Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
FDIC issued a cease and desist order to a bank that engaged in the following unsafe or unsound banking practices: hazardous lending and lax collection practices, including extending credit to borrowers whose ability to repay was in doubt and when collateral for the loans was inadequate; operating with excessive "other operating expenses" resulting from its improper payment of certain expenses attributable to its bank holding company; operating with excessive loan losses; maintaining inadequate loan loss reserves; operating with inadequate capital; and operating with inadequate management and supervision both from its officers and from its board of directors. FDIC also ordered the bank to take affirmative action to correct the unsafe or unsound banking practices.
[.1] Cease and Desist OrdersAffirmative RemediesUnsafe or Unsound Practice
{{4-1-90 p.A-667}}
[.3] DefinitionsBrokered Deposits
Brokered deposits are deposits received by a bank for the account of others (either directly or ultimately) from a person in the business of placing funds or facilitating the placement of funds in return for a commission. Brokered deposits often carry higher interest rates and shorter maturities than alternative funding from local sources. Consequently, they are very rate sensitive and extremely volatile.
[.4] DepositsBrokeredLimitation on Amounts
[.5] Cease and Desist OrdersFDIC Authority to Issue
[.6] Cease and Desist OrdersDefensesCessation of Violation
[.7] CAMEL Rating"4" Defined
[.8] Examination of BanksPurpose
[.9] Lending and Collection Policy and ProceduresInadequate Documentation
[.10] Lending and Collection Policy and ProceduresLax Collection Practices
{{4-1-90 p.A-668}}
[.12] DefinitionsParticipation Sold
[.13] Loan Loss ReservePurpose
[.14] CapitalAdequacyCapitalization Should Reflect Risk
[.15] CapitalAdequacyUnsafe or Unsound Practices
[.16] DirectorsDuties and ResponsibilitiesSupervision of Banks Affairs
[.17] Bank Holding CompaniesPayment of Expenses
[.18] DirectorsDuties and Responsibilities
[.19] DirectorsDuties and ResponsibilitiesAdequacy of Employees
[.20] DirectorsDuties and ResponsibilitiesSupervision of Lending Practices
In the Matter of BANK OF * * * ,
STATEMENT
This proceeding arises under Section 8(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the "Act"). 12 U.S.C. § 1818(b). On November 7, 1984, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "Board" and the "FDIC", respectively) issued a written Notice of Charges and of Hearing to Bank of * * * (the "Bank"), pursuant to Section 8(b) of the Act and the FDIC's Rules of Practice and Procedures. 12 C.F.R. Part 308. The Notice of Charges and of Hearing (the "Notice") charged the Bank with having engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices. More specifically, the Notice alleged that Bank engaged in the following unsafe or unsound practices: (1) hazardous lending and lax collection practices, (2) practices that produced excessive "other operating expenses" and excessive loan losses, (3) operating with an inadequate level of capital protection for the kind and quality of assets held by Bank, (4) operating with an inadequate loan valuation reserve, (5) operating with management whose policies and practices are detrimental to the Bank and jeopardize the safety of its deposits, and (6) failure by the Bank's board of directors to provide for the hiring and retention of a sufficient number of adequately trained employees and failure to provide adequate supervision over and direction to the active officers of the Bank. The Notice sought an Order under Section 8(b)(1) of the Act requiring Bank to cease and desist from these unsafe or unsound
{{4-1-90 p.A-669}}practices, and requiring Bank to remedy the conditions resulting from these practices.
OPINION
The ALJ's Recommendations
The Boards finds that the ALJ's recommended Findings of Fact1 are supported in all material respects by substantial evidence in the record. Therefore the Boards adopts and incorporates by this reference the ALJ's Findings of Fact.2 On the evidence in the record, and based on the analysis set forth below, the Board also makes limited Additional Findings of Fact that are set forth below.
Scope of the Order
Determining the proper scope of the Board's Order in this case begins with the fact that Bank has engaged in a number of specific unsafe or unsound banking practices. The specific instances of unsafe and unsound practices found in this record are of concern because they have led to losses or increased risk of loss on specific loans.
[.1] Bank's practice of often failing to take remedial action until specific problems were pointed out to Bank (by FDIC examiners or others) makes clear that a broad remedial cease and desist Order is appropriate here. To deal with the lack of planning and monitoring found in Bank, the Order must be broader than simply ordering short-term attention to the specific, detailed, problems found in the May 31, 1984 examination.3 This conclusion concerning the appropriate scope of our Order leads to the inclusion in the Order of two material provisions that were not recommended by the ALJ.
[.2] In light of Bank's history of inadequate supervision by its directors, Bank's capital position, the high volume of classified loans that Bank has sold under participation agreements, and the relationship of Bank's president to purchasers of these participations, the Board concludes that it is prudent to limit Bank's ability to repurchase loan participations involving loans classified "Substandard," "Doubtful," or "Loss." Absent a limitation, by the time the FDIC learned of Bank's repurchase of a low quality participation, it would be too late for the FDIC to act to prevent harm to Bank. The Board has this authority under Section 8(b) of the Act which authorizes it to "take affirmative action to correct the conditions resulting from any such violations or practice." This statutory authorization for cease and desist orders that go beyond the four corners of the established violations is most needed when, as in the case here, the FDIC finds it necessary to redirect a bank's method of doing business away from a series of unsafe and unsound practices.5 Appropriate Additional Findings of Fact, and a provision in the Order, address this matter.
[.3] Brokered Deposits: In general, brokered deposits are deposits received by a bank for the account of others (either directly or ultimately) from a person in the business of placing funds or facilitating the placement of funds in return for a commission. Brokers commonly place relatively large sums with each bank they do business with. Brokered deposits often carry higher interest rates and shorter maturities than alternative funding from local sources. Consequently, they are very rate sensitive and extremely volatile.
[.4] In light of the specific facts on the record relating to Bank, including Bank's pattern of not doing sufficient planning to avoid reaching crisis or near crisis situations before action is taken, the Board concludes that an Order limiting Bank's ability to take brokered deposits should be entered. An appropriate provision to that effect is included in the Board's Order. That provision is not a flat prohibition on brokered deposits. Rather, it requires that Bank give notice before it accepts brokered deposits, and gives the Regional Director the right to prohibit Bank's use of brokered deposits if at that time circumstances indicate that Bank should not be using brokered deposits.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Subsequent to May 31, 1984, Bank repurchased one loan participation. That repurchase was from a bank that is affiliated with Bank's president.
ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Bank of * * * ("Bank"), its directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, assigns, and other persons participating in the conduct of the affairs of the Bank, cease and desist from the following unsafe or unsound banking practices:
Certification of Record by Administrative
TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
Notice of Filing and Certification of the
To:
Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law, and
On November 7, 1984, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (hereinafter FDIC), acting through its Board of Review and its Deputy Executive Secretary, issued a notice of charges and of hearing to the Bank of * * * (hereinafter the Bank), advising it of its right to a hearing with respect to a proposed cease-and-desist order. The hearing was held before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge in * * * , on April 2 and 3, 1985. The parties have been given the appropriate time set forth in the Regulations for the filing of post-hearing briefs, proposed findings of fact, and proposed conclusions of law, as well as for the filing of any reply briefs. The undersigned having considered the entire record and the arguments of the parties, now makes his findings of fact and conclusion of law and to recommend a decision and propose an order to the Board of Directors of the FDIC.
[.5] Section 8(b)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C. § 1818(b)(1)] provides, as pertinent here, that the FDIC may issue a notice of charges if, in its opinion, any insured bank or any agent thereof is engaging or has engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting the business of such bank. A notice of charges may also issue when "the agency has reasonable cause to believe that the Bank or any director, officer, employee, agent, or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs of such bank is about to engage" in such a practice. This notice shall include a statement of the facts constituting the alleged unsafe or unsound practice or practices and shall provide for a hearing on the matter. If the record of such a hearing establishes the fact of any unsafe or unsound practice specified in the notice of charges, the FDIC may issue an order requiring the Bank and its agents to cease and desist from the practices involved. Such order may further provide for affirmative action to correct the condition resulting from the unsafe or unsound practices.
THE RECORD
The record upon which the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended decision are based consists of the following:
[.6] In its arguments, particularly in its post-hearing memorandum, the FDIC has cited numerous cases holding that the voluntary cessation of conduct that is subject to a cease-and-desist order does not prevent the appropriate issuance of such an order under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and under several similar federal statutes. The authority cited is quite persuasive. Little in the way of contrary argument has been raised by the Bank. It is also noteworthy that the statute in question clearly provides for the issuance of such an order where unsafe or unsound practices have occurred, without any requirement that the practices continue to the present time.
ISSUES
Under the provisions of Section 8(b)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the general issue with respect to which the undersigned is to issue a recommended decision is whether an order should issue directing the Bank and its management to cease and desist from certain unsafe and unsound practices and to take affirmative action to correct any damage caused by these practices. The specific issues are whether the record establishes that the Bank has engaged in any unsafe and unsound practices, is engaging in such practices, or can be shown to be about to engage in such practices. Additional issue include the exact contents of a cease-and-desist order, if such an order would be appropriate. The unsafe and/or unsound banking practices alleged by the FDIC are set forth in paragraphs 3 through 9 of the Notice of Charges, dated November 7, 1984. These allegedly improper practices are further specified in the FDIC's pre and post-hearing memoranda, the testimony of its witnesses, and its proposed findings of fact.
ALLEGED UNSAFE OR UNSOUND PRACTICES
The FDIC asserts that, as of its May 31, 1984 examination, the Bank engaged in certain unsafe or unsound banking practices. The Bank contends that, in general, the conduct involved did not constitute unsafe or unsound banking practices. Basically, the dispute is not over the fact of the conduct as much as over its characterization as unsafe or unsound. We will discuss the major allegations individually.
I. Hazardous Lending and Lax Collection Practices
The FDIC alleges that these practices have taken place with respect to several loans and lines of credit. The specific allegations will be grouped under the particular loan or loans involved.
II. Excessive Other Operating Expenses and Excessive Loan Losses
The FDIC contends that the excessive loan losses would logically follow from the Bank's lending practices, discussed above. It points out that the Bank's loan losses from 1983 totaled $100,000. It contends that, for a bank this size, this would be clearly excessive. The Bank's counterallegation that the FDIC has seen losses this large in a bank this size certainly does not refute the FDIC's position that they are excessive.
III. Inadequate Loan Valuation Reserve
The FDIC argues that the Bank should maintain a loan valuation reserve of 1.25 percent of total loans. This was a figure set forth in The Memorandum of Understanding that resulted from the September 1983 examination, to which the bank agreed. In the present proceedings, the Bank has not seriously challenged the reasonableness of a 1.25 percent reserve, although it contends that it has always had an adequate reserve. There is no question but that, at the time of the May 1984 examination, the Bank's loan reserve was approximately half that level. Nevertheless, the Bank points out that it has been able to replenish its loan reserve periodically from its earnings, as needed. It seems to argue also that whether money is carried on the Bank's books as a loan valuation reserve or as some other form of capital, the important thing is that the funds are available to protect against loan losses. Finally, the Bank does point out that, prior to writing off the loans classified by the FDIC in May 1984, its loan valuation reserve was at 1.25 percent of total loans or higher.
{{4-1-90 p.A-683}}
At the time of the May 1984 examination, the ratio of adjusted equity capital and reserves to adjusted total assets was 6.78. In September 1983 it had been 5.87. The increase was due to the sale of $250,000.00 worth of stock in the Bank at the urging of the FDIC after the earlier examination. The FDIC contends that the present ratio is inadequate for the particular type of bank in question. It has called the Administrative Law Judge's attention to its statement of policy on capital adequacy (46 Federal Register 62694, December 28, 1981). This statement defines this particular ratio and sets certain objective standards to provide a benchmark for evaluating capital adequacy.
V. Unsatisfactory Bank Management
Clearly, the present financial situation of the Bank of * * * leaves much to be desired. The Bank contends that its problems are basically due to the present state of the agricultural economy in central * * *, a circumstance over which the Bank has no control. The FDIC argues, on the other hand, that the Bank could and should have taken appropriate measures to deal with those problems. The record is not lacking in support for this contention. The Bank's Board of Directors should certainly have not permitted the lax lending practices noted above. It would appear that major management responsibility for Bank operations devolves upon its president, who is available less than 40 percent of the time because of his responsibilities to two other banks in which he has an interest. The testimony indicated that the Bank's management in time past involved individuals whose performance was less than adequate in carrying out serious responsibilities. There is also testimony that Bank management attempted to cope with some of its problems by eliminating staff in a way that only compounded its problems. A lack of adequate supervision by the Board of Directors is reflected in the Bank's loan policy in effect at the time of the May 1984 examination. This loan policy delegated loan approval authority to three officers of the Bank by name. At the time of the examination, two of those individuals were no longer employed by the Bank. Rather, the individuals who were providing day to day to management of the Bank's loan department enjoyed no specific delegation of authority by the Board of Directors. This certainly does not reflect appropriate attention by the Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT PROPOSED
Although both parties had an opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as provided by the FDIC Regulations and the sections of Title 5 of the United States Code relating to administrative procedures, only the FDIC did so. The Bank, however, did file certain exceptions to the findings proposed by the FDIC. We will now proceed with a discussion of the findings of fact with an eye toward adopting, rejecting, or modifying each of them.
[.7] Proposed finding number 6 was a finding with respect to the composite rating given the Bank in its examination by the FDIC under the uniform financial institution's rating system. In response, the Bank does not deny the fact that the FDIC assigned that rating, but points out that these ratings "are discretionary with FDIC." While the Administrative Law Judge is not certain that "discretionary" is the appropriate term, it is clear that this rating is merely the FDIC's opinion of the Bank's condition. A finding that a given rating was assigned to the Bank says no more than that this is what the FDIC rated the Bank on the basis of the expert opinion of its examiners. With respect to this finding, however, the Bank also objects to the language in the proposed
{{4-1-90 p.A-685}}finding that "the Bank's future prospects are bleak and it may eventually fail." This objection is well taken. The meaning of a composite rating of 4 under the uniform financial institution's rating system, as set forth in the FDIC's statements of policy, makes no reference to a bleak future. The reference that the Bank "may eventually fail" has little meaning. Obviously any enterprise "may eventually fail." A composite 4 rating is described as follows:
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The FDIC has proposed nine specific conclusions of law. The Bank has proposed none but replied that, "The FDIC has failed to prove the allegations contained" in those proposed conclusions. A careful review of the nine proposed conclusions would indicate that they flow from the findings made above and the plain reading of Section 8(b)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The Administrative Law Judge will, therefore, adopt these proposed conclusions. Proposed conclusion No. 2, however, would seem to result from the conclusions subsequent to it, since the FDIC would not have authority to issue a cease-and-desist order without establishing the unsafe or unsound banking practices. Accordingly, the conclusions will be rearranged to put the second proposed conclusion last.
PROPOSED RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to its rights under the applicable statutory and regulatory law, the FDIC has submitted a proposed text of an order for the undersigned to recommend to the board of directors. The Bank has proposed that the undersigned recommend an order dismissing the notice of charges. For the reasons stated above, the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached herein lead to a conclusion that a cease-and-desist order is proper. Indeed, most of the provisions of the order proposed by counsel for the FDIC appear to be warranted. Some modification, however, is appropriate.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After carefully considering all of the evidence of record, both documentary and testimonial and having heard the arguments of counsel for the parties, for the reasons set forth above, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following findings:
General Findings
Lending Practices
7. The Bank's loan policy in effect as of May 31, 1984, is deficient because it did not reflect the lending limit of loan officers hired in 1983.
[.10,.11] 12. Lax collection practices comprise failure to establish repayment programs, not correcting previously criticized or classified loans, not monitoring a borrower's cash flow position, not obtaining additional collateral, extending additional credit to a criticized borrower, and otherwise not following or tracking a borrower's ability to repay. An out-of-territory loan can be a lax collection practice because the Bank is not as able to service the loan or monitor the collateral at a distant location. An acceptable repayment program consists of a formal agreement with the borrower as to how and when the obligation is to be repaid.
Conditions Resulting From Lending
17. The overall condition of the Bank's loan portfolio is quite poor, and there is a significant likelihood of future deterioration.
Loan Participations
[.12] 32. A "participation sold" represents an amount or portion of a loan made by one bank that is sold to another bank.
Other Operating Expenses and Loan
36. For 1983 and the period ending May 31, 1984, the Bank reflected net operating losses of $68,000 and $20,000, respectively. The Bank also lost $25,000 in 1981. The Bank lost approximately $200,000 in 1984.
Loan Valuation Reserve
[.13] 44. The purpose of a loan valuation reserve is to absorb unexpected loan losses in those loans classified Substandard and all other unacceptable or unrecognized losses in the loan portfolio.
Capital
[.14] 49. A bank's adjusted capital is calculated by subtracting from a bank's total capital and reserves those assets classified loss and 50 percent of those classified doubtful.
[.15] 51. As of May 31, 1984, the Bank's adjusted equity capital and reserves represented 6.8 percent of its adjusted total assets.
Management Supervision
57. As of May 31, 1984, the management of the Bank consisted of its Board of Directors and active management in the names of * * *, * * *, and * * *.
[.16] 58. The duties of the Bank's Board of Directors were to generally supervise the affairs of the Bank.
[.17] 62. It was improper for Bank management to permit the Bank to pay for expenses of the Bank's holding company.
[.18] 63. The Bank's Board of Directors failed to regularly review its loan valuation reserve despite an obligation and responsibility to do so.
[.19] 64. The Bank's management permitted the Bank to operate with inadequate staff in both the lending and operations areas.
[.20] 74. Bank management is responsible for the Bank's lending practices.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
After careful consideration of the entire record, including the evidence and the arguments of counsel for the parties, in view of the foregoing findings, the Administrative Law Judge reaches the following conclusions of law:
RECOMMENDED DECISION
In view of the foregoing, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge recommends to the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that its decision hold that an order should issue against the Bank of * * * under the provisions of Section 8(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act incorporating the provisions of the following PROPOSED ORDER:
Appendix 1
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE FDIC
{{4-1-90 p.A-703}}
EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY THE BANK
Appendix 3
BRIEFS, MEMORANDA,
Briefs and Memoranda
Pre-hearing Memorandum of the Bank, with cover letter from counsel dated March 14, 1985.
Jurisdictional Documents and |
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |