From: Mark Schroeder [mailto:mark.schroeder@germanamericanbancorp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:45 AM
To: Comments
Subject: Community Reinvestment Act Regulation
Mark Schroeder
711 Man St. P.O. Box #810
Jasper, IN 47546
March 29, 2004
Dear FDIC:
As a community banker, I strongly endorse the federal bank regulators'
proposal to increase the asset size of banks eligible for the small
bank
streamlined Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) examination from $250
million
to $500 million and elimination of the holding company size limit
(currently $1 billion). This proposal will greatly reduce regulatory
burden, and is a strep in the right direction.
While I applaud the agencies for recognizing that it is time to
expand
this critical burden reduction benefit to larger community banks,
the
increase to $500 million fails to consider that, in today's banking
environment, the more appropriate small bank size would be $1-$2
billion.
At this critical time for the economy, this reduction in regulatory
burden
will allow more community banks to focus on what they do best-fueling
America's local economies. When a bank must comply with the requirements
of the large bank CRA evaluation process, the costs and burdens increase
dramatically. And the resources devoted to CRA compliance are resources
not available for meeting the credit demands of the community.
Adjusting the asset size limit also more accurately reflects significant
changes and consolidation within the banking industry in the last
10
years. To be fair, banks should be evaluated against their peers,
not
banks hundreds of time their size. The proposed change recognizes
that
it's not right to assess the CRA performance of a $500 million bank
or a
$1 billion bank with the same exam procedures used for a $500 billion
bank. Large banks now stretch from coast-to-coast with assets in
the
hundreds of billions of dollars. It is not fair to rate a community
bank
using the same CRA examination. In light of these facts, I would
encourage you to further increase the size of banks eligible for
the
small-bank streamlined CRA examination to $2 billion, or at a minimum,
$1
billion.
Ironically, community activists seem oblivious to the costs and
burdens.
And yet, they object to bank mergers that remove the local bank from
the
community. This is contradictory. If community groups want to keep
the
local banks in the community where they have better access to
decision-makers, they must recognize that regulatory burdens are
strangling smaller institutions and forcing them to consider selling
to
larger institutions that can better manage the burdens.
Increasing the size of banks eligible for the small-bank streamlined
CRA
examination does not relieve banks from CRA responsibilities. Since
the
survival of many community banks is closely intertwined with the
success
and viability of their communities, the increase will merely eliminate
some of the most burdensome requirements.
In summary, I believe that increasing the asset-size of banks eligible
for
the small bank streamlined CRA examination process is an important
first
step to reducing regulatory burden. I also support eliminating the
separate holding company qualification for the streamlined examination,
since it places small community banks that are part of a larger holding
company at a disadvantage to their peers. While community banks still
must comply with the general requirements of CRA, this change will
eliminate some of the most problematic and burdensome elements of
the
current CRA regulation from community banks that are drowning in
regulatory red-tape. I also urge the agencies to seriously consider
raising the size of banks eligible for the streamlined examination
to $2
billion or, at least, $1 billion in assets to better reflect the
current
demographics of the banking industry.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Schroeder
|
