From: Kurt Johnson [mailto:kjohnson@melbybank.com]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:36 AM
To: Comments
Subject: EGRPRA Review of Consumer Protection Lending Related Rules
Kurt Johnson
P.O. Box 96
Whitehall, WI 54773
April 16, 2004
Dear FDIC:
As a community banker, I welcome the regulators' effort on the critical
problem of regulatory burden. Community bankers work hard to establish
the trust and confidence with our customers that are fundamental
to
customer service, but consumer protection rules frequently interfere
with
our ability to serve our customers. The community banking industry
is
slowly being crushed under the cumulative weight of regulatory burden,
something that must be addressed by Congress and the regulatory agencies.
This is especially true for consumer protection lending rules, which
though well intentioned, increase costs for consumers and prevent
banks
from serving customers. While each individual requirement may not
be
burdensome itself, the cumulative impact of consumer lending rules,
by
driving up costs and slowing processing time for loans from legitimate
lenders, helps create a fertile ground for predatory lenders. It's
time
to acknowledge that consumer protection regulations are not only
a burden
to banks but are also a problem for consumers.
Truth in Lending (Federal Reserve Regulation Z)
Right of Rescission. One of the most burdensome requirements is
the
three-day right of rescission under Regulation Z. Rarely, if ever,
does a
consumer exercise the right. Consumers resent having to wait three
additional days to receive loan proceeds after the loan is closed,
and
they often blame the bank for "withholding" their funds.
Even though this
is a statutory requirement, inflexibility in the regulation making
it
difficult to waive the right of rescission aggravates the problem.
If not
outright repealed, depository institutions should at least be given
much
greater latitude to allow customers to waive the right.
Finance Charges. Another problem under Regulation Z is the definition
of
the finance charge. Assessing what must be included in - or excluded
from
- the finance charge is not easily determined, especially fees and
charges
levied by third parties. And yet, the calculation of the finance
charge
is critical in properly calculating the annual percentage rate (APR).
This process desperately needs simplification so that all consumers
can
understand the APR and bankers can easily calculate it.
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Federal Reserve Regulation B)
Regulation B creates a number of compliance problems and burdens
for
banks. Knowing when an application has taken place, for instance,
is
often difficult because the line between an inquiry and an application
is
not clearly defined.
Spousal Signature. Another problem is the issue of spousal signatures.
The requirements make it difficult and almost require all parties
- and
their spouses - come into the bank personally to complete documents.
This
makes little sense as the world moves toward new technologies that
do not
require physical presence to apply for a loan.
Adverse Action Notices. Another problem is the adverse action notice.
It
would be preferable if banks could work with customers and offer
them
alternative loan products if they do not qualify for the type of
loan for
which they originally applied. However, that may then trigger
requirements to supply adverse action notices. For example, it may
be
difficult to decide whether an application is truly incomplete or
whether
it can be considered "withdrawn." A straightforward rule
on when an
adverse action notice must be sent - that can easily be understood
-
should be developed.
Other Issues. Regulation B's requirements also complicate other
instances
of customer relations. For example, to offer special accounts for
seniors, a bank is limited by restrictions in the regulation. And,
most
important, reconciling the regulation's requirements not to maintain
information on the gender or race of a borrower and the need to maintain
sufficient information to identify a customer under section 326 of
the USA
PATRIOT Act is difficult and needs better regulatory guidance.
Flood Insurance
The current flood insurance regulations create difficulties with
customers, who often do not understand why flood insurance is required
and
that the federal government - not the bank - imposes the requirement.
The
government needs to do a better job of educating consumers to the
reasons
and requirements of flood hazard insurance. Flood insurance requirements
should be streamlined and simplified to be understandable.
Additional Comments
It would be much easier for banks, especially community banks that
have
limited resources, to comply with regulatory requirements if requirements
were based on products and all rules that apply to a specific product
were
consolidated in one place. Second, regulators require banks to provide
customers with understandable disclosures and yet do not hold themselves
to the same standard in drafting regulations that can be easily understood
by bankers. Finally, examiner training needs to be improved to ensure
that regulatory requirements are properly - and uniformly - applied.
Conclusion
The volume of regulatory requirements facing the banking industry
today
presents a daunting task for any institution, but severely saps the
resources of community banks. We need help immediately with this
burden
before it is too late. Community bankers are in close proximity to
their
customers, understand the special circumstances of the local community
and
provide a more responsive level of service than megabanks. However,
community banks cannot continue to compete effectively and serve
their
customers and communities without some relief from the crushing burden
of
regulation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this critical
issue.
Sincerely,
Kurt C. Johnson
|
