Bank Lawyer's Blog

There Ain't No "There," There

Last week, an article by Andy Peters in the American Banker hit a nerve. It profiled a California bank that had tried to make small dollar loans work as an alternative to payday lending, but had decided to give up the effort.

One PacificCoast Bank in Oakland, Calif., is regrouping as it looks to battle payday lenders in the San Francisco Bay area.

The $282 million-asset thrift recently pulled the plug on its One Pac Pal loan, which it tailored to offer low-income clients short-term credit at reasonable rates and terms. The program, which began 18 months earlier, lost too much money, says Kat Taylor, One PacificCoast's chief executive.

"We have not yet found an economically sustainable product that's sufficient to save enough people" from payday lenders, she says.

I hate to say "I told you so," but...Oh, who am I kidding. I TOLD YOU SO!From August 1, 2007:

In June, when the FDIC issued its final Affordable Small-Dollar Loan Guidelines and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair was pressing commercial banks to compete with payday lenders for the "Mini Me" loan biz, even banks in states like North Carolina, which kicked out the bottom feeders, were rolling their eyeballs in disdain at the prospect of rushing in to fill the breach. Among other problems, the Guidelines "encourage" banks to cap the APR at 36 percent.

[...]

The North Carolina banks banks profiled in the linked article didn't believe that there was enough bang for the buck to justify dipping their toes in the shallow water. Even the lone credit union that offered a payday loan-like product wasn't making any money on it because it was barred by state law from charging more than an 18% APR and it was actually requiring the loan to be paid back in 90 days. If it had only rolled the loan over (and over and over) and neglected to comply with the usury laws, it might, like Madonna, have been able to "get into the groove" and make some real payday lender-like money.

Lyndsey Medsker, spokesperson for the Community Financial Services Association of America, which, according to another article, represents about 60 percent of the payday loan industry, said the 36% annual percentage rate cap was a non-starter for commercial banks.

"There's an effort to cap loans at 36 percent annual rate, which the FDIC guidelines suggest. How that works into two- week loans is $1.38 per $100," she says. "I know payday lenders can't make money on that, so banks couldn't possibly either."

Mr. Peters' latest article also quotes a consultant as correctly noting that at the same time these loans pose a high risk of nonpayment, they bear a high regulatory compliance risk and, because credit scores must be thrown out the window (or reliance on them reduced), a high underwriting risk. Peters also notes that the FDIC ended its small dollar loan pilot program in 2009 because banks couldn't make a return sufficient to cover the risk.

One PacificCoast bank's experience is in line with the consistent experience of other FDIC-insured banks who've tried to beat payday lenders at their own game over the past six years. Basic business principles don't change. However, they've never ceased to be ignored in the service of an ideological agenda, one which holds that payday loans are evil because they have high fees that "trap" poor people in a never-ending spiral of debt, people who are too stupid and/or unsophisticated and/or desperate to think for themselves, and who must be protected from their inherent deficiencies by those who know better. Guys like Recess Richie and the Payday Slayers.

It's obvious that trying to use traditional banks as payday lending alternatives is not going to work. Unless, of course, you let them earn the same return that payday lenders earn.Which kind of thwarts the "higher purpose," doesn't it?

That's right Liz, reality bites.

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.

A New Approach To Compliance

Steve Van Beek, NAFCU's Director of Regulatory Compliance, has a dynamite article in the latest issue of The Federal Credit Union, that community banks, as well as credit unions, would do well to heed. In addition to noting the obvious fact that Dodd-Frank's increase of regulations means increased compliance burdens for credit unions, he discusses a very important "paradigm shift" in the way credit unions (and community banks) need to view compliance. In the years "BFD" (Before Franken-Dodd), the compliance officer was often brought into the discussion of a product or service at a late date, and then gave it a thumbs up or thumbs down verdict. Steve rightly notes that the old school approach is a good way to be schooled by the CFPB.

Steve observes that the "CFPB's focus is principle-based as wellas requirement-based."

Not only will credit unions need to determine if their product or service is compliant with laws, regulations and guidance, but they will also need to expend resources to document that the product or service provides a benefit to members.

Why? Steve's glad you asked. Th answer is UDAAP: unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices. You have a new sheriff in town, the CFPB. It's focused on how consumers use products and services and how consumer service and product providers might "take advantage" of consumers. In other words, the CFPB seems to be running down the path of determining what products and services are "suitable" for consumers and which are not. It's a brave new world, one in which the old focus on checking off items on a compliance checklist is not going to get the job done. Instead, financial institutions will "need to build a UDAAP review into their product structure and development and monitor their products and services over time, as the UDAAP standard is not static."

There's a lot more meat on the bones, and I highly recommend that you read the whole article. It's a good warning shot across the bow of the critically dysfunctional and soon-to-be-beaten-down dinosaurs who squawk an outdated mantra: "Show me where it says I can't do that." Believe me, if you don't understand that it's a whole knew compliance ballgame and learn the new rules, pronto, the CFPB tire tracks will make a nice pair of bookends on the back of your bowling shirt as you lie face down and flattened in the middle of the consumer compliance highway.

A Change of Policy, But Only in Two States

While the epic "Yo Mamma" wars between banks and credit unions have been well-documented (and often lamented) on this blog, I have no explanation for the recent activities of Chase Bank and Huntington Bank, as outlined in a recent article in Credit Union Times.

As many as 30 credit unions in West Virginia and Ohio have been scrambling to establish new correspondent vendors after a regional and national bank terminated their accounts over the past few weeks.

The $1.4 billion Volunteer Corporate CU and the $3.7 billion Corporate One FCU both reported the closed accounts, and in both cases said members reported the banks cited Bank Security Act and money laundering risk.

Charlie Thomas, VolCorp’s senior vice president of West Virginia operations, said the Nashville, Tenn.-based corporate first became aware of the terminated correspondent relationships in late March when a member called, asking for assistance. He said the two banks were the Columbus, Ohio-based Huntington Bank and New York-based Chase Bank.

[...]

Thomas said a letter he’d seen from Huntington to a credit union said the decision to terminate the business relationship was the result of regulatory requirements, “some of which may be new or been amended since the credit union opened its account.” The decision reflected a change in bank wide strategy, and was not a reflection on the credit union, the letter added.

The two banks aren't providing a more detailed explanation and the Fed refuses to comment to reporters on the matter, including indicating whether the banks were directed to close the accounts by their primary regulators because of BSA concerns. Speculation includes the theory that the banks are trying to reduce volatility of deposits, but other observers note that those banks are so large that the 30 banks would be but a blip on the radar screen. Also, why only banks in those two states? Is there some massive money laundering risk suddenly emerging from coal country? Are moonshiners now allied with Mexican drug cartels and laundering massive amounts of illicit cash through these credit unions?

This may be worth following. Or, it may not be. If anything interesting pops, I'll post.

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.

FDIC's Take On FFIEC's Social Media Guidance

I ran across an interview recently that the FDIC's Elizabeth Khalil gave to InfoSecurity's Tracy Kitten about the FFIEC's proposed guidance on social media. Among my take-aways are the following:

• The push for the guidance came from smaller banks that wanted the regulators to give them some free advice. We all understand the fact that because small banks have less money available to pay for expensive lawyers, they look to leverage off of every free resource they can glom onto. Trade associations aren't free, but if you're paying your dues, you look to them to give you your money's worth. Since banks pay the federal bank regulators assessments, they want some bang for those bucks, as well. I get it.
• While Ms. Khalil mentioned "reputational risk" as the second major risk of the three she discussed ("compliance issues" was number one and "third party risk" was the third), I think reputational risk layers through much of the regulators' concerns. For example, misuse of consumers' personal information may be a compliance risk issue, and a Facebook vulnerability to hackers is a third-party risk. However, they both can impact the bank's reputation. Bad things that happen in a bank's social media endeavors often pose a reputational risk as an additional risk, and that's a safety and soundness concern which, in turn, is a regulatory compliance concern.
• None of what's in the guidance is new, and banks that are already engaged in social media activities should already be familiar with the elements of the guidance. If they're not, they better become familiar in a hurry and hope that no one notices.
• Due diligence on third party service providers that you intend to use is critical. The due diligence needs to be ongoing. A third party's faux pas can bite the bank in the backside as well as the third party. Monitoring is essential.
• As is the case with online banking security, the regulators encourage banks to educate consumers on social media risks. For example, the regulators will look favorably on a bank educating its social media users on the risk of fraudulent bank sites, how to recognize the real deal from the fraudster, and that they should never give up personal information over social media. 
• Whether or not a bank is actively using social media to interface with current or potential customers, it needs to have a social media use policy. The bank's employees are using social media, and other people may be saying bad things about you in cyberspace. The bank should have a policy that deals with these issues.

The final guidance is expected to be out in the near future (the comment period closed March 25th), depending on the nature of the comments received.Interested bankers should keep their eyes peeled (although, don't hold your breath).

I'll be giving a breakout session on social media compliance on July 3, 2013 at CUNA’s America’s Credit Union Conference in New York City. If you're a reader and are attending that conference, say hello.

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.

Three Hurdles To Jump Pose No Obstacle To An Elephant

Banking compliance consultant Nancy Griffin thinks that bankers fear the "effects test" (i.e., "disparate impact"), which, I think, is correct. She also thinks that they should not be as afraid of disparate impact as they seem to be, because it's a three-part test and the "effect" is only one part.

The effects test is a three-part analysis:

1. The analysis starts with whether a policy or practice that appears neutral on its face has a discriminatory effect on a prohibited basis--disparate impact.

2. Next the test looks at whether the policy or practice that seems to discriminate on a prohibited basis actually has a business necessity supporting its use.

3. The final step is to determine whether there is a way to meet the same business necessity without such a discriminatory impact.

Obviously, step 1 has received all the press, and causes the most heartburn. The problem for bankers is that they rarely know what the "unintended" effects on a protected class of a facially bias-neutral practice might be. However, Nancy thinks that Step 2 is where the "real analysis" should begin.

The more accurate and effective the factors considered in evaluating credit are, the more accurately they will distinguish between good and bad credit risks. And, the accuracy of the factors becomes a powerful defense against any challenge of discrimination in effect.

Common sense should tell you that this works.

I have no problem with those statements.

As to step 3, Nancy claims that every banker should already be familiar with making this determination.

This type of analysis has been at the core of what is inaccurately referred to as "CRA lending."  The question in this phase is to figure out whether there is any other way to achieve the business purpose of distinguishing between good and bad credit risks than to use the factor that is challenged as discriminatory.

In looking for ways to make loans to low-income credit applicants, the industry has reevaluated almost all of the underwriting principles. Often, community groups asked banks to apply different debt ratios to low-income applicants or look instead to cash flow and proven ability to manage a high housing cost relative to income. In many situations, these loans could be supported by the alternative analysis. In these cases, there was an alternative way to make the loan that reduced any disparate impact of using ratios.

While she mentions the fact that many of these "alternative ways to make loans" went too far and resulted in some serious pain (in other words, the subprime mortgage meltdown), she claims this result has a "silver lining."

Some of the alternatives to basic underwriting principles have been tested and proven dangerous. This experience helps with the third step of the effects test. It makes clear that flexible underwriting is something to be done only with great care. Underwriting should not be changed simply to change the demographic effect. Before changes there should be careful research and testing.

I suppose that is true to some extent. However, I'm not as sanguine as Nancy that step 3 will be that easy to support in every case where the stricter underwriting standards that are used to achieve "QM" or "QRM" status are always employed. I can see the day, especially when the economy improves, when the fact that a bank is simply trying to meet the Dodd-Frank "safe harbor" underwriting standards is far from being a lock on satisfying steps 2 and 3. I especially think that an ideologically motivated Justice Department (and HUD) of the type we have in place currently, will remain unimpressed by any logical arguments that support a bank on steps 2 and 3 if they "find" that there's been a "disparate impact" on a protected class under step 1.

We need to remember that "disparate impact" itself is a questionable legal theory, so questionable that the US Justice Department fears its consideration by the US Supreme Court. Banks aren't scared of "disparate impact" claims only because they're so difficult to anticipate in the ordinary course of business, but because the federal government seems intent on using such claims to browbeat large settlements out of bankers on a cost-benefits basis (pay the government to end the pain), regardless of whether or not the highest court in the land would ultimately overturn the government. If the government is willing to use a questionable legal theory to serve ideological notions of "fairness" in credit redistribution (as it does in its quest for income redistribution), why would steps 2 and 3 deter it? If step 1 is bogus, why would objectively valid opinions that steps 2 and 3 favor the bank be impediments to simply alleging that they do not, and beating the bank over the head with litigation defense costs until it yields?

Yes, bankers fear the effects test. The fact that the test involves a three step process should provide only cold comfort to them.

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.