Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation

From: Faith Jones [mailto:fjones@comdata.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 4:55 PM
To: Comments
Subject: Support the FDIC Proposal for Streamlined CRA Exam

Faith Jones
500 N. Market Place Dr., Suite 250
Centerville , UT 84014

October 20, 2004

Robert E. Feldman

Dear Robert Feldman:

I am writing to strongly support the FDIC’s proposal to raise the threshold for the streamlined small bank CRA examination to $1 billion without regard to the size of the bank’s holding company. I agree with the industry groups that stated a community bank does not cease to be community bank just because it is under a holding company. The FDIC’s proposal would greatly relieve the regulatory burden imposed on many small banks under the current regulation, which are required to meet the standards imposed on the nation’s largest $1 trillion banks. I understand that this is not an exemption from CRA and that my bank, once approved by the FDIC, would still have to help meet the credit needs of its entire community and be evaluated by my regulator. I believe that this would lower the regulatory burden on small banks significantly.

I also support the addition of a community development criterion to the small bank examination for larger community banks. It appears to be a significant improvement over the investment test. However, I urge the FDIC to adopt its original $500 million threshold for small banks without a CD criterion and only apply the new CD criterion to community banks greater than $500 million up to $1 billion. Banks under $500 million now hold about the same percent of overall industry assets as community banks under $250 million did a decade ago when the revised CRA regulations were adopted, so this adjustment in the CRA threshold is appropriate. As FDIC examiners know, it has proven extremely difficult for small banks, especially those in rural areas, to find appropriate CRA qualified investments in their communities. Many small banks have had to make regional or statewide investments that are extremely unlikely to ever benefit the banks’ own communities. That was certainly not intent of Congress when it enacted CRA.

An additional reason to support the FDIC’s CD criterion is that it significantly reduces the current regulation’s “cliff effect.” Today, when a small bank goes over $250 million, it must completely reorganize its CRA program and begin a massive new reporting, monitoring and investment program. If the FDIC adopts its proposal, a state nonmember bank would move from the small bank examination to an expanded but still streamlined small bank examination, with the flexibility to mix Community Development loans, services and investments to meet the new CD criterion. This would be far more appropriate to the size of the bank, and far better than subjecting the community bank to the same large bank examination that applies to $1 trillion banks. This more graduated transition to the large bank examination is a significant improvement over the current regulation.

I strongly oppose making the CD criterion a separate test from the bank’s overall CRA evaluation. For a community bank, CD lending is not significantly different from the provision of credit to the entire community. The current small bank test considers the institution’s overall lending in its community. The addition of a category of CD lending (and services to aid lending and investments as a substitute for lending) fits well within the concept of serving the whole community. A separate test would create an additional CD obligation and regulatory burden that would erode the benefit of the streamlined exam.

I strongly support the FDIC’s proposal to change the definition of “community development” from only focusing on low- and moderate-income area residents to including rural residents. I think that this change in the definition will go a long way toward eliminating the current distortions in the regulation. I believe that banks tend to avoid using rural areas in their CRA plans for fear that they will not meet CRA requirements and instead focus strictly on low- to middle-income efforts. This being the case, I think there are areas that are overlooked by banks that could truly benefit from their support and continue to be consistent with purpose of CRA. I am not sure how the term “rural” should be defined, but I caution the FDIC to provide a definition that will not be subject to misuse to favor just affluent residents of rural areas.

In conclusion, I believe that the FDIC has proposed a major improvement in the CRA regulations, one that much more closely aligns the regulations with the Community Reinvestment Act itself, and I urge the FDIC to adopt its proposal, with the recommendations above. I will be happy to discuss these issues further with you, if that would be helpful.

Thank you for considering my position.

Sincerely,
Faith E. Jones, CPA