Home > Regulation & Examinations > Laws & Regulations > FDIC Federal Register Citations |
|||
FDIC Federal Register Citations |
Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary Attention: Comments/OES Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 550 17th Street, NW. Washington, DC 20429 Re: FDIC Policy Statement Regarding Minority-Owned Depository Institutions; 67 Federal Register 77; January 2, 2002 Dear Mr. Feldman: On April 3, 1990, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
("FDIC") adopted a Policy Statement on Encouragement and Preservation of
Minority Ownership of Financial Institutions, in response to the enactment of Section 308
of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989. That Section
308 requires the Department of the Treasury to consult with the FDIC and the (now) Office
of Thrift Supervision to determine the best methods for preserving and encouraging
minority ownership of depository institutions. The revised Policy Statement could benefit
minority-owned banks and savings associations, many of which are members of the American
Bankers Association ("ABA"). The ABA brings together all categories of banking
institutions to best represent the interests of this rapidly changing industry. Its
membership - which includes community, regional and money center banks and holding
companies, as well as savings associations, trust companies and savings banks - makes ABA
the largest banking trade association in the country. The National Bankers Association
("NBA") is the leading trade association for the nation's minority- and
women-owned banks. Section 308 sets out several goals for the agencies to strive to achieve: The FDIC is now proposing to update its Policy Statement to better set forth its
initiatives to achieve the goals of Section 308. First, the FDIC proposes to set forth
specific definitions of "minority" and "minority-owned." Further,
under the proposal, the FDIC will maintain a list of minority-owned institutions onto
which such institutions may self-certify themselves, will designate a national coordinator
for the FDIC's minority-owned institutions' program, will provide a list of the types of
technical assistance that such institutions may obtain from the FDIC (including special
post-examination consultation), will work with trade associations for minority-owned
institutions to provide training and technical assistance, will add a webpage to its
website to promote the FDIC's minority-owned institutions' program, and will require
FDIC's regional directors to report quarterly on their activities to meet the goals of the
FDIC's programs. While ABA supports the FDIC's proposed revisions to the Policy Statement, ABA is very disappointed that the FDIC's proposal falls far short of providing the assistance that the FDIC could provide under authority granted to it by Congress under Section 804 of the Community Reinvestment Act (12 USC 2903). Section 804 was amended in 1992 to allow the federal banking agencies to give CRA credit for assistance provided minority- and women-owned financial institutions. Observing that the federal banking agencies ("Agencies") had never formally implemented this authority to aid minority-owned institutions, on October 14, 1999, the ABA petitioned the Agencies to either advise the industry on how this authorization would be implemented or else explain why the Agencies would not implement it. ABA wrote:
Despite this letter and several following oral and written communications, none of the
Agencies has so far responded to this petition. The hopes of the ABA and the National
Bankers Association that there would be a positive response were raised when then FDIC
Chairman Donna Tanoue spoke to the National Bankers Association in Chicago on October 4,
2000. In that speech, the Chairman raised many of the questions that ABA had raised in its
letter and seemed to endorse a very positive response. The Chairman went further and
recommends what specific guidance the Agencies should provide, based in an analysis of the
Agencies' previous interpretations of situations that closely resemble probable
investments and other ventures with minority institutions under Section 804(b) of the Act.
Finally, ABA has presented one specific example of an investment or other venture under
the statute, grants from the newly created Minbanc Foundation, and requested that the
Agencies provide guidance on how these investments would be treated by the Agencies, in
order to better explicate the workings of Section 804(b). ABA respectfully requests that
the Agencies respond with clear guidance through amendments to the CRA Q&A that will
clarify this important aspect of the Community Reinvestment Act. The Agencies' prompt
response will be greatly appreciated, not only by the American Bankers Association but
also by numerous minority- and women-owned depository institutions." Despite this letter and several following oral and written communications, none of the
Agencies has so far responded to this petition. The hopes of the ABA and the National
Bankers Association that there would be a positive response were raised when then FDIC
Chairman Donna Tanoue spoke to the National Bankers Association in Chicago on October 4,
2000. In that speech, the Chairman raised many of the questions that ABA had raised in its
letter and seemed to endorse a very positive response. The Chairman went further and
suggested that this positive response would be incorporated in the next reiteration of the
Agencies' "Questions and Answers about CRA," but when the new revision of the
CRA Q&A was released, the Agencies still had not implemented their authority to really
aid minority-owned financial institutions. ABA and the NBA believe that now is the time to
implement this authority to really encourage assistance to the nation's minority- and
women-owned financial institutions. In conclusion, the American Bankers Association and the National Bankers Association
support the proposed changes to the FDIC's Policy Statement. But in the words of former
Chairman Donna Tanoue, "That's good -- but I don't think that it is enough -- and I
have to ask myself whether we can find other ways to assist minority banks…." We
believe that there are other ways that the FDIC and the other Agencies may assist minority
banks. Specifically, the ABA and the NBA urge the FDIC to formally implement the authority
provided in Section 804(b) in as broadly a manner as possible, for the benefit of
minority- and women-owned financial institutions, as proposed in ABA's letter of October
4, 1999, and as recommended in ABA's comments to the FDIC and the other Agencies on the
CRA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking dated October 17, 2001. If you have questions
about this letter, please contact the undersigned or Paul Smith, Senior Counsel, American
Bankers Association, at 202-663-5331. 3The Chairman highlighted a number of activities of the FDIC to assist minority-owned financial institutions, arising from the FDIC's Policy Statement. The Chairman then went on to say: "That's good -- but I don't think that it is enough -- and I have to ask myself whether we can find other ways to assist minority banks as ongoing concerns -- for their communities -- for their customers. More specifically, can we more effectively use a provision of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that is intended to encourage other institutions to support minority-owned banks? In particular, have the banking agencies appropriately implemented a 1992 amendment to the CRA that specifically authorizes each agency, when evaluating a bank's CRA performance, to consider as a factor:
"Today, I invite you to help us answer that question. We have a unique opportunity to address this issue when we revise the Interagency Questions and Answers on CRA, as we do annually. Or, as I suggested in a speech I delivered in June of this year, we could begin our comprehensive review of the existing CRA regulations this year rather than wait for that work to begin in 2002 as the regulators promised when the rules were adopted in 1995. Since the CRA rules were adopted in 1995, they have permitted banking regulators to consider favorably activities designed to help minority- and women-owned institutions better serve their own communities - as long as those activities are community development loans, investments, or services provided to minority institutions. And as long as these activities benefit low- and moderate-income individuals or areas within the assisting institution's assessment area or a statewide or regional area that includes its assessment area. "However, as I mentioned earlier, the language in the statute
itself does not limit activities to just community development loans or investments.
Rather, in addition to community development loans or investments, the statute more
broadly mentions capital investment, loan participations, and, I underscore, "other
ventures" undertaken in conjunction with minority-owned banks. Other ventures -- you
don't need to be a lawyer to appreciate that there may be some flexibility there -- and
not by accident. This flexibility - which is not fully reflected in existing regulations
or guidance - raises questions for which you may want to offer answers. "Taking it one step further: What about inside - or even outside - the statewide
or regional area that includes an assessment area? It is a simple fact that most banks do
not have minority-owned institutions in or near their assessment areas. Why should they be
denied the opportunity for CRA credit for providing capital or operational or managerial
assistance to a minority bank that needs it? Doesn't it make more sense to expand the
opportunities for any bank to assist minority banks by providing favorable CRA
consideration for any activity, supporting any minority bank, located anywhere in the
country? Or at least those activities where minority-owned institutions are helping to
meet low- and moderate-income credit needs of the communities in which they are located?
It makes sense to me - how about you?" 4 From ABA's October 17, 2001, letter, page 13: "In Section 804(b), the Community Reinvestment Act specifically authorizes each Agency to 'consider as a factor capital investment, loan participation, and other ventures undertaken by the [majority-owned] institution in cooperation with minority- and women-owned financial institutions and low-income credit unions provided that these activities help meet the credit needs of local communities in which such institutions and credit unions are chartered.' The Agencies have never adopted any regulations granting CRA credit for such investments, participations and other ventures, though ABA has been told that Agencies have occasionally given CRA credit on an ad hoc basis to individual institutions. ABA believes that the Agencies have done a disservice to minority- and women-owned institutions and low-income credit unions by failing to implement this authority. ABA requests that the Agencies issue regulations so implementing this unused authority. "ABA notes that this provision of the statute has only one geographical
restriction: that the "activity" help meet the credit needs of the minority- or
women-owned institution's community. The statute makes no reference to the community of
the majority-owned institution, so that such investing institutions could be given CRA
credit for these specific investments, even though they might be outside of the
institution's assessment area. ABA is aware that the Agencies have given CRA credit for
investments in minority- and women-owned institutions on a case-by-case basis, but
apparently these specific investments have never been in institutions outside of the
investing institution's assessment area (community). ABA recommends that the
Agencies provide that such investments,
participations and other ventures result in CRA credit to the majority-owned institution
without regard to the location of the minority- or women-owned institution or low-income
credit union. Further, ABA recommends that grants for professional development and
training of personnel of a minority- or women-owned institution or low-income credit union
should count as either capital investment in the institution or as a credit-related
service." Sincerely, James Ballentine, Director James Young, Chairman
|
Last Updated 03/04/2002 | regs@fdic.gov |