Bank Lawyer's Blog

A Bad Idea That Refuses To Die

Even though municipalities like San Bernardino have come to their senses and dropped a make-your-investment-banker-rich-quick scheme to seize underwater mortgages from mortgage lenders and wrote down the principal balances, the scheme refuses to completely die. I guess we'll have to use holy water, garlic, mirrors, fire, crucifixes and wooden stakes to stamp it out. In the interim, SIFMA continues to publicly pummel it.

In a recent post on its Pennsylvania + Wall blog, SIFMA's Timothy Cameron reiterates why those municipalities still considering this likely unconstitutional scheme to abandon it.

The proposals being touted target a very narrow slice of homeowners – those that are in private-label MBS and who are current on their existing mortgages, have good credit, and ideally don’t have existing home equity loans or other liens on the property. Those who are behind on their mortgage payments or have poor credit (which is the vast majority of homeowners needing help) will get no relief.

Within the small pool of qualifying homeowners, the proposal, on its face, will substantially undervalue their homes. In one example, the mortgage that investors would get paid $160,000 for is refinanced shortly thereafter for $190,000, with much of the additional $30,000 going to the plan’s backers after costs and a kickback to the municipality are accounted for. This is not fair compensation, since the amount paid is well below the face value of the taken note, and significant profits accrue to private parties.

In addition to the legal issues, the use of eminent domain will also be immensely destructive to U.S. mortgage markets in general and to specific communities using eminent domain, in particular. If the sanctity of the contractual relationship between a borrower and a creditor is undermined by the use of eminent domain, both lenders and investors will be reluctant to provide funding in the future. The result will be a significant contraction of credit availability, particularly in communities that have exercised eminent domain to seize loans. It will be much harder to get a loan: any loans that are granted will likely require much larger down payments, stronger credit scores and higher interest rates to compensate for this new and unprecedented risk. This contraction of credit availability would likely serve to halt any recovery in the municipality’s housing market, and could further depress housing values in the cities using eminent domain.

The last reason may be the most telling. Good luck with the future availability of affordable residential mortgage credit in your soon-to-be dustbowl of a community if you enact this scheme. The investment fund gets wealthy, of course, which is the impetus for this half-baked plan. All to help, but not so much, a narrow slice of the community.

Bad ideas never die. They never seem to fade away, either, unfortunately.

Second-Guessing the Second Guessers

Every once in awhile, the blustering blunderbuss known as Senator Liz ("She-Reams-For-Sport") Warren fires a scattershot salvo that strikes a worthy target. You know, like when Dick Cheney shot a lawyer in the face.

The other day, Princess Rides-Bankers-Like-A-Burro was grilling some representatives of the big-time independent foreclosure review firms at a hearing that only Democrats attended (so you know it wasn't going to be pro-banker) and, as related by Larry Doyle, she struck oil.

Senator Warren: I just want to take a look at the Independent Foreclosure Review Payment Agreement details. I think you’ve probably all seen this one page agreement that lists all of the things that the banks did wrong and then boxes for how many people fall into each category and how much money they’re going to be paid. Is that right? You’ve all seen this? [Panel indicates they have seen it.]

And this was put out – who put this out? I think this is put out by the OCC and Federal Reserve. Is that right? As part of the settlement details. So I just want to ask you about this.

It has some pretty amazing categories here. The first category is about service members who were protected by Federal law whose homes were unlawfully foreclosed. It’s got people who were current on their payments whose homes were foreclosed. It’s got people who were performing all of the requirements under a modification who lost their homes to foreclosure.

And it tells how many people fall into each category and how much money the people in that category will receive. And, it ultimately resolves what will happen to 3,949,896 families.

So the question I have is having resolved this nearly 4 million families, who put the people, the families, into each of these boxes. Is that what your firms did. Mr. Ryan?

Owen Ryan, Partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP: No, Senator, we did not.

Senator Warren: So who put them in.

Ryan: I’m not sure how that schedule is prepared. I saw it for the first time yesterday.

Senator Warren: Mr. Flanagan?

James Flanagan, Leader, U.S. Financial Services Practice, Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP: Same response. We were not involved in the accumulation of that information.

Senator Warren: Mr. Alt?

Konrad Alt, Managing Director, Promontory Financial Group: Senator, I’ve seen the schedule but I’m not familiar with the basis for its preparation.

Senator Warren: So let me understand this. You ran the independent reviews, right. That’s what you got paid to do. And yet, I presume, the only one left is the banks must have put them in these boxes and you made no independent review of their going into these boxes. You were not asked to do that? Mr. Alt.

Alt: No Senator, we were not asked to do that.

Senator Warren: Mr. Flanagan. 

Flanagan: No we were not.

Senator Warren: Mr. Ryan.

Ryan: We were not Senator.

Senator Warren: So that leaves us with the banks that broke the law were then the banks that decided how many people lost their homes because of their lawbreaking. And, as a result, how many people would collect money in each of these categories. Is that right Mr. Alt?

Alt: Senator, I’m not familiar with the basis for the scheduling. 

Senator Warren: So far as you know, there’s no independent review of the banks’ analysis…you looked at 100,000 cases and the banks have now put 4 million people into categories and resolved finally how much they will get from this review by the OCC and the Federal Reserve.

Sweet!

As Mr. Doyle put it, "Bang up job on behalf of the American taxpayer from these individuals and their firms charged with an independent review of this settlement process. NOT!!"

But here's a word in defense of the consulting firms: when Mr. Alt said that it wasn't in the scope of their duties, he was not kidding. As one of my readers, a bank lawyer, advised me, the entire review process was FUBAR from the get-go.

I saw it up close and it was an absolute Rube Goldberg process with the scope, criteria and objectives changing constantly. Regulatory example 1001 of do as I say, not as I do.

It's always easy to use 20/20 hindsight to bash people, of course. However, since the regulators love to do it to bankers, I guess turnabout is fair play.

Dancing With The Bear: The Softshoe Shuffle Continues

My posts concerning former bank CEO Patrick Adams and his long, hard, expensive fight to clear his name encouraged one reader to send me a copy of a decision from a couple of months ago that involved another bank officer (actually, the Chairman of a bank) who has been slugging it out with the OCC (and in this case, the Fed) four the last four years over an attempt by the regulators to oust him from his position with the bank. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held in his favor and sent the case back to the banking agencies with some pretty caustic comments.

The entire opinion is an interesting read, but here's a synopsis, paraphrased from one prepared by my correspondent.

Louis DeNaples, was a director and controlling shareholder of a national bank and two bank holding companies.  In 2008, Pennsylvania state prosecutors charged him with perjury.  But the charges were later withdrawn pursuant to an agreement in which Mr. DeNaples agreed, among other things, to release claims against the state based on irregularities in the underlying grand jury proceeding.  Thereafter, the state court expunged the entire prosecution.  The Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve Board, however, concluded that Mr. DeNaples had violated Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which prohibits a person from participating in a regulated financial institution after entering into a “pretrial diversion or similar program” with respect to certain criminal offenses, including perjury.  The agencies thus issued cease-and-desist orders directing Mr. DeNaples to resign from his positions, and to divest his shares, in the regulated institutions.

Mr. DeNaples appealed, arguing, among other things, that (1) his agreement for withdrawal of the perjury charges was not a “pretrial diversion or similar program,” and in any event (2) Section 19 does not apply to expunged convictions.  A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit unanimously agreed on both counts.

First, the Court held that the banking agencies’ interpretations of Section 19 are not entitled to Chevron deference.  The panel adopted DeNaples' argument that no deference is warranted for any part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act because multiple agencies enforce it, creating the potential for inconsistent agency interpretations, as occurred in this case.

Next, the Court held that the agencies had applied inconsistent and overbroad definitions of the term “pretrial diversion or similar program,” essentially capturing any situation where a person supplies a “quid pro quo for the prosecutor’s withdrawal of charges.”  The panel explained that pretrial diversion generally refers to a discrete program that seeks some offender- or community-oriented outcome such as treatment, rehabilitation, or restitution.  The Court, moreover, adopted the argument of DeNaples' lawyers that the agencies on remand must consider the meaning of “pretrial diversion” under state law, which they adamantly refused to do in the earlier cease-and-desist proceedings.

Finally, the Court agreed with DeNaples that the OCC’s and the Board’s positions on the impact of expungement were both internally inconsistent and at odds with a published FDIC policy statement.  In a stunning rebuke of the agencies, the panel criticized their positions as “bizarre,” “untenable,” “unpredictable,” and a “scattergun approach,” and said that reconciling their views “is like trying to draw a two-dimensional shape on the surface of a grapefruit.”

Trying to draw a two-dimensional shape on the surface of a grapefruit. For four years. A worthy endeavor, no?

Incidentally, the lead counsel for DeNaples (at leas, the lawyer named in the opinion) is Howard Cayne, a well-known D.C. banking law litigator who, like your trusty bloviator, has "danced with the bear" on previous occasions. The man must have a high tolerance for pain. As must Mr. DeNaples.

 

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.

The Not-So-Secret Facts of Life

The LA Times obtained a bunch of documents from the FDIC pursuant to a FOIA request and uncovered some startling news: the FDIC is settling lawsuits against those it alleges caused banks to fail. Worse than that, the FDIC is agreeing not to issue press releases regarding many of the settlements. This earth-shattering news is labeled a "major policy shift" from the way the FDIC handled failed bank litigation that arose out of the last big bank meltdown, "when the FDIC trumpeted punitive actions against banks as a deterrent to others."

Before I address that last point, let's listen to some more suspicious minds support the Times theme that all of this "secret settlement" skulduggery smacks of some kind of plot to let evil-doers escape the lynch mobs that surely would have strung them up if only the FDIC had set public outrage en fuego by  trumpeting these settlements from the top of the Rocky Mountains.

Critics fault the government for going easy on banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis. At a Feb. 14 hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), founder of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, criticized FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg along with other bank regulators for their reluctance to make examples of Wall Street firms by taking them to trial.

Quoting "The Founder" is a go-to proposition for the Times, and one that lacks the punch that soundbites from other less usual suspects bring to the table. In addition, the Times' accusations range far beyond Wall Street banks. It's mostly (if not entirely) the little guys that are being pursued. God forbid they should get a break today from anyone other than MacDonalds.

Attorneys who have represented bank officials and the FDIC said regulators are now far likelier to settle cases before filing lawsuits than after the last spate of failures, when more than 2,300 institutions collapsed in the 1980s and early 1990s, bankrupting a fund that insured savings and loan deposits. That crisis grew out of Reagan-era deregulation, which allowed thrifts already hurting from 1970s inflation to make riskier investments, including commercial real estate deals that soured en masse during the second half of the 1980s.

Critics describe the FDIC's current practice of low-profile deal-making as a major departure from the S&L crisis.

"In the old days, the regulators made it a point to embarrass everyone, to call attention to their role in bank failures," said former bank examiner Richard Newsom, who specialized in insider-abuse cases for the FDIC in the aftermath of the S&L debacle. The goal was simple: "to make other bankers scared."

Newsom said he couldn't understand the shift, unless the agency doesn't "want people to know how little they are settling for."

The FDIC should disclose as much as it can, said Lauren Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center in Washington. "Transparency is always better, and serves as a deterrent to future misconduct."

Yes, let's deter the future conduct of owning, managing, and directing a community bank that concentrates on loan products that the regulators find are being originated and managed within the parameters of safety and soundness guidelines until, within a few months, the world falls apart in the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Thereafter, although we feel compelled to go after many failed bank officials, directors, and third parties because we've got an obligation to recover whatever losses to the fund we are able whenever we can do so without being laughed out of court, we understand, in our heart-of-hearts, notwithstanding the posturing we might do for political or litigation purposes, that these times are different than late 1980s.

This is what neither the Times nor its talking heads understand (or, if they do understand, will admit): the facts are different this time. In the 1980s, there were a number of outright crooks involved in the banking and, especially, the thrift business in certain parts of the country, some wearing stetsons and cowboy boots, others clad in three-piece Armani suits. There were fraudulent appraisals, my-dead-cow-for-your-dead-horse swaps, 100 percent loan-to-value ADC loans on raw dirt, rapid multiple flips that would have taxed Shawn Johnson, and similar shenanigans. The damages were also limited to certain regions of the country where real estate bubbles were exploited (or partially created) by financial institutions who engaged in outright speculation until those bubbles burst. Also, many of the worst players were (relatively) smaller players.

In the latest debacle, the causes of losses are more complicated and the resulting economic consequences much more devastating and widespread. Many of the hundreds of banks that failed collapsed because they were steamrolled by the swiftness of the onset, and the depth, of the economic collapse triggered, in large part, by subprime residential mortgage loans, the complex web of securities they spawned, and the resulting residential real estate inflation. Commercial real estate wasn't the primary cause of the collapse this time, it was a casualty of the collapse. You can argue until you're blue in the face about the nuances of fiduciary duties and CRE concentrations, but in all but the low hanging fruit cases, the FDIC doesn't have smoking guns laying in plain sight to use to extract huge settlements or litigation awards out of either defendants or, more importantly, their insurance companies, who are fighting back.

As to the lack of a "deterrent" to future potential wrongdoers that allegedly results from not making settlements public, I wouldn't be concerned that "silent settlements" are encouraging prospective bank officers and directors to do anything. Those who haven't said "screw it" and opted to sip mai-tais in Cabo until they need their livers "Rolfed," or are seriously considering an alternative exit strategy, aren't chomping at the bit to jump feet-first back into subprime anything or to make CRE or any other product or service their concentration-of-choice, and their primary regulatory supervisors wouldn't let them go there even if they yearned to do so. "Other bankers" are plenty scared Mr. Newsome, without the need to read about FDIC settlements. At least, that's the story with the vast number of smaller banks in this country.

I suppose there might be some deterrent effect if the FDIC announced settlements against the officers and directors of the large Wall Street banks that helped create the mess we're in and which then failed, so that future Wall Street bankers would...oops...none of them failed. That's right: they were bailed out. My bad!

Buried in the story is the rationale for keeping mum (until FOIA forces disclosure) about settlements.

Defendants benefit by settling because they can avoid admitting guilt and limit the damages they might face in court. The FDIC benefits by collecting money without the hassle and expense of litigation. The no-press-release arrangements help close those deals.

Those are valid reasons, and they make sense for both parties.

Let's hope the Times drills a little deeper next time and strikes oil instead of gas.

Updating

While it's been a hectic week, I wanted to resume blogging long enough to update a couple of recent posts with comments made by readers via email. The first concerned last week's post on Liz Warren's rabid rapid ascent into the stratosphere of the Senate. I closed that post by expressing the hope that Barney Frank's push to fill John Carey's vacant Senate seat would be successful so that, albeit for a short time, we could have both Lizzie Borden Warren and Barney ("Thufferin Thuccotash") Frank going hog wild in tandem on pro-consumer, BIG GOVERNMENT EXPANSION proposals that would have absolutely no chance of surviving a Senate filibuster, much less making it through a Republican-dominated House, but would contain as much moon battery and tom foolery as any blogger might wish for in his or her fondest blog-fodder dreams. Not being glued to Bay State political nuances, I had failed to notice that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick had spurned Barney's advances and instead chosen Patrick's very own former chief of staff to fill the interim Senate seat. Out of power, out of mind. I guess we'll have to make do with playing Wack-a-Wack-Job with Liz for the foreseeable future.

As a consolation prize, Barney gets to say "I'm not a real Senator, but I play one on stage."

Another reader, an experienced bank lawyer who has taken on the OTS and OCC from time-to-time, gave me a couple of intriguing comments about my most recent post, which discussed the FDIC's lawsuit against former officers and directors of the failed Charter Bank of New Mexico. I wondered why, after all the writedowns of CRE loans by the OTS and all of the resultant losses tied to those loans that could have been alleged by the FDIC, the FDIC focused instead on a smaller amount of losses caused by a subprime mortgage lending unit.

In the wake of the NLRB holding, and the simple fact that the OTS was running without a properly appointed director for several years, from March 2009 until the 2011 handover and in violation of the Vacancies Reform Act, wouldn’t you limit your case to the non-OTS determined issues too?

The Appointment of the Receiver in January 2010 was, perhaps, an illegal act in itself.

Fun food for thought.

Fun food for thought, indeed, although I haven't had the time--and no one is paying me--to think about it. Perhaps legal counsel for the former officers and directors of Charter Bank will have both the time and the financial incentive.

The Curious Case Of Charter Bank

The FDIC's first lawsuit of 2013 against former officers and directors of a failed FDIC-insured financial institution involved a former thrift that was the subject of a number of blog posts over the past several years, Charter Bank of Santa Fe, New Mexico. In one post, I recounted how I was taken behind the woodshed by OTS personnel and supporters for questioning the severity of that agency's writedown of the value of collateral securing commercial real estate loans in the bank's portfolio. Most of the discussions at that time (and since that time) that I have had with folks on all sides of that bank's failure and subsequent "resolution" have focused on the commercial real estate loans, especially acquisition and developments loans.

Given that focus, I was surprised to read that the claims against the former board and certain executive officers of Charter involved not commercial real estate loans, but a subprime residential mortgage operation that the bank established in Denver at perhaps, with hindsight, was one of the worst possible times to do so: 2006. It's been more common during the latest wave of lawsuits that involve a failed community bank that concentrated on commercial real estate lending, for the FDIC's complaint to allege negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of excessive growth, concentrated in CRE, funded by "hot money," without adequate capital in light of the risk, and without proper risk management policies, procedures, and/or practices for that type of lending concentration. Usually, the FDIC selects a portfolio of CRE loans where they think they can prove the allegedly wrongful acts and omissions caused identifiable monetary losses, totals the aggregate amount of losses on those loans, and sues for that amount.

In this case, I guess the FDIC chose what it thought was the "lower hanging fruit": losses related to the bank's subprime lending unit. The three-year statute of limitations has expired, and the FDIC's lawsuit made it under the wire, so unless there was a tolling agreement signed by potential defendants (unlikely), this is likely to be the only claim against the former officers and directors of the bank that the FDIC pursues. I simply find it unusual that, after all the allegations and "controversy" concerning CRE loan losses at that institution, it was subprime lending that caught the FDIC's eye.

Curious.

San Bernardino Calls It Quits

San Bernardino County is the birthplace of the first serious consideration by a local government to implement a scheme concocted by former Clinton administration officials and private equity pirates to steal seize underwater mortgages from the lenders in order to write down the principal, refinance them into FHA loans, and sell those loans to new investors (enriching the investment bankers who would fund the scheme). It’s also the place that, when residents publicly objected to the scheme, thumbed its nose at its constituents and forged forward.

Fortunately for all that is right and holy in the land of fruits and nuts, San Bernardino recently came to its senses and abandoned the crackpot plan and opted to submit a request for proposal “seeking plans to address the mortgage crisis.” Given their track record, I suspect they’ll receive and seriously consider plans from the Hells Angels to turn foreclosed homes into profitable meth labs and from Maxine Waters to buy bad loans from whatever financial institution her husband owns these days. I mean, if you’re going to abuse the 14^th Amendment, you might as well throw all caution to the winds and just let fly with whatever comes to mind, whether tethered or untethered to reality.

Although the county’s CEO claimed that the threat of eminent domain was interfering with the ability of the county to work on other “solutions” with lenders and mortgage security investors, and that it was “wrong” to impose “unintended consequences” of the loan seizure scheme on residents who didn’t want it in the first place, anyone with an ounce of grey matter in his or her cranium knew of those negative aspects from the outset. Thus, the local yokels at county hall wasted a lot of time stirring the pot, to no avail. However, they have given the voters the appearance of “doing something” and in politics, appearance always trumps substance.

San Bernardino isn’t the first local governmental entity to attempt to play a fruitless populist (i.e., anti-bank) card to win a PR coup concerning the residential mortgage meltdown. We all recall those geniuses back East who have tried to hold lenders responsible for the condition of abandoned homes they don’t even own and for other consequences of economic and social forces beyond any lender's control. When will voters wise up and kick these time wasters to the curb?

You’re right: when Hell freezes over.

A Deal Is A Deal

AIG's moment of temporary insanity has passed. It's decided not to join a shareholder lawsuit filed by a company controlled by former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg against the US Government for bailing AIG out in 2008. Actually, Hank's company didn't allege that fact of the bailout was itself wrongful, just that the bailout terms set by the government were wrongful. Everyone understands that when you're going down like a torpedoed garbage scow, you always sue the guys who threw you a life preserver because they didn't reel you in quickly enough and you caught a nasty cold.

AIG's board of directors was apparently worried about reputational risk. Given the bad taste left in the collective mouth of the American public by the Wall Street bailouts, that's probably a justified worry. Politicians of all stripes were publicly uttering variations on the theme of "WTF?" on a daily basis. On the other hand, David Boies (yes, THAT David Boies), the attorney for Greenberg's company (which is the plaintiff in the litigation), thinks that the board's decision was not in the best interests of the shareholders. I assume that's a vague threat of a lawsuit against the directors of AIG. It seems to me that if Greenberg goes that route, he'll first have to win the lawsuit against the government in order to prevail against the directors. I'd think he'd have his hands full on with the suit against the government, without taking on the additional defendants. Then again, I don't swim in that specific shark tank, so I assume my rube-like perceptions and opinions are of little interest to the masters of the universe.

There were some other interesting, and even amusing, observations on AIG's board's decision. The Cato Institute's Mark Calabria astutely observed that big financial institutions rarely sue the federal government "because if they did, the government might not bail them out next time." Rim Shot!

On the other hand, AIG's CEO Robert Benmosche told CNCB that AIG believed that "a deal is a deal." Really, Bob? You danced with the bear and you still said that to a reporter without cracking yourself up? "A deal is a deal" as long as you're not the US government, which believes in honoring its deals unless it's politically expedient to renege on them, in which case it just litigates the resulting lawsuits for a decade or more until the public's interest in the outcome has been long since diverted to one or more other shiny baubles.

I understand the public relations downside as a reason to back off suing the US government. However, the "a deal's a deal" rationale simply doesn't hold water, based upon the nature of the devil with whom the deal was made.

The Problem With The Cutting Edge

In an interview by Tom Fields of Bank Info Security, Matthew Speare, SVP of IT for M&T Bank, talks about a painful truth regarding inflicting pain on cybercrooks who steal from banks: You’ll never be able to beat them. The best a bank can do is make it so painful for the bad guys to try to steal from your bank that they decide to “go down the street” and pick on a 98-pound weakling of a community bank that thinks “multi-factor authentication” means having a password stronger than your social security number.

Other participants in the interview are Christopher Paidhrin, the IT security compliance officer at PeaceHealth Southwest Medical Center, and Elayne Starkey, the CSO for the State of Delaware. Among the new authentication technologies that they discuss are “biomettics,” including iris scans, voice recognition, and fingerprint and palmprint identification techniques. Speare also discusses “soft” tokens as something his bank has experimented with as an alternative to the traditional “hard” tokens. Many of those technologies have been around for a number of years, and in the health care and governmental fields, appear to be gaining acceptance as part and parcel of daily life. That also seems to be the case with authentication technologies that are employed by bank personnel that do not directly impact bank customers.

Speare, however, discusses a problem with the use of such “cutting edge” authentication techniques by bank customers: “the end user experience.”  He asserts that password-based authentication has become so ingrained in the minds of bank customers, even business customers, that adding additional requirements to the authentication process that slow down or otherwise impede the customer in the performance of banking transactions becomes an issue where bank marketing and customer relationship personnel begin to push back, as their customers squawk like we used to squawk to our mothers when we were little kids. “Why do I have to do this? None of the other kids’ mothers makes them do it!”

Here’s my not-so-novel suggestion: spend more time thinking about how to educate your customers as to the benefits of these new techniques and to “sell” them on those benefits, rather than to moan to bank security officers about customer resistance. You could even invite them to a free lunch or cocktail hour seminar at which your favorite lawyer and/or IT security expert could elevate their collective consciousness to a higher plane. Yes, this is more work than simply resisting change and increasing risk to both bank and customer, but we’re now well into the second decade of the twenty-first century, and the criminals are ahead of the banks and so far out ahead of the customers that they're in danger of actually lapping them, so maybe it’s time for everyone to at least try to power on up the sophistication curve. An added benefit is that you could use those sessions to fulfill your duty under the 2011 FFIEC Supplement to its Online Authentication Guidance to educate your customers about how to better protect themselves in a cruel online banking world.

What do you say?