The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) released on April 23 a notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify the standards and criteria under which one company “controls” another company under the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA) and the Savings and Loan Holding Company Act (SLHCA). This long-awaited proposal, which Fed officials have stated for some time was in the works, is notable for several reasons—primarily because if adopted, it will bring much-needed clarity to an area of banking law that historically has been notoriously opaque.
Kathleen Kraninger, only the second Senate-confirmed director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in its almost eight-year existence, recently gave her first public remarks. The priorities Director Kraninger laid out will materially impact the CFPB’s direction and mission until the end of her term in December 2023. Director Kraninger, appointed by President Donald Trump, succeeds the first CFPB director, Richard Cordray, who was appointed by President Barack Obama.
In a recently published statement, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) has raised concerns relating to the risks that crypto-assets pose to the global financial system. While it acknowledges that banks do not currently have significant exposure to crypto-assets, it warns that these assets are increasingly becoming a threat to financial stability.
These concerns are founded on the volatility, constant evolution, and lack of standardization of crypto-assets, which the BCBS believes exposes banks to liquidity, credit, operational, money laundering, legal, and reputational risks. It considers that crypto-assets should not be referred to as “cryptocurrencies,” given that they fall short of being currencies that are safe mediums of exchange.
In separate remarks delivered before the annual Washington meeting of the Institute for International Bankers on March 11, FDIC Chair Jelena McWilliams and Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting both said that the federal financial regulatory agencies are actively considering revisions to the Volcker Rule regulations, including a reconfiguration of the interagency Volcker Rule regulatory proposals published in June 2018. Ms. McWilliams, among other things, indicated that “all options are on the table," and stated that the federal agencies “need to right size the rule's extraterritorial scope while also minimizing competitive inequities between U.S. banking entities and their foreign counterparts…” with a particular focus on foreign funds.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will hold public hearings on March 25-26 in Washington, DC, on “Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.” Titled, “The FTC’s Role in a Changing World,” the hearings pose downstream risk to the fintech community, especially to smaller enterprises that may lack the resources and knowledge to comply with any complex new regime.
When the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in Madden v. Midland Funding in 2015, it sent shockwaves through the financial community for its unexpected ruling that nonbank assignees of a national bank did not get the benefit of National Bank Act “preemption” permitting lenders to charge any interest rate provided it does not exceed the rate permitted in the bank’s home state. After an unsuccessful attempt to get the US Supreme Court to review the decision, the Second Circuit’s decision remains binding precedent in federal courts sitting in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The case returned to the district court and has quietly been litigated over the last two years. On March 1, the final chapter began when the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of the action, as described below.
Our postings on All Things FinReg sometimes can take us far afield – in this case, to India.
Multinational companies, including those in the financial services and technology worlds, incorporate or acquire Indian subsidiaries to lower their costs and access a vast and growing market for customers and talent. If you want to be in India, however, you’ll need to understand and engage with the complex—and sometimes mystifying—local regulatory regime, because not doing so may cost you, as well as your banks and other financial services providers.
A recent letter from a bipartisan group of 31 state attorneys general to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asks the agency to both continue and enhance its various identity theft rules. The group, led by attorneys general Ellen Rosenblum (D-OR) and Kevin Clarkson (R-AK), points to the challenges presented by emerging technologies being regulated by dated rules. While the concept of regulatory obsoleteness is not new, the speed at which new technologies now emerge means that rules can become dated quickly.
Recent action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) may bring some relief to fintech developers and the broader financial services industry as new products run into otherwise insurmountable regulatory hurdles that do not take into account or adapt to new technologies.
In a recent announcement by the CFPB’s Office of Innovation, its director has proposed the creation of a “Disclosure Sandbox” to encourage trial disclosure programs.
The greatest concern for many new developers and possible funding sources for those developers is that a new and innovative product may not be able to provide disclosures in the same way that traditional products have done, simply because consumer device sizes are shrinking while the amount of information regulators are requiring to be displayed without “clicking through” many screens is increasing. This poses a conundrum for the developer, which must reconcile competing issues and demands, including the size of a device screen, the limits of human eyesight—and patience!—and the demands of regulators.
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has once more filed a rule change with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to further delay the effective date of certain changes to its maintenance margin rule for covered agency transactions (e.g., to-be-announced transactions, specified pool transactions, transactions in collateralized mortgage obligations) until March 25, 2020. Final implementation of the rule’s requirements to collect margin on covered agency transactions was scheduled for March 25, 2019, which itself was a delay from a previous compliance date of June 25, 2018. As with the other delays, the new postponement was filed for immediate effectiveness and FINRA, in delaying the rule changes, said that it “is considering, in consultation with industry participants and other regulators, potential amendments to the requirements of [amended Rule 4210].” FINRA further states that it “believes that this is appropriate in the interest of avoiding unnecessary disruption to the Covered Agency Transaction market. Of note, the risk limit determinations of amended Rule 4210 that became effective on December 15, 2016, are not affected by the proposal.” In considering further changes to the Rule 4210 margin collection requirements, FINRA appears to be reacting to industry concerns regarding the competitiveness of certain FINRA members in this market.