while at the same time charging high fees for overdrafts and engaging practices to maximize them that will far outstrip any savings from lack of a monthly maintenance fee. As a result, overdrafts and their associated fees may not be reasonably avoidable by consumers – especially the lower-income consumers who bear the brunt of these fees.” The NCLC’s anti-bank rhetoric is specious and mean-spirited.

Behavioral economics assumes that many consumers are uninformed and irrational and that consumers make systemic mistakes in their choice of credit products. Rather than let people make their own decisions behavioral economists believe that a central regulator should adopt policies designed to address that ignorance and irrationality. Behaviorists use these premises to justify big government intervention in the market to prevent consumers from harming themselves. The NCLC’s anti-overdraft narrative is reliant on this everyone-is-a-victim belief.

I couldn't have said it better myself. And now, I don't have to.

Marvin continues:

As the NCLC points out, the Dodd-Frank Act defines a practice as abusive if the CFPB finds that it (1) Materially interferes with a consumer’s ability to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service; or (2) Takes unreasonable advantage of – (A) A consumer's lack of understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service; (B) A consumer’s inability to protect his or her own interests when selecting or using a product or service; or (C) The consumer’s reliance on a covered person [the financial services provider].  The NCLC white paper came to the simple conclusion that due to the inherent nature of overdrafts they were abusive.  NCLC wrote, “When choosing a bank or type of account, consumers cannot be expected to be able to know or compare how banks process transactions or what steps the bank will do to induce overdrafts.  The way in which transactions are processed by a bank is a complicated matter that consumers cannot reasonably understand.  Again, banks take advantage of the consumer’s reliance that the bank will not engage in activities to deliberately trip them into incurring overdrafts and being charged overdraft fees.”  Why does the empowering of the CFPB to make arbitrary and capricious “abusive” findings remind this correspondent of the in loco parentis “ability to repay” determination in other Dodd-Frank Act-mandated CFPB rules?  Apparently the ideologically questionable behavioral economists at the CFPB will know “abusive” when they see it.  Do the CFPB behavioral economists have any respect for individual rights – like the right to make one’s own decisions even if mistaken?

I think that the answer to that question is "No." Or, perhaps, "Hell, No!"

None of this should come as a surprise. Liz Warren's purpose in birthing the idea for the CFPB was to create a powerful independent federal agency, free from most oversight and any chance of "regulatory capture," to decide whether consumer financial products and services were "safe" for consumers. In other words, the basis for the CFPB is a belief in the use of the Nanny State to protect the proles from themselves because the state knows what's best for them even when they don't. Behavioral economic theory is the bedrock on which this house of cards is built. Moreover, the CFPB has been manipulating statistics in its war on overdraft fees for some time.

Get used to it, folks, because barring a "counter revolution," this is only the beginning.

Waters Attacked By Sudden Fit Of Reason

This past weekend, The New York Times set out to rehabilitate in the minds of community bankers the image of a woman whose performance in a congressional hearing was once described by The Atlantic's Megan McArdle as "like watching your crazy aunt challenge your boyfriend to prove that fairies aren't real." That's right, you guessed it: Maxine Waters.

The reporter describes a meeting between Mad Max(ine) and community bankers in her district in which Rep. Waters was feeling the pain of the bankers like she was channeling the mojo of William Jefferson Clinton.

“We’ve heard they chase down silly stuff,” Ms. Waters said, referring to regulators and shaking her head in disapproval. “I’m willing to take a hit” to help lower the capital requirements, she said. She even suggested the bankers hire new lobbyists to better represent them. “Influence us,” Ms. Waters said softly, reminding them of her new role as the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. “Help us understand the intricacies of your business.”

[...]

As for Dodd-Frank, Ms. Waters said she stood ready to defend the law, but also instructed the bankers to compile a “laundry list” of their concerns. “I don’t want you to look at this as being impossible to tweak,” she said.

After an hour of swiveling nervously in their chairs, the bankers broke into grins. One executive slapped Ms. Waters a high-five. Another embraced her.

“You’ve softened,” Paul C. Hudson, the chairman of Broadway Federal Bank, teased Ms. Waters. “I love the new Maxine.”

What's up with this? Is it simply when Attila The Hun decides to ease up and only lop off the heads of the aged and infirm and spare the able-bodied, the populace reacts with an exaggerated feeling of appreciation born of a profound sense of relief, or is there something more going on here? If you need an objective analysis of a liberal icon, what better source to turn to than the notoriously fair and balanced Pravda New York Times?

The Times claims that in large part her "softening" not only toward community bankers, but toward some of the Wall Street big bankers she used to grill like burgers on a George Foreman 144-incher, is a result of her elevation to the position of ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, now that Barney Frank has retired. You'd think that circumstance might have the opposite effect: making her feel the need to out-Barney Barney in poking sticks in the eyes of bankers everywhere. After all, the opposition, which controls the committee, is traditionally a lot more pro-banker than is Ms. Waters. She might just as likely feel compelled to carry an even bigger torch for the anti-banker crowd.

The Times posits some theories.

A softer touch with the nation’s biggest banks could allow her to score points — and campaign donations — from an industry unhappy with her previous approach. And being more willing to compromise could also afford her new credibility on Capitol Hill to press her central focus — the cause of consumers.

Or maybe, as she ages, she's found that being a 24/7/365 whirling dervish of a whack job simply taxes her psyche and physique beyond human endurance.

On the down side, Ms. Waters' new-found reasonableness carries the risk of blow-back from the usual suspects.

“She should be shoring up regulators’ spines, not clipping their wings,” said Jeff Connaughton, a former lobbyist and Congressional staff member who recently wrote a book entitled “The Payoff: Why Wall Street Always Wins.” Bartlett Naylor, a policy advocate at Public Citizen, a consumer rights group, called the derivatives letter [in which Waters urged the CFTC to delay derivatives trading rules for six months] “troubling,” adding that Ms. Waters “needn’t add her voice to the cacophony from antireform Wall Street apologists.”

Yes, that's right: if you're not adhering to the politically correct ideological line, you're obviously in desperate need of internment in a re-education camp. We get it.

Finally, however, the reporter begins to get to the nub.

The ranking member on the Financial Services Committee typically takes in millions in donations from the financial services industry. As of now, Ms. Waters has received few dollars from the banking industry. Other than a recent $2,500 donation from Goldman Sachs’s political action committee, her coffers are largely stocked with money from unions and other liberal causes.

I suppose the risk of alienating donations from consumer advocates is not so large when one considers how much more scratch Wall Street can cough up. $2,500 wouldn't cover coffee and a danish at Norma's, so you know that the Goldman Sachs of the world have a lot more largesse to spread on Maxine if she just continues to "listen to reason."

This may or may not be a trend. This may or may not be real. Whatever it is, it's entertaining.

Camden Fine Fires Off A Fine Salvo

In  recent opinion piece for Bloomberg News, ICBA CEO Camden Fine was in fine fettle, ranting about his favorite topic: new regulatory burdens are strangling community while the largest banks are doing just fine, thank you very much. Among his salient points are the following:

The megabanks are benefiting from what Bloomberg View calculated is an $83 billion annual taxpayer subsidy, the value of implicit guarantees by the U.S. Treasury. Bloomberg View was correct to characterize the too-big-to-fail subsidy as “a major driver of the largest banks’ profits.”

Perversely, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data show that large banks have both the lowest credit quality and the lowest cost of funds in the industry. Community banks rank the highest in both categories even though they have had to compete for years against the megabanks’ access to cheaper money in pricing loans. In addition, community banks must compete against the big lenders’ lower comparative costs in handling regulatory paperwork.

While Cam complains that this is "morally wrong," I suspect that in a nation overrun with Pontius Pilates who sneer in the throes of their born-again relativism "What is 'truth'?," appealing to "morality" as a behavior influencer will have as much impact on Congress as a stern talking to by Pope Francis would have on Charlie Sheen. More effective on the morally challenged is likely to be his economic arguments.

Community banks should be putting their capital to work in the small towns, rural communities and middle-class urban enclaves they know well. Instead, they are focusing too many of their precious human resources on onerous paperwork and time-consuming compliance measures.

Community banks are the source of almost 60 percent of all small-business loans of less than $1 million, as well as mortgage and consumer loans tailored to the needs of their local communities. Large banking organizations with more than $50 billion in assets hold almost 40 percent of outstanding small loans to businesses, according to the Federal Reserve, but loans to small businesses aren’t a significant portion of large-bank lending. Small-business loans represent less than 5 percent of the large banks’ total domestic lending.

Cam outlines five specific steps Congress and the federal regulators could take to help community banks (and credit unions, for that matter, although Cam would choke on his own tongue before admitting it). They include:

• Easing up on some of the more onerous residential mortgage lending and servicing rules.
• Eliminating the requirement that community banks report on every new small business loan application.
• Requiring a cost-benefit analysis for all new regulations and prohibiting the issuance of any regulation where the cost exceeds the benefit.
• Raising the threshold to $350 million in assets for the requirement for an audit of a bank's internal controls.
• Eliminating the annual requirement for sending no-change privacy policies.

These are all helpful suggestions, but  I'm frankly surprised that he didn't also call for the carpet bombing of CFPB's D.C. headquarters and insist that Jamie Dimon's king-size bed be short-sheeted. Oh well, the year is not even half over. There's still time to get down to the really important stuff.

Charlie Munger: A Favorite Curmudgeon

Warren Buffet's long-time running buddy, Charlie Munger, agrees with Cam Fine about one thing: it's time to break up (or at least "simplify") the big banks.

In an interview with CNN at Berkshire Hathaway's annual meeting, Munger, who is Warren Buffett's chief lieutenant, said he thinks the big banks are still too complicated and dangerous for the economy. But he doesn't think a recently proposed bill by Senators Sherrod Brown and David Vitter, which has gotten praise from others who want to rein in big banks, is the answer.

"I think if you increase the capital requirements and let them do what they want, they will just get in trouble again," says Munger.

Munger's preferred prescription sounds like a stricter version of the Volcker Rule, which was meant to limit risky trading at the banks and was included in Dodd-Frank, but has yet to be implemented. He would force the banks to get out of their business of underwriting and trading derivatives, financial contracts that allow you to speculate, some say hedge, on commodities, interest rates, and other things. About a year ago, JPMorgan Chase (JPM) announced it had lost billions on a credit derivative hedge that had not worked out as expected.

As CNN reporter Stephen Gandel notes, Munger's words carry additional weight, because he's calling for action against banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America, institutions in which Berkshire Hathaway has sizable investments.

Munger thinks that big banks should be more heavily regulated, and that more regulation will be just what the profit doctor ordered. "By getting out of risky businesses, banks may end up giving back much less of their bull market gains in the down years" He thinks that banks should stick to their knitting, lending. "The ideal bank is pretty boring." I agree.

Gandel thinks that if Munger actually believes that more regulation and smaller size lead to greater profits, then he has a fiduciary duty to Berkshire's shareholders to press banks like Bank of America to pare down their size and accept tighter regulation (instead of unleashing the lobbyists on Congress).Munger thinks that's the job of the regulators. I'd argue it's the role of Congress, but I'd also agree with Munger that Berkshire Hathaway isn't going to persuade Bank of America to accept being broken up or buried under an avalanche of more regulation.

Munger said he and Buffett make investment decisions based on the world they are in, not what they wished it to be, which is fair.

Like Buffet, Munger has always pretty much said what he thinks. As he ages, he's not becoming any less candid. It makes for an interesting interview.

The CU-Bank War Is Getting Ugly

Crying "The Time Is Right To Tax," commercial bankers are upping the thermostat on state and federal regulators to "level the playing field" by eliminating the tax exempt status of credit unions. According to the ABA Banking Journal, in a recent panel discussion at the American Bankers Association's 2013 Government Relations Summit, bankers of all stripes, including a CEO of a bank that was once a credit union, took the position that in this time when Congress and just about every state legislature is looking for ways to raise revenues without raising tax rates, the opportunity exists to convince legislators that tax exempt status for the credit union industry is an idea whose time has passed.

Panel member Ken Kies, managing director of the Federal Policy Group lobbying consultancy, spent years in Washington tax-writing roles, and believes banks could pursue a change.

"Frankly," said Kies, who's working with ABA, "I'm not sure that the environment has ever been better than it is today."

Kies indicated that no one should think that "not taxed" means "never to be taxed." History has not only seen many attempts to subject tax-exempt organizations to federal tax, but success in those attempts. Today's congressional urge towards tax reform, even on a revenue-neutral basis, could be the factor that pushes credit union taxation into reality.

In 1986, tax legislation pulled Blue Cross and Blue Shield organizations under the tax umbrella, reflected Kies. And a year later, the TIAA/CREF benefits organization likewise got shifted. And savings institutions lost their tax-favored status decades ago, and remain a viable part of the financial services business.

Mr. Kies also mentions the fact that there's a trillion dollar federal deficit that makes this the best time to press the case. However, he does not mention by how much that deficit would be reduced by taxing credit unions, which ought to show up somewhere in the argument if it's to survive counter attacks. 

Meanwhile, In Illinois, the hate-fest between banks and credit unions rages on.

Linda Koch, CEO of the Illinois Bankers Association, wrote an op-ed piece for The State-Journal Register in that state's capitol city, in which she sang the same tune as the ABA panelists.

She took the additional step of citing the CBO to the effect that CU tax exemption costs the federal government $2 billion a year in "lost revenue" and the state of Illinois $25 million. I don 't know what the state of Illinois's budget deficit is, but I do know that $2 billion in additional tax revenue is a drop from an eye dropper in a Pacific ocean of federal spending that, according to the Heritage Foundation, reached $3.6 trillion in 2012 and is expected to reach $5.5 trillion by 2022. To me, contributing such relatively small amounts to the black hole of government spending is an argument that lacks weight. I'd prefer that banks stick to the fact that if credit unions want to be "more like banks" (in other words, make commercial loans), they can pay the same freight that goes with that business model, including income taxes. You want to waddle, quack, and fly like a duck, but be pampered like a golden goose. Sorry, leveling the playing field on the powers side ought to come with a leveling of the playing field on the taxation side. Otherwise, you really are gaining an unfair competitive advantage.

The CEO of the Illinois Credit Union League, Dan Plauda, responded to Ms. Koch with the argument that tax revenues from credit unions in Illinois won't solve Illinois' revenue shortfalls. That's most likely very true. However, he also alleges that taxing credit unions will hurt their members, who rely on deposit rates that are much higher than banks pay and consumer loan rates that are much lower than those charged by banks. To me, that makes the banks' case, that tax exemption gives credit unions an unfair competitive advantage on the same deposits and loans that banks fight for. It seems to weaken the case for credit unions to intrude further into the commercial banks' sacred ground of commercial lending.

Mr. Plauda talks about how credit unions are member owned, "democratically controlled," and manned by volunteers. He also alleges that all "excess revenues" are plowed back into the credit union. By "excess revenues, he means what would otherwise be deemed "profits." I started out my career as a bank lawyer in-house for a large mutual savings bank. The only practical difference between a stock-owned commercial bank and a member-owned mutual is that, by soliciting proxies from members who don't give a rip about anything other than services and rates, management of a mutual is, in many cases, able to "rest easy" from all those pesky shareholders who demand the distribution of "profits" either in the form of higher stock prices, dividends, or both. At the same time, there's not exactly a lot of oversight on salaries and cash bonuses that are deducted from gross revenues before the "excess revenues" are calculated.

Mr. Plauda finished his piece with a flourish.

This “people helping people” approach to financial services helps explain why credit unions have become so popular in recent years. As new bank fees have proliferated, for instance, Americans have moved to credit unions in droves. Last year alone, credit unions nationwide added more than 2 million net new members — the biggest annual net member growth in 15 years.

Today, more than 96 million people belong to credit unions.

If anyone seriously thinks that folks flocked to credit unions because credit union members feel like they are part of a movement of "people helping people," as opposed to the financial incentives of lower loan rates and higher deposit rates, both possible because of CU's tax exempt status, that person needs a reality transplant. It just seems to me that responding to banks' call for the end of credit union tax exempt status by taunting banks with the line "we're stealing your customers by the boxcar-load" is going to make even the densest legislator wake up and smell the coffee, eventually.

Both sides of this debate need to sharpen their arguments. If they're able to do so, that is.

Thanks to a loyal reader from Illinois for links to the Illinois op-ed pieces

Gimme A Break! Nobody Actually Believed Us!

To answer a reader's question, yes, I did get a kick out of the argument by S&P's lawyers (paid subscription required) that statements by S&P "about independence and objectivity are 'puffery' and were never meant to be taken at face value by investors."

Standard & Poor's responded formally on Monday to the civil lawsuit that the Justice Department filed against the company on Feb. 4 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

The federal government says that the rating firm committed fraud when it allegedly misrepresented its ratings as independent and objective.

In its formal defense filed Monday, S&P pointed to two earlier court decisions where judges ruled that such statements by the firm were puffery and therefore can't form the basis for a fraud claim.

[...]

"Even if it's a viable legal argument, it's a pretty unattractive argument for S&P to be putting forward since they're basically in the business of charging clients for their reputation," said Samuel Buell, a law professor at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor. "What they're saying here is, 'When we're talking to investors about our own reputation, we're engaging in meaningless puffery.' "

"That's the whole point of the rating agencies, their seal of approval," Mr. Buell said.

It's hard to argue with Professor Buell about that.

Predictably, this all drove Larry Doyle over the edge.

In conclusion, the statement made by S&P’s lawyer is the equivalent of throwing another log on the fire that is incinerating any sense of meaningful integrity within the Wall Street-Washington conspiracy.

Puff . . . puff . . . up in smoke!

You may want to do the same with any credit ratings that cross your desk from S&P and its industry brethren at Moody’s and Fitch.

As hard as this is to believe, I'm going to say that the provision of Dodd-Frank that requires the regulators to figure out an alternative to the rating agencies is justified, not merely by the facts, but by the damning words flowing from the rating agencies and their mouthpieces. The problem is, thus far, no one has figured out what that alternative might be.

One option on the table is a proposal by Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn.) to create a board that would assign rating firms to rate deals. "As this lawsuit unfolds, it only becomes more clear that the credit rating industry is in need of serious reform, and that the American people and our economy are still at risk as a result of the conflict of interest in the industry," Mr. Franken said in a statement.

Wait a minute: I just agreed with Al Franken. Don't tell anyone. This moment may pass.

Uh, oh. I think Hell just froze over.

Scapegoating 101

The 20/20 hindsight afforded members of Congress when judging the alleged failures of the independent foreclosure reviews that we discussed last night also graces the peepers of the Government Accountability Office.

The independent foreclosure reviews abruptly ended by regulators in January failed from a lack of objectivity, oversight and consistency in the loan sampling process, said Lawrance Evans, director of financial markets and community investment for the Government Accountability Office.

[...]

Despite having a large portion of the funds already in the mail to homeowners, Evans says GAO’s probe into how the IFR was handled is far from complete.

He told lawmakers GAO plans to conduct more studies on how regulators came up with the $8.5 billion settlement figure when there is no data to show how that number was chosen or exact calculations on how many homeowners were, in fact, harmed by foreclosures.

He pointed out that "regulators’ statistical sampling approach did not include mechanisms to allow the regulators to monitor consultants’ progress toward finding as many harmed borrowers as possible."

Without data on how many borrowers were actually harmed, the GAO representative says his office wants answers on how the compensation figures were determined by the OCC and Federal Reserve.

In other words, the beat(ing) will go on.

And On.

And on.

While that's going on, the regulators are going all passive-aggressive by asking Congress to clarify that the regulators have the power to take enforcement action directly against independent contractors for banks. Because, you know, if the regulators require banks, as part of related enforcement orders, to hire independent consultants to perform very expensive services in order to comply with the enforcement orders, and the lack of clear, or even consistent, instructions on what the criteria and processes should be to perform those services leads to later criticism of the regulators over those services, well, then, regulators must be able to blame somebody, and looking in the mirror is simply out of the question (vampires cannot see their own reflections). Thus, the regulators must be able to blame the independent contractors and pursue them via enforcement processes that give the regulators a leg up on the object of their (lack of ) affection. Just like banks.

The independent contractors are reacting badly to the regulators' reaction (paid subscription required).

"I'm not sure having the regulators regulate consultants would make them more independent," said Jon Winick, president of bank advisory firm Clark Street Capital. "A better idea is to have the regulators hire the consultant then."

That would be a good alternative, except then the regulators would be responsible for the consultants' performance (or lack thereof), and we can't have that. They must be able to blame either the banks, the consultants, or both. That's not possible if the regulators are in a position to bear any responsibility.

"To me, the whole thing about the consultants is just more scapegoating," said Walter Moeling 4th, a partner at the Bryan Cave law office.

Man, I'm glad I'm not as cynical as Walt. Personally, I think this is all just a legitimate disagreement among well-intentioned people who are not worried about covering their own backsides, deflecting blame, or promoting themselves at the expense of others, but only about trying to "do the right thing."

Tighten Up! No, Loosen Up!

The Obama administration’s recent call for mortgage lenders to loosen underwriting standards on residential mortgage loans to less-than-“Qualified Mortgagors” as long as the FHA (i.e., the American taxpayer) is taking most of the risk of default, generated some pretty strong reaction from the usual suspects.

"If that were to come to pass, that would open the flood-gates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from," said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

[…]

"There's always a tension that you have to take seriously between providing clarity and rules of the road and not giving any opportunity to restart the kind of irresponsible lending that we saw in the mid-2000s," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Ya’ think?

The administration is also purportedly urging the Justice Department to ease up on lenders who make loans in accordance with the administration-encouraged looser and goosier FHA underwriting critera. The FHA also claims that it hopes to encourage "by example" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to follow along. It's as if the subprime meltdown never occurred and Dodd-Frank was never passed, except for the fact that the federal banking regulators, including the CFPB, are taking a directly contrary approach to mortgage underwriting. Moreover, loan originators live in mortal fear of Freddie and Fannie repurchase requests, which have been massive, since those two publicly-controlled giants are the conventional residential mortgage market.

This whip-saw of inconsistency evidences a major example of cognitive dissonance.

Private reaction from bankers and bank lawyers with whom I attended the recent Texas Bankers Association Annual Legal Conference in Austin, Texas, was even more derisive.  Much time during that conference was spent parsing the nuances of “Qualified Mortgages” and “Qualified Residential Mortgages,” which will make qualifying for a residential mortgage loan much more difficult for many potential homeowners. In addition, the plethora of new regulations being spewed out by the CFPB makes consumer lending, including making single family mortgage loans, riskier and more expensive. The bottom line for a number of community bankers is that they will be making few, if any, residential mortgage loans, at least not directly. In addition, bankers who decide to make residential mortgage loans are definitely not crazy about making anything other than loans that will fall under the QM safe harbor.

I would say that it’s amazing that the administration could talk so glibly out of both sides of its mouth, except that it’s not at all amazing. It’s what these cynical, pandering clowns do as naturally as breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide.

Refraining From Punching The Punching Bag

A regular reader sent me a link to a video of a recent interview of Sheila Bair by Bill Moyers. Bair plus Moyers equals big bank bashing, and you know going in what you're going to hear. For those who expect me to do my usual double-tap to Bair's forehead, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I didn't think she was that far off base.

Moyers tried to serve her some softballs that she could stroke into the far left-hand corner of the outfield, but to me, Sheila seemed, for the most part, to resist the temptation to play to Moyer's typical crowd (take a look at the comments box for a sampling). She let it be known that while she's no fan of the management of the largest banks, and she believes that the federal bank regulators have suffered "cognitive capture" by those banks, she also thinks that trying to modify Dodd-Frank to add more specific provisions regarding breaking up the big banks is a fool's errand. Not only is it impossible to effect in the current political environment, but the regulators already have the tools to accomplish what they need to accomplish regarding mitigating the risk of the "Too-Big-To-Fail" institutions. That's the theory, at any rate, and I don't find it to be an unreasonable one.

Of course, the regulators had all the tools they needed to prevent the latest financial disaster and didn't use them effectively. Yet, we can always have hope, can't we?

I do find her purported amazement at the fact that banks use their own internal models to assign risk weights to certain held-for-trading assets to be, itself, amazing. As Dealbreaker's Matt King observed not too long ago, the banks base their models on public information and that information is, to put it mildly, "opaque." I doubt that the regulators would have much more success in assigning across-the-board risk weights to such assets in the same manner that they can assign risk weights to single-family mortgage loans. Moreover, the regulators have not been clamoring to usurp the banks' internal models with spiffy new and improved models of their own, have they? Maybe they have and I've simply missed the clamor.

I also found amusing her contention that Congress could have been more "prescriptive" in Dodd-Frank, contrary to the wishes of the regulators, who wanted to retain more discretion to set the rules. Leaving aside her own position on this issue in the formulation of Dodd-Frank, that act was drafted so hastily and rammed down the throats of the opposition so quickly that the very idea that the folks who wrote it could have nailed down "prescriptions" in any coherent fashion is implausible. On the other hand, as we've found in many of the lawsuits that the FDIC has filed against former officers and directors of failed community banks, hindsight is amazingly clear-eyed and Sheila has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

All-in-all, however, Sheila is sounding almost reasonable these days. Or, perhaps, I'm merely mellowing.

Beating The CFPB To The Punch

Community banks have been concerned that, although they might be exempt from direct supervision and enforcement by the CFPB, they would be recipients of a "trickle down" effect that would result when their primary federal bank regulator would attempt to demonstrate that it could stay abreast, or even ahead, of the CFPB when it comes to cracking down on unfair, deceptive, and "abusive" practices. Fraud, small banks understand, but they tend to fear zealots who may not be able to define an "abusive" practice with precision, but sure as shooting know it when they see it.

An article in the most recent issue of Bank Safety & Soundness Advisor (paid subscription required) indicates that community bankers' fears are not without some foundation.

In a recent Webcast, officials from the Fed along with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco showcased a broadbased enforcement approach to UDAP rules and regulations, and some high expectations for how banks should be identifying and resolving complaints involving abusive or deceptive practices.

While some of the examples cited, including inflating borrower income on loan applications and charging "bogus points and origination fees" are clearly fraudulent, the net appears to be cast widely by the Fed.

Officials indicated they view as a kind of red flag banks pushing new or modified products and services to generate new revenue, especially if done in conjunction with third-party vendors where fees are shared.

“While searching for revenue is part of what a bank needs to do, there is also a need to make sure
there is compliance with UDAP and consideration of UDAP risk,” said Maureen Yap, the Federal
Reserve’s special counsel for fair lending.

And the officials underscored the idea that an act or practice does not have to violate another law to be unfair or deceptive. A potentially tell-tale sign of that: cases where revenue growth depends on consumers making what regulators and examiners feel are poor financial choices.

There you go: what an examiner "feels is a poor financial choice" by a consumer is the acid test. That gives a whole boatload of precision and certainty to the determination of what is and is not "abusive." Every bank will have to have a Potter Stewart on staff to make the call, I guess.

The potential burden is not going to be light.

For individual institutions, the potential coverage is huge, including not only all products and services, but every phase of the life cycle, including development, marketing, and loss mitigation activities.

One bank's "bogus points" scam, perpetrated by rogue loan originators, led to a determination that it had a "disparate impact" on minorities, and earned that bank a referral to the Justice Department. So, there's that potential liability to look forward to, as well.

What's a small community bank to do? Fed officials tried to be helpful.

Officials declined to address specific fact situations bankers posed during the March 5 webcast. They suggested that banks use the same sort of analysis that regulators do in assessing potential misconduct.

Yap said the Fed tells examiners to focus on the “INN” in determining whether conduct is unfair under the law. There must be “injury” to the consumer or group of consumers, the injury is “not reasonably avoidable,” and there are “no countervailing benefits.”

She said Fed examiners focus on the “MRM” to judge whether behavior is deceptive. Does the representation or omission “mislead” the consumer? Is the consumer response “reasonable”
given the representation or omission? Is the misrepresentation or omission “material”?

“The act or practice does not have to violate another law to be unfair or deceptive,” she said.
“If the prongs of the analysis are satisfi ed a UDAAP violation can be cited.” She said CA Letter 07-08 — a joint Federal Reserve/FDIC statement on consumer compliance exam procedures for UDAP — was “very instructive” in the types of questions bank should expect.

There's your heading on a course through the fog-bound waters of "abuse": think like an examiner.

And after you take that journey down a rabbit "warren" (pun intended), you can resurface and start walking like an Egyptian.

You've got your marching orders, folks. You can get with the program or you can get out of the business. Welcome to this brave new world.