|
FDIC Federal Register Citations
From: J. Russell Greene [mailto:rgreene@gbof.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:51 PM
To: Comments
Subject: Propsed Guidance for Commercial Real Estate Lending
J. Russell Greene
2055 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd
West Palm Beach, FL 33409-6501
March 20, 2006
Robert E. Feldman
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20429
Dear Robert Feldman:
I am president and chief executive officer of Grand Bank & Trust of
Florida, West Palm Beach, Florida, a $390 million community bank. Because
we are located in one of the fastest growing areas in the United States,
development and construction of homes and commercial properites has
skyrocketed to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing population.
Commercial real estate lending is a significant activity for us as it for
the majorityof Florida financial institutions. Our preliminary review of
the proposed Guidance indicates that we are only moderately above the
thresholds. We are confident that the underwriting practices in place at
our institution go a long way in mitigating the risks of commercial real
estate lending. It is our opinion that most institutions operate similarly
having learned the lessons of past economic cycles.
I understand the need for sound lending and sound loan portfolios. I have
concerns, however, that the Guidance as proposed will have a negative
overall effect on my institution and the economy as a whole.
My concerns are not so much with the individual practices set out in the
Guidance, but rather with the way the Guidance is imposed. We have had
experience in which examiners impose even existing regulations differently
than they previously had done. The proposed Guidance contains certain
thresholds and a laundry list of practices and requirements. I am
concerned that the rules of the game have suddenly changed.
Specifically there are several points we would like for the Guidance to
make clear. First, that in looking at concentrations there will not be a
one size fits all response. Each of our institutions has a different
history, different controls, different portfolios, and different markets.
When those in the field determine there is a concentration any response
needs to be tailored for the specific circumstances.
Second, we hope the Guidance will make it very clear that if the
concentration thresholds are exceeded it does not automatically require a
capital increase. Any increase should be in the context of the
circumstances of the particular institution. And there should be a
sufficient allowance of time for the institution to reduce its level of
such loans in lieu of additional capitial if that is the course it elects.
Third, the Guidance should expressly indicate that its purpose is not to
discourage commercial real estate lending.
If the Guidance is imposed in a mechanical or arbitrary manner or if it is
intended to effect a policy shift discouraging commercial real estate
lending then I fear grave consequences. Secured real estate lending has
been the bread and butter of banks in Florida. If such loans are not
available then will we have to look to other types of credits which
historically have been more risky?
Perhaps most important, if the message is perceived to be that commercial
real estate lending has great regulatory risk, then such loans will
significantly diminish. This will lead to a downturn in our economy that
will create systemic problems for banks far beyond the risk of commercial
real estate loans.
I thank you for your consideration of these concerns and comments and hope
that the final Guidance will address them in a meaningful way
Sincerely,
J. Russell Greene
|