Tackling Credit Risk Uncertainty Head On

Written by

I’ve spoken to many bankers lately who know, intuitively, that “the other credit-quality shoe” will inevitably drop.

Despite federal stimulus initiatives, including the latest round of Paycheck Protection Program loans from the Small Business Administration, temporary regulatory relief and the advent of coronavirus vaccines and therapies, bankers realize that so-called credit tails always extend longer than the economic shocks that precipitate changing credit cycles. Although the Wall Street rebound has dominated U.S. business news, commercial bank credit lives on Main Street — and Main Street is in a recession.

During the Great Recession, the damaging impact on bank portfolios was largely focused on one sector of the housing industry: one-to-four family mortgages. Unlike that scenario, coronavirus’ most vexing legacy to bankers might be its effect throughout multiple, disparate businesses in loan portfolios. Bankers must now emphasize dealing with borrowers’ survivability than on growing their investment potential. Government actions during the pandemic averted an economic calamity. But they’ve also masked the true nature of credit quality within our portfolios. These moves created unmatched uncertainty among bank stakeholders — anathema to anyone managing credit risk.

Even amid the industry’s talk of renewed merger and acquisition activity this year, seasoned investment bankers bemoan this level of ambiguity. The temptation to use 2020’s defense that “it’s beyond our control” likely won’t cut it in 2021. All stakeholders — particularly regulators — will expect and demand that banks write their own credible narrative quantifying its unique credit risk profile. They expect bankers to be captain of their ships.

Effectively reducing uncertainty — if not eliminating it — will be priority one this year in response to those expectations. The key to accomplishing this goal will lie largely with your bank’s idiosyncratic, non-public loan data. Only you are privy to this internal information; external stakeholders and peers see your bank through the lens of public data such as call reports. In order to address this concern, I advise bankers to take five steps.

Recognize the trap of focusing on the credit metrics of the portfolio in its entirety.
While tempting, an overall credit perspective can miss the divergent economic forces at work within subsets of the portfolio. For every reassurance indicating that your bank’s credit is  performing well on the whole, there’s the caveat of focusing on the forest while the trees may show patches of trouble.

Create portfolio subsets to identify, isolate credit hotspots.
Employ practical and affordable tools that allow your credit team to identify potential credit hotspots with the same analytical representations you’d use in evaluating the total portfolio. For instance, where do bankers see the most problematic migrations within pass-rated risk grades? What danger signs are emerging in particular industries? Concentrated assessments of portfolio subsets are far more informative and predictive compared to the bluntness of the regulatory guidance on commercial real estate lending.

Drill down into suspect or troubled borrowers.
Any tool or analysis that provides aggregated trends, even within portfolio subsets, should produce an inventory of loans that make up those trends. Instantly peeling the onion down to the borrowers of most potential concern connects the quantitative data to qualitative issues that may need urgent attention and management.

Adopt an alternative servicing process for targeted loans.
These are not ordinary times. Redirecting credit servicing strategies to risk hotspots will prove beneficial. Regulators rightfully hold banks accountable for their policies; I recommend nuanced and enhanced servicing, stress testing and loan review protocols. And accordingly, banks should consider appropriate adjustments to their written procedures, as needed.

Write your own script for all of the above — the good and bad.
All outside stakeholders, especially regulators, must perceive banks as the experts on their credit risk profile. The above steps should enable banks, credibly, to write these scripts.

There is a proven correlation between the early detection of credit problems and two desired outcomes: reduced levels of loss and nonperformance, and greater flexibility to manage the problems out of the bank. Time is of the essence when ferreting out stressed credits. The magnitude of today’s credit uncertainties adds to the challenge of realizing this maxim — but they can be overcome.

IntelliCredit will present as part of Bank Director’s Inspired By Acquired or Be Acquired, an online board-level intelligence package for members of the board or C-suite. This live session is titled “How Best To Deal With 2021 Credit Uncertainties” and is February 9 at 2:00pm EDT. Click here to review program description.

Today’s Outlook For Bank M&A

Written by



Bank Director’s 2019 Bank M&A Survey finds that many banks see themselves as prospective acquirers. However, as a result of a recent wave of industry optimism—fueled by strong loan demand and regulatory relief—fewer banks may want to sell in 2019. So how can buyers position themselves to win in a more competitive M&A marketplace? Rick Childs, a partner at survey sponsor Crowe LLP, shares how a strong strategy is key to success. He also provides his outlook for the banking environment in 2019.

  • Advice for Prospective Acquirers
  • Expectations for Bank M&A in 2019

In accordance with applicable professional standards, some firm services may not be available to attest clients. © 2019 Crowe LLP, an independent member of Crowe Global. crowe.com/disclosure

2019 Bank M&A Survey: What’s Driving Growth

Written by


acquisition-12-3-18.pngOver the past year, Congress has passed both tax reform and regulatory relief—signed into law by President Donald Trump in December 2017 and May 2018, respectively. And the Trump administration has appointed regulators who appear to be more favorable to the industry, including former bankers Joseph Otting, to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Jelena McWilliams, to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

As a result, the 184 bank executives and directors participating in the 2019 Bank M&A Survey, sponsored by Crowe LLP, voice a resoundingly positive view of Washington, particularly for Trump and Mick Mulvaney. Eighty-seven percent say the Trump administration has had a positive impact on the banking industry. The same percentage give glowing marks to Mulvaney, the interim head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who has turned the agency into less of a regulatory cop and more into a regulator with an even-handed approach toward the financial industry.

The survey examines industry attitudes about issues impacting M&A and growth, along with expected acquisition plans and expectations for the U.S. economy through 2019. It was conducted in September and October 2018.

Tax reform had a big impact on the industry, with many making investments to grow their business. Thirty-seven percent say their bank invested in new growth initiatives as a result of tax reform, and 36 percent in new technology. One-quarter indicate the bank raised employee salaries, and 19 percent paid a one-time bonus to employees. Some shareholders saw gains as well: 25 percent of respondents say their bank paid a dividend, and 10 percent bought back stock.

When asked where the bank designated the largest percentage of its tax windfall, 32 percent point to new growth initiatives, and 26 percent to shareholders.

Additional Findings

  • More than half believe the current environment is more favorable for deals, and 50 percent say they’re likely to acquire another bank by the end of 2019.
  • Thirty percent believe their bank is more likely to acquire as a result of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, which rolled back some regulations for the banking industry. Two-thirds indicate regulatory reform will have no impact on their M&A plans.
  • Acquiring deposits is very attractive to today’s potential dealmakers: 71 percent say the potential target’s deposit base is a highly important factor in making the decision to acquire. 
  • To better compete for deposits, 29 percent say their bank will acquire deposits via acquisition.
  • Fifty-three percent say branch locations in attractive or growing markets are highly important, and 49 percent place high value on lending teams or talented lenders at the target.
  • Despite more sympathetic regulators and the passage of regulatory relief, 72 percent say their bank’s examiners have grown no less stringent over the past two years.

To view the full results to the survey, click here.

Relief for Community Banks in the Competition for Deposits

Written by


deposits-10-22-18.pngThe recent bank reform bill made a lot of news, but what may surprise you is the specific provision of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act that community bankers believe will have the biggest impact on their daily business.

Before the bill became law, a lot of attention was placed on the provision raising the systemically important financial institutions, or SIFI, threshold from $50 billion to $250 billion in assets, above which banks must contend with a heavier compliance burden.

Yet, the provision involving SIFIs directly impacts only a small number of commercial banks based in the United States—the dozen-plus with between $50 billion and $250 billion in assets.

Perhaps that’s why when Promontory Interfinancial Network queried bankers for its second-quarter Executive Business Outlook Survey, executives from the 390 banks that responded pointed elsewhere when asked to identify the law’s most impactful provision.

Thirty-seven percent of respondents said the law’s provision that allows most reciprocal deposits to be treated as nonbrokered deposits ranked highest on a scale of one to five, placing it first among the seven other provisions tested.

It was up against stiff competition. The other provisions included those that eased the qualified mortgage rule, extended the regulatory exam cycle and simplified capital rules for community banks, among others.

“We think the change to reciprocal deposits is great,” says Christopher Cole, executive vice president and senior regulatory counsel for the Independent Community Bankers of America. “It clarifies the status of reciprocal deposits and alleviates the concerns many community banks had about using them.”

Similarly, the American Bankers Association noted that, “the definition of brokered deposits needs to be modernized and we appreciate that Congress took a first step by recognizing reciprocal deposits are a stable source of funding for many community banks.”

The change in the law makes sense, says Neil Stanley, president of community banking at TS Banking Group, which owns three banks, including Treynor State Bank, a $400 million bank based in Treynor, Iowa: “This is one of those areas that reflects what bankers always thought was true—when a large, local depositor does business with us, any deposits above the $250,000 FDIC insurance threshold shouldn’t be considered brokered or highly volatile just because we place them with other institutions on a reciprocal basis.”

Underscoring the significance of the change, 58 percent of respondents to Promontory Interfinancial Network’s survey said they plan to start using, or expanding their use of, reciprocal deposits immediately or very soon because of the new law. An additional 29 percent said they would consider doing so in the future.

To put this in perspective, according to the same bank leaders, the next most impactful provision included in the new law relates to the easing of rules surrounding commercial real estate loans, followed by the provision that shortened call reports and then by the provision that provided qualified mortgage relief.

The change in reciprocal deposits may seem like a peripheral issue, but it addresses a fundamental inequity in banking. It does so by helping to level the playing field between the handful of large, money center banks headquartered in places like New York City and the thousands of smaller banks spread across the country that serve as economic lifelines in their communities.

Institutional investors have often favored big banks because of the belief they are “too big to fail.” And since they have more resources to invest in mobile and online banking technology, big banks have become magnets for deposits from the new generation of digitally savvy consumers. These banks no longer need to rely as heavily on building branches in rural communities to compete with community banks for funding; they can now reach small-town customers through their smartphones.

As such, many of the nation’s biggest banks are reporting organic increases in deposits. And the competition on the funding side of the balance sheet will only intensify as interest rates climb. The Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee has raised the fed funds rate multiple times this year and is expected to continue doing so.

By making it easier for community banks to use reciprocal deposits, in turn, the new law strengthens their ability to grow relationships and deposits from a local customer base without losing either one to bigger banks with deeper pockets.

“This is a step in the right direction,” says Bert Ely, a principal of Ely & Company, where he monitors conditions in the banking industry. “It makes it easier for community banks to accommodate large depositors.”

Given all this interest, it seems likely that the use of reciprocal deposits will increase in the coming months and years. Banks not currently familiar with them would thereby be wise to familiarize themselves with how reciprocal deposits work and their benefits.

If you are interested in reading the full bank survey report, visit here. To learn more about reciprocal deposits and the impact of the new law, go to promnetwork.com.

How AML Compliance Could Soon Change

Written by


AML-9-21-18.pngDespite major changes in compliance obligations starting with the Dodd-Frank Act through the more recent Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, requirements related to anti-money laundering (AML) compliance have remained largely unchanged.

The last major revision of AML compliance requirements was in 2001 with the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act. This era may be coming to an end with the reintroduction earlier this summer of H.R. 6068, Counter Terrorism and Illicit Finance Act (CTIFA), and the convergence of market developments.

Although the reintroduced CTIFA bill removes a prior provision that would have required beneficial ownership information for new corporations to be collected and provided to FinCEN, the revised CTIFA would make a number of other significant changes to AML compliance requirements:

  • Increase the filing thresholds for currency transaction reports from $10,000 to $30,000 and for suspicious activity reports (SARs) from $5,000 to $10,000;
  • Require the Secretary of the Treasury to undertake a formal review of the information reporting requirements in the BSA to ensure the information is “of a high degree of usefulness” to law enforcement, and to propose changes to reduce regulatory burden;
  • Reduce impediments to the sharing of SAR information within a financial group, including with foreign branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates;
  • Create a process for FinCEN to issue no-action letters concerning the application of the BSA or any other AML law to specific conduct, including a statement whether FinCEN has any intention of taking an enforcement action with respect to such conduct;
  • Encourage the use of technological innovations such as artificial intelligence in AML compliance;
  • Establish an 18-month safe harbor from enforcement of FinCEN’s beneficial ownership and customer due diligence rule, which became effective in May 2018; and
  • Commission studies on the effectiveness of current beneficial ownership reporting regimes and cost-benefit analyses of AML requirements.

Although the CTIFA’s prospects for passage are uncertain, several of its provisions track market developments that are already bringing about change. First, innovative technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain increasingly are being leveraged for AML compliance solutions.

Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform terabytes of customer information into actionable AML insights including, for example, customizable pre-drafted suspicious activity report templates or customer risk profiles. These risk profiles update in real time in support of the new customer due diligence “pillar” of AML compliance. Blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies may be deployed to create standardized digital identities for customers to expedite and safeguard KYC and authentication processes.

Second, banks already are taking a hard look at their CTR and SAR processes to determine the ratio of meaningful information to noise that has been included in these reports. This augmented reporting will result in a direct benefit to the network of federal government agencies tasked with analyzing reports to find information with a high degree of usefulness in law enforcement investigations.

Third, banks are increasingly providing services to new types of high-risk businesses, such as marijuana-related businesses (“MRBs”) and cryptocurrency companies. FinCEN has for each of these industries been a pioneer in issuing guidance relatively early in the industry’s lifecycle to explain how AML compliance obligations apply, but this guidance requires updating. As just one example, FinCEN’s three-tiered system for filing SARs applies when a bank provides banking services directly to an MRB, but there are less clear SAR filing guidelines when a bank provides services to a customer that provides services to MRBs or owns shares of an MRB.

Banks continue to use FinCEN’s administrative ruling request process or the supervisory process to obtain guidance for high-risk customers, albeit in an ad hoc, non-public way. This request process is less effective than the no-action letter process contemplated in the CTIFA.

The CTIFA, if enacted, would significantly change AML compliances. At the same time, innovation and new business opportunities, among other market developments, are already contributing to AML compliance enhancements. Regardless of whether the legislation passes, the industry appears to be entering an era of change.

Dodd-Frank Reform Creates New Strategic Considerations For Community Banks

Written by


regulation-9-14-18.pngIn May, President Donald Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “Growth Act”), which provided long-awaited—and in some cases modest—regulatory relief to financial institutions of all sizes. Due to the adjustment of certain assets thresholds that subject banks to various regulatory burdens, the biggest winners from the regulatory reform are community banks with assets below $10 billion and regional banks with total assets above the $10 billion threshold and aspirations for future significant growth. As a result, it is incumbent upon these institutions to include in their strategic planning a new set of issues, examples of which are provided below.

Congress Eases Regulatory Environment for Community Banks
For community banks under $10 billion in total consolidated assets, the Growth Act repealed or modified several important provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. In particular, the Growth Act:

  • Increases the total asset threshold from $2 billion to $10 billion at which banks may deem certain loans originated and held in portfolio as “qualified mortgages” for purposes of the CFPB’s ability-to-repay rule;
  • Requires the federal banking agencies to develop a Community Bank Leverage Ratio of not less than 8 percent and not more than 10 percent, under which any qualifying community banks under $10 billion in total assets that exceeds such ratio would be considered to have met the existing risk-based capital rules and be deemed “well capitalized;” and
  • Amends the Bank Holding Company Act to exempt from the Volcker Rule banks with total assets of $10 billion or less and which have total trading assets and trading liabilities of 5 percent or less of their total consolidated assets.
  • It is expected that these changes will have a significant effect on the operations of community banks. As an example, qualifying banks under the Community Bank Leverage Ratio will be relieved from the more stringent international capital standards and, as a result, may be better able to deploy capital.

Crossing the $10 Billion Threshold is Now a Lot Less Ominous, but There is Still a Price to be Paid
The revisions to asset thresholds are not limited to those affecting smaller institutions and offer significant regulatory relief to institutions with greater than $10 billion in assets and less than $100 billion in assets. Such relief changes the calculus of whether to exceed the $10 billion threshold.

On the plus side, the $10 billion threshold at which financial institutions were previously required to conduct annual company-run stress tests, known as DFAST, has been moved to $250 billion in assets. In addition, publicly traded bank holding companies no longer have a regulatory requirement to establish risk committees for the oversight of the enterprise-wide risk management practices of the institution until they reach $50 billion in assets. We anticipate, however, that most if not all institutions near or exceeding $10 billion in assets will continue to maintain board risk committees and will be conducting modified forms of stress testing for safety and soundness purposes.

On the downside, and perhaps most important, is what the Growth Act did not change: financial institutions with assets over $10 billion in assets continue to be subject to the Durbin Amendment, the Volcker Rule and the supervision and examination of the CFPB. In addition, the regulatory benefits the Growth Act newly provides to community banks will be lost when the $10 billion asset threshold is crossed.

New Strategic Issues To Consider
Based on the changes described above, senior executives and boards of directors should continue to carefully consider the regulatory impact of growing (or possibly shrinking) their institution’s balance sheet. Such considerations may include:

  • How will the institution’s capital position change under the simplified capital rules applicable to qualifying community banks?
  • Will compliance with the Community Bank Leverage Ratio rule ultimately result in a more efficient capital structure, or result in a need for more capital, compared to compliance with the current multi-faceted capital requirements?
  • Will near term compliance with a simplified Community Bank Leverage Ratio be outweighed by the cost of transitioning back to the existing regime once $10 billion is assets is achieved?
  • Given the institution’s loan portfolio and target market, would the institution benefit from the automatic qualified mortgage status now afforded to institutions under $10 billion?
  • Will the institution meaningfully benefit under the revised provisions of the Volcker Rule, and how might that affect the institution’s financial position?
  • Will the new benefits of being under $10 billion alter an institution’s strategic plan to grow over $10 billion, or is the relief from the company-run stress test and risk committee requirements enough to outweigh the regulatory relief provided to institutions under $10 billion?

Breaking Down Deregulation Based On Asset Size

Written by


deregulation-9-5-18.pngIn May, President Donald Trump signed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act into law, clearing the last hurdle for an expansive roll-back of U.S. banking regulations. The bill will relieve many of the nation’s banks from compliance and regulatory obligations imposed by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, adopted in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

The legislation benefitted from significant support from the banking industry, and in particular from the Independent Community Bankers of America and other representatives of community banks. Proponents of the bill assert that the oversight and compliance obligations imposed by Dodd-Frank disproportionately burdened community banks with the costs and organizational challenges associated with compliance, even though these institutions do not pose the same level of risk to the domestic or global financial systems as their larger national bank counterparts.

To address these concerns, the new law adjusts existing regulatory requirements to create a more tiered regulatory framework based on institution asset size, primarily by (i) removing certain compliance obligations to which community banks are subject, and (ii) increasing the threshold triggering application of some of the most stringent oversight and compliance requirements.

The most significant regulatory changes for community and regional banks resulting from the law include:

Under $3 Billion:
Raises the qualification threshold from $1 billion in assets to $3 billion in assets for: (i) an 18-month exam cycle for well-managed, well-capitalized banks, and (ii) the Federal Reserve’s Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement.

Under $10 Billion:
No longer subject to the Volcker Rule enacted as part of Dodd-Frank. The Volker Rule restricts proprietary trading by FDIC-insured institutions, and imposes related reporting and compliance obligations on these institutions as a result. These reporting and compliance obligations reflected regulators’ belief that proprietary trading poses high systemic risk. But because it is typically only large national institutions that engage in proprietary trading, the community banking industry argued that smaller banks should not be subject to the Volcker Rule.

Deems certain mortgages originated and retained in portfolio as Qualified Mortgages if: (i) they comply with requirements regarding prepayment penalties, (ii) they do not have negative amortization or interest-only features, and (iii) the financial institution considers and documents the debt, income and financial resources of the customer. Qualified Mortgages are legally presumed to comply with Dodd-Frank’s Ability to Repay requirements.

Truth In Lending Act escrow requirement exemption for depository institutions that originated no more than 1,000 first lien mortgages on principal dwellings in the previous year.

Directs federal banking regulators to develop a Community Bank Leverage Ratio (equity capital to consolidated assets) between 8 and 10 percent. Banks exceeding this ratio will be deemed well capitalized and in compliance with risk-based capital and leverage requirements. Federal banking agencies may consider a bank’s risk profile when evaluating whether it qualifies as a community bank for purposes of the ratio requirement.

$10 Billion – $50 Billion:
No longer subject to mandatory stress testing or required to maintain risk management committees.

$50 Billion – $250 Billion:
No longer designated as “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” under Dodd-Frank. This designation triggers application of “enhanced prudential standards” under existing law, such as stress-testing and maintenance of risk management committees.

Institutions holding between $50 billion and $100 billion in assets will are exempt as of May 24, 2018, and institutions holding between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets will become exempt as of November 24, 2019.

Under $250 Billion:
Changes the application of High Volatility Commercial Real Estate (HVCRE) rules, which will now only apply to the 12 largest domestic institutions. Existing HVCRE rules apply broadly to loans made for the acquisition or construction of commercial real estate, unless one of a few exemptions applies. Loans categorized as HVCRE receive a higher risk-weighting under capital adequacy regulations, requiring the bank to hold more capital than for non-HVCRE loans. The banking industry argued the HVCRE definition was unnecessarily broad and the related guidance was redundant.

All Banks:
Exempts certain rural real estate transactions of less than $400,000 from appraisal requirements if no certified appraiser is available. Community banks argued that finding appraisers in rural areas can be difficult or expensive.

Depository institutions that originate fewer than 500 closed-end mortgages or open-end lines of credit will be exempt from certain disclosures under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.

The expansiveness of these reforms means a significant easing of U.S. bank regulations applicable to community and regional banks. Legislators have indicated that the Act may soon be followed by further regulatory changes. Regardless of future congressional action, the newly modified regulatory landscape will be new and very different for many banking institutions, especially those far from Wall Street and doing business on Main Street.

Crapo Bill Only a Drop in Bucket for Deregulation

Written by


regulation-8-29-18.pngThe bipartisan “regulatory relief” bill that was adopted by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year is a positive development for the banking industry, and it continues a string of good news for banking (and, by extension, the economy at large) since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act. Banking is highly regulated, and it should be, because most banks’ balance sheets are funded with federally insured deposits to the tune of 90 percent.

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act is not all that the industry had hoped for in a regulatory relief bill, but it is not a complete giveaway to the big banks as some suggested. For the really big banks in this country, the bill does not change much at all.

One of the best things about the legislation is the House and Senate came together to pass a bill that makes sense. On the other hand, the bill seems to further engrain buckets of banks based on asset sizes that have no meaningful support. So, we should get used to the notion that a bank with assets over $10 billion is somehow a “large” bank and that banks with over $250 billion in assets are “systemically important.”

At a high level, the substantive provisions of the new law are relatively brief, when compared to the expanse of Dodd-Frank. Arguably, the mortgage-related provisions of Dodd-Frank did more harm than good because plenty of smaller lenders got out of the housing finance business rather than risk the penalties of noncompliance.

The recent legislation provides that banks with assets of $10 billion or less can avoid some of the more cumbersome qualified mortgage rules under Dodd-Frank, provided that the loans are originated by the bank and kept in the bank’s loan portfolio. Banks that made fewer than 500 mortgage loans in each of the last two years will be exempt from Dodd-Frank’s expanded reporting under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act as long as the bank has a satisfactory or better Community Reinvestment Act rating.

The new legislation also directs the federal banking agencies to adopt a “Community Bank Leverage Ratio” that will exempt most banks with assets of less than $10 billion from the risk-based capital rules of Basel III. This safe harbor capital requirement is to be not less than 8 percent and not more than 10 percent, and it is going to require an interagency rule-making process, which can take many months to accomplish. So don’t throw away your Basel III models just yet. Most of these so-called small banks will also be exempt from the Volcker Rule, but that too is going to require promulgating rules. It is just going to take time for to reach consensus on what the regulations should say.

A couple of provisions of the new law beneficial to smaller banking organizations should be implemented fairly quickly and without much controversy. The threshold for a “small” bank holding company for purposes of the Fed’s policy statement on the capital and leverage requirements for such entities has been raised from $1 billion to $3 billion. This means bank holding companies with less than $3 billion of total assets will not be subject to capital requirements on a consolidated basis, and allows those holding companies to borrow money at the holding company level and inject it into their subsidiary banks as equity capital. In addition, the exam cycle for well-managed and well-capitalized banks with assets of $3 billion or less has been extended to 18 months. These two provisions could amount to meaningful relief for the banking organizations that can avail themselves of the flexibility afforded by the new law.

For those of us who appreciate the important role that a properly functioning banking system plays in the U.S., our elected officials deserve credit for making changes to Dodd-Frank. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the new law is merely a drop in the bucket of work to be done around bank regulation in the U.S.

Aligning Risk With Strategic Growth

Written by



The banking industry is experiencing change like it never has before. Digital delivery channels will have a profound effect on the typical bank’s business model, and further change is coming through regulatory relief. Both can offer new opportunities and new risks. KPMG’s David Reavy details what you need to know about these changes and how boards should focus on today’s risks.

  • The Future Bank Business Model
  • Regulation and Industry Change
  • Expectations for Boards

Why Deregulation Means More Work for Banks

Written by


regulation-8-20-18.pngMany banks are claiming victory over the promise of regulatory reform from bill S.2155, often called the Crapo Bill. However, the celebration and dreams of returning to the way it once was before the Dodd-Frank Act are premature.

There is still a long road for deregulation, with many obstacles. The bill’s limited scope and applicability, coupled with the uncertainty of the regulatory landscape, call into question the breadth and longevity of this so-called regulatory relief. Bankers must realize that any change, whether adding or reducing regulations, translates to extra work.

There’s nothing wrong with being cautiously optimistic about the potential for regulatory relief, but bankers should gain a deeper understanding of the details before declaring victory. Banks that work to comprehend the scope of the bill’s effects, the potential for political shifts, and what deregulation means for management will be better equipped to navigate the unpredictable regulatory landscape.

The nitty gritty: a not-so-sweeping reform
Many in the industry view the bill as enacting regulatory relief – and that’s where their understanding ends. Those who have properly digested the bill— whether bankers themselves or their regtech partners—have realized it isn’t the sweeping reform some claim. In reality, the bill is only a limited set of reforms, with restricted applicability and several distinctions based on asset size and product mix.

There is also confusion around timing and deadlines. Sections of the new law contain various effective dates, ranging from May 28, 2018, to three years from the enactment date. However, it is important to understand that regulatory relief differs from traditional rulemaking when it comes to effective dates. Typically, an effective date represents a deadline by which all implementation must be accomplished. For regulatory relief, the date represents the deadline by which a burden should be lifted or reduced.

Because of this discrepancy, questions remain around when the reduction of regulation is required versus when it is optional. This ambiguity is problematic, as some bankers will make changes right away, while others will wait until forced to do so. Complicating matters, software and technology updates won’t be readily available, causing friction in processes.

Furthermore, where provisions of the bill conflict with existing regulations, there is uncertainty about how the regulations will address these conflicts. How examinations will be conducted while there are inconsistencies between law and regulation are unclear at the time of this writing.

The unpredictable political landscape raises questions
Washington’s tendency to deregulate banking is not a surprise. The current leadership has created a “pro-business” sentiment that favors limiting regulations. But political whims can change quickly. With midterm elections in November, there is potential for a regulatory shift in the other direction. Some reforms and regulatory relief promised in the Crapo Bill may never come to fruition, depending on what happens this fall.

Instead of trying to predict political outcomes, bankers should remain diligent about complying with regulations already solidified. For example, CECL will have many ramifications for how banks handle themselves fiscally, and bankers shouldn’t let chatter around regulatory relief distract them from that upcoming deadline. Until we have a more definite sense of the political climate for the next two years, bankers will benefit from focusing on the regulations in front of them now, rather than what may or may not be coming from S.2155.

Deregulation means more work
Even if the trend continues, rolling back regulations isn’t as simple as it sounds. It will take just as long to undo portions of Dodd-Frank as it took to implement the rules. With technology challenges and limited flexibility at even the most progressive institutions, deregulation forces short-term pain without necessarily guaranteeing long-term gain.

With any change, institutions are forced through a complex management cycle. This includes retraining staff, upgrading technology, reevaluating risk and tweaking operational procedures. Significant adjustments follow any deviation from the norm, even with toning down or eliminating rules. Therefore, bankers will have to closely monitor the efforts of their vendors and work closely with regtech partners to interpret and respond to regulatory changes.

Technology can help navigate the pendulum swing of regulation by automating compliance processes, interpreting regulations and centralizing efforts. It has become too much to manage compliance with manual processes and the regulatory landscape is too complex and changes too quickly. An advanced compliance management system can help banks remain agile and ease the pain points associated with reconfiguring processes and procedures.

No matter the path of proposed deregulation, banks must quickly interpret and adapt to remain compliant. Banks that recognize the uncertainty of the current political arena and are realistic about the managing the work associated with the change – while closely collaborating with their regtech partners – will be better positioned to navigate the unpredictable days ahead.