Simmons First Bank
From: Anita Moore [mailto:Anita.Moore@simmonsfirst.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 4:20 PM
To: Comments
Subject: RIN Number 3064-AC50
Mr. Robert E. Feldman
Executive Secretary
Attention: Comments/Legal ESS
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 550 17th Street, NW Washington,
DC 20429
RE: RIN Number 3064-AC50: FDIC Proposed Increase in the Threshold
for the Small Bank CRA Streamlined Examination
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am Anita Moore
of Simmons First Bank, located in Hot Springs, Arkansas, a community
of approximately
35,000 residents. My bank
is $154 million in assets, but was recently purchased by a bank holding
company with assets exceeding $1 billion, and would be subject to
large bank reporting next year. 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. This would greatly relieve the
regulatory burden imposed on many small banks such as my own 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 would still
have to help meet the credit needs of its entire community and be
evaluated by my regulator. However, I believe that this would lower
my regulatory burden in the way of costs and man-hours.
I also support
the addition of a community development ("CD")
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 bank’s own
communities. That was certainly not the 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-income
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. We caution
the FDIC to provide a definition of "rural" 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.
Sincerely,
Anita Moore
Simmons First Bank of Hot Springs
|
