Month: May 2023

Rethinking the Concept of Compliance -A Series; Part Two- Rethinking the Business Model for Community Banking

Posted on by James DeFrantz

Community banks and credit unions have been a key part of the American economy since its beginning.  These are the lending institutions that make loans to small sole proprietors, first time home buyers and dreamers of all kinds.  Over the years, the business model for these institutions hardly varied.   A review of the loan portfolios of community banks across the country will include three similar components:

  • CRE– Commercial real estate loans have been one of the mainstays of the community banking business.  These loans provide a viable, recognizable and reliable (usually) source of income.  The return on investment for these loans have been the source of a large portion of the earnings for community banks for many years.  The drawback for this type of lending is that it ties up a large portion of the capital of a bank and the return on investment takes a significant amount of time develop.  A loss form one of these loans has the potential to threaten the existence of a small financial institution
  • CNI – Commercial and Industrial loans have been the beating heart for community banks many years.  Very much like CRE loans, the income from these loans is recognizable and except for a few notable exceptions, reliable.  Not only do these loans have the same concerns as CRE, but the competition for these loans is also  fierce and smaller institutions often finds themselves left with the borrowers who present the highest level of risk. 
  • Consumer products – In the past 15 years, consumer loans have also proven to be a good source of earnings.  Interest rates for consumer products have remained well above the prime rate and for a financial institution that is properly equipped, consumer products can provide a strong stream of income.   Consumer products also tend to be for smaller amounts, have higher rates of losses and are heavily regulated. 

This three-pronged approach to earning income has been a steady, tried and true method for earnings at small financial institutions.  However, there are several factors that are coming together that have threatened this business model. 

  • Fintech – Financial technology (“Fintech”) companies are those companies that use software to deliver financial products.  Today one of the most recognizable fintech companies is PayPal.  Using just a smart phone, PayPal gives its users the ability to make payments, pay bills, deliver gift cards and conduct financial transactions with people throughout the country.   For community banks, the knowledge of the existence of PayPal is interesting, but what is more critical is the reason that PayPal was developed.  PayPal, and its fintech brethren exist to fill a specific need that Banks were not meeting.  
  • NBFI – Operation Chokepoint program was a program spearheaded by the Justice Department that was aimed directly at Non-Bank Financial Institutions, aka Money Service Businesses.  At the time the program was started, a decision was made that money service businesses represented an unacceptable money laundering risk.   Ultimately, Operation Chokepoint fell into disrepute and was ended.  Although Operation Chokepoint has ended, its legacy is still prevalent.  MSB’s still have significant problems getting bank accounts.    Dispute this fact, the amount of money moved through remittances continues to grow.  NBFI’s MSB’s continue to serve this market a huge market of people who are unbanked and underbanked.    
  • Underbanked and Unbanked– The number of unbanked and underbanked families continues to grow.  Unbanked families are those without a bank account and underbanked families are those that use minimal banking services.   The number of people in these families totaled   approximately 90 million in 2016[1].   Equally as important as the sheer size of the unbanked and underbanked population is the reason that many of these potential customers remain that way.  High fees, poor customer service and bad public image have all been contributing factors for the large population of unbanked and underbanked customers. 

Customer Bases in the future 

The combination of these forces will greatly impact the future of the business model for community banks.  Customers will continue to change their expectations for their financial institutions.   The traditional balance has changed, instead of being forced to choose the products that financial institutions offer, customers have come to demand products from their companies.  

The financial needs of customers have also changed.  Electronic banking, online account opening, remote deposit capture and iPhone applications are now almost necessities.   Younger customers, who make up a significant number of the unbanked and underbanked population rarely use traditional forms of community banking such as branch visits.  Fast information, fast movement of money, low costs transactions and accessibility are most desirable to the potential clients of today’s financial institutions. 

Implications for the Small Bank Business Model  

Fintech companies, NBFI’s and the need for new and different services presented by the unbanked and underbanked population will all continue to put pressure on community bankers to begin to make a change. Change may be hard, but it is also inevitable and necessary.  For community banks and credit unions now is a good time to consider NBFI’s as viable and important customers.  They are a vehicle for consumers to meet their ongoing needs and they need bank accounts. 

Fintech companies’ reason for existing is to fill the unmet needs of unbanked and underbanked.   These companies have developed applications that allow everything form alternate means of credit scoring to international transfer of funds using applications.  A community bank or credit union that creates a partnership with the right fintech company can offer products and services that will greatly distinguish them in the market and allow for continued growth and alternate means of income.   2018 is a great time to start thinking about a new business model.

Reimagining Compliance as a Potential Product or Service

For man institutions the barrier to entering the Fintech, or NFBI market is a lack of the proper compliance resources.  However, much like the shared services agreements that are being made with vendors in other areas, compliance resources can also be expanded with the right partnerships.  For the institution that is properly positioned, the possibility exists that compliance resources and expertise can be package and outsourced.  

In part Three we will look at the use of compliance as an asset or resource.  

James DeFrantz is the Principal of Virtual Compliance Management Services

For more Discussion and or Questions contact him at contactus@VCM4you.com

[1] In our most recent survey, published in October 2016, the FDIC reported that 7 percent of households were unbanked, lacking any account relationship at an insured institution. The survey also showed that an additional one-in-five (or 19.9 percent of) households were underbanked, defined as households in which a member had a bank account, but nevertheless turned to alternative financial services providers during the year to address one or more needs for transactional services such as check cashing or credit. Altogether, the survey reported that some 90 million Americans, or nearly 27 percent of households, are unbanked or underbanked.

Reimagining Compliance – A Series

Posted on by James DeFrantz

Part One – Compliance is Here to Stay

Every culture has its own languages and code words.  Benign words in one culture can be offensive in another.  For example, there was a time when something that was “Phat” was really desirable and cool while there are very few people who would like to be called fat!  Compliance is one of those words that, depending on the culture, may illicit varying degrees of response.  In the culture of financial institutions, the word compliance has some negative associations.   Compliance is often considered an unnecessary and crippling cost of doing business.  Many of the rules and regulations that are part of the compliance world are confusing and elusive.  For many institutions, has been the dark cloud over attempts to provide new and different services and products.  

Despite the many negative connotations that surround compliance in the financial services industry, there are many forces coming together to alter the financial services landscape.  These forces can greatly impact the overall view of compliance.  In fact, it is increasingly possible to view expenditures in compliance as an investment rather than a simple expense.   In this three-part blog, we ask that you reimagine your approach to compliance.  

Why do we have Compliance Regulations?

 Many a compliance professional can tell you about how difficult it is to keep everybody up to date on the many regulations that apply to financial institutions.  However, if you ask why exactly do we even have an Equal Credit Opportunity Act or a Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”), it would be difficult to get a consensus.   All of the compliance regulations share a very similar origin story.   There was bad or onerous behavior on the part of financial institutions, followed by a public outcry, legislative action to address the bad behavior and then eventually regulations.  The history of Regulation B provides a good example:

A Little History

The consumer credit market as we now know it grew up in the time period from World War II and the 1960’s.  It was during this time that the market for mortgages grew and developed and became the accepted means for acquiring property, financing businesses, developing wealth and upward mobility.  By the late 1960’s the consumer credit market was booming. 

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and regulation B are not nearly as old as you might think. In fact, the first attempt at regulating credit access was the Consumer Credit Protection Act of 1968.  This legislation was passed to protect consumer credit rights that up to that point been largely ignored.  The 1968 regulation was passed as the result of continuing growth in consumer credit and its effects on the economy.  For example, in the year before the regulation was passed, consumers were paying fees and interest that equaled the government’s payments on the national debt!  One of the goals of the Consumer Credit Protection Act was to protect consumer rights and to preserve the consumer credit industry.  

The Civil Rights Movement was occurring at the same time as the passage of the CCPA and in 1968, the Fair Housing Act was passed by Congress.  The FHA was designed to assist communities that that had been excluded from credit markets obtain access to credit.  We will discuss the Fair Housing Act in more detail next month.  

One of the things that the CCPA did was to empanel a commission of Congress called the National Commission on Consumer Finance.  This commission was directed to hold hearings about the structure and operation of the consumer credit industry.  

Unintended Consequences

While performing the duties they were assigned, the members of the National Commission on Consumer Finance conducted several hearings about the credit approval process for consumer loans.  The stories and anecdotes from these hearings raised a tremendous public outcry about the behavior of banks and financial institutions that were in the business of granting credit.   One of the common themes of the testimonies given was that women and minorities were being left behind when it came to the growth of the consumer credit market.  Public pressure forced additional hearings on the consumer credit market, and the evidence showed that women in particular and minorities in general were being given unfair and unequal treatment by banks. 

What was Going On? 

So, what were banks doing that was a cause of concern?  There were several practices that had become normal and regular for banks when the applicant for consumer credit was a woman or a member of a racial minority group.  

Women had more difficulty than men in obtaining or maintaining credit, more frequently were asked embarrassing questions when applying for credit, and more frequently were required to have cosigners or extra collateral.   When a divorced or single woman applied for credit, she was immediately asked questions about her life choices, sexual habits, and various other personal information that was both irrelevant to the credit decision and not asked of men. 

Racial minorities had difficulty even obtaining credit applications let alone credit approvals.  In cases, where members of minority groups attempted to get a loan applicant, there were either told that the bank was not making consumer loans, or that the area that the person lived was outside of the lending area of the bank. 

For applicants that receive public assistance, child support of alimony, banks would not consider these as sources of income under the theory that they were temporary and might disappear.  

Despite being subjected to embarrassing or incorrect information, in the cases where women and minorities persisted and completed a credit application, banks would drag out the process for interminable time periods and would engage in strong efforts to discourage the applicant from going forward.  

In many cases, when a person lived in a neighborhood that was predominately comprised of minorities, the borrower was told that the collateral did not have enough value without further explanation. 

The ECOA

Though these stories created a great deal of interest, the CCPA was not amended until 1974 when the first Equal Credit Opportunity Act was passed.  This Act prevented discrimination in credit based on sex and marital status. 

What was the ECOA Designed to Do?

The development of the consumer credit market brought with it a series of bad behaviors that directly and negatively impacted the ability of women and minorities to obtain credit.   These behaviors included asking women to check with their husbands before getting a loan, denying a single woman credit, discouraging minorities from applying for credit and outright refusal to grant credit.  

The law and regulation are designed to open credit to all who are worthy by limiting practices that unfairly exclude groups of people and by making sure that applicants are fairly informed of the reasons for a denial.  

The regulations exist because there was bad behavior that was not being addressed by the industry alone.  Many of the compliance regulations share the same origin story. 

Compliance is not all Bad

Sometimes, we are caught up on focusing on the negative to the point that it is hard to see the overall impact of bank regulations.   One of the positive effects of compliance regulations is they go a long way toward “leveling the playing field” among banks.   RESPA (the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) provides a good example.  The focus of this regulation is to get financial institutions to disclose the costs of getting a mortgage in the same format throughout the country.   The real costs associated with a mortgage and any deals a bank has with third parties, the amount that is being charged for insurance taxes and professional reports that are being obtained all have to be listed in the same way for all potential lenders.  In this manner, the borrower is supposed to be able to line up the offers and compare costs.  This is ultimately good news for community banks.  The public gets a chance to see what exactly your lending program is and how it compares to your competitors.  The overall effect of this legislation is to make it harder for unscrupulous lending outfits to make outrageous claims about the costs of their mortgages.   This begins to level the playing field for all banks.  The public report requirements for the Community Reinvestment Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act can result in positive information about your bank.    A strong record of lending within the assessment area and focusing on reinvigoration of neighborhoods is a certainly a positive for the bank’s reputation.  The overall effects of the regulations and should be viewed as a positive.  

Protections not just for Customers

In some cases, consumer regulations provide protection not just for consumers but also for banks.  The most recent qualifying mortgage and ability to repay rules present a good case.  These rules are designed to require additional disclosures for borrowers that have loans with high interest rates.   In addition to the disclosure requirements, the regulations establish a safe harbor for banks that make loans within the “qualifying mortgage” limits.  This part of the regulation provides strong protection for banks.  The ability to repay rules establish that when a bank makes a loan below the established loan to value and debt to income levels, then the bank will enjoy the presumption that the loan was made in good faith.  This presumption is very valuable in that It can greatly reduce the litigation costs associated with mortgage loans.  Moreover, if a bank makes only “qualifying mortgages’ the level of regulatory scrutiny will likely be lower than in the instance of banks that make high priced loans. 

Compliance regulations will no doubt be a part of doing business in the financial industry for the foreseeable future.   However, all is not Considering a strategy that embraces the regulatory structure as an overall positive will allow management to start to re-imagine compliance and consider greater investment.   In our next blog, we will discuss the forces that are converging to make the return on investment in compliance strong. 

James DeFrantz is the Principal of Virtual Compliance Management Services For more Discussion and or Questions contact him at contactus@VCM4you.com

Using Fintech to Offer New Products- a Three Part Series-Part Three -Partnering with Fintech

Posted on by James DeFrantz

As we noted in parts one and two of this series, Fintech companies are designed to disrupt the current business model of banking.   For many of the unbanked and underbanked, fintech companies represent a much-welcomed alternative to the use of high cost check cashers and payday lenders.  In addition, tech companies such as Zoom, Square and Amazon are making it possible to transfer funds and store funds without actually going into the branch of a bank.   Other Fintech companies are changing the way that credit is underwritten

Overall, it is easy to see that Fintech companies have the ability to increase a small institution reach and its overall products and services.   As traditional means for profit become more scarce, Fintech opens the possibilities for additional income streams

A few examples of innovations that will continue to impact the banking industry follow:   

  • Stored Value – A stored-value card is a payments card with a monetary value stored on the card itself, not in an external account maintained by a financial institution.  Stored-value cards differ from debit cards, where money is on deposit with the issuer, and credit cards which are subject to credit limits set by the issuer.   A “smart” cellphone is an excellent place to maintain stored value. 
  • APIs – An open API is a publicly available application programming interface that provides developers with programmatic access to a proprietary software application or web service. APIs are sets of requirements that govern how one application can communicate and interact with another.
  • Nationwide Reach– Using data analytics, fintech companies can have access to customer behavior data and assist with marketing opportunities
  • Reg Tech:  Technologies can offer banks opportunities to outsource regulatory maintenance, monitoring, data collection, and customer due diligence. Regtech looks to enhance all aspects of a bank’s Compliance Management System including customer account alerts and monitoring, customer risk identification, and the fair application of lending practices.  (Source:  ICBA)

There are a number of software companies that provide  a platform for APIs to work so that getting the software to work at your company becomes much easier  AND you don’t have to necessarily buy  expensive software upgrades to make it work

The “dirty secret” in the industry is that Fintech companies are considered MSBs and therefore they must get licenses in all fifty states.  This creates an opportunity for a “win-Win” scenario. Banks can allow Fintech companies to “ride on the back” of their charter and make it possible to reach customers without having to get licenses.  When a partnership is formed between a community bank and a fintech, can be a definite “win-win”.   Of course, without the proper procedures in place, such an arrangement can be fraught. 

Collaborate with Care

Successful collaboration means having a risk assessment, strategic plan and most importantly, strong vendor management.    The FDIC, the OCC and the FRB have all issued guidance on the proper way to administer vendor management.   While the published guidance from each of these regulators its own idiosyncrasies, there are clear basic themes that appear in each.   All of the guidance has similar statements that address the types of risk involved with third party relationships and all discuss steps for mitigating risks.  

One of the considerations that are necessary is about what level of due diligence is required for a third-party contract.  The level of due diligence is heavily impacted by determination of whether the activity being considered is a critical activity.  The OCC guidance defines a critical activity as:

  • Critical activities—significant bank functions (e.g., payments, clearing, settlements, custody) or significant shared services (e.g., information technology), or other activities that could cause a bank to face significant risk if the third party fails to meet expectations;
  • Could have significant customer impacts require significant investment in resources to implement the third-party relationship and manage the risk; 
  • Could have a major impact on bank operations if the bank has to find an alternate third party or if the outsourced activity has to be brought in-house.[1]

The steps that are necessary for the proper engagement of a third party for a critical activity are discussed in each of the regulatory guidance documents that have been released.  The OCC bulletin provides the most comprehensive list that includes: 

  • Relationship Plan:  Management should develop a full plan for the type of relationship it seeks to engage.  The plan should consider the overall potential risks, the manner in which the results will be monitored and a backup plan in case the vendor fails in its duties. 
  • Due Diligence :   The bank should conduct a comprehensive search on the background  of the vendor, obtain references, information on its principals, financial condition and technical capabilities.   It is during this process that a financial institution can ask a vendor for copies of the results of independent audits of the vendor.    There has recently been a great deal of attention given to the due diligence process for vendors.  Several commenters and several banks have interpreted the guidance to require that a bank research a vendor and all of its subcontractors in all cases.  We do not believe that this is the intention of the guidance.  It is not at all unusual for a third-party provider to use subcontractors.   We believe that a financial institution should get a full understanding of how the subcontracting process works and consider that as part of the due diligence,  however, it impractical to expect a bank to research the backgrounds of all potential subcontractors before engaging a provider.  
  • Risk Assessment:  Management should prepare a risk assessment based upon the specific information gathered for each potential vendor.  The risk assessment should compare the characteristics of the firms in a uniform manner that allows the Board to fully understand the risk associated with each vendor.  [2]
  • Contract Negotiation:  The contract should include all of the details of the work to be performed and the expectations of management.  The contract should also include a system of reports that will allow the bank to monitor performance with the specifics of the contract.   Expectations such as compliance with applicable regulations must be spelled out.   
  • Ongoing Monitoring:   Banks must develop a program for ongoing monitoring of the performance of the vendor.   We recommend that the monitoring program should include not only information provided by the vendor, but also internal monitoring including
  • Customer complaints:  Customer complaints are a direct indication of issues or problems within a program or product offering.  A system that tracks complaints and their resolution is a critical component of evaluating the overall effectiveness of a program.
  • Oversight and Evaluation:  There should be a fixed period for evaluating the overall success and efficacy of the vendor relationship.  The Board should, on a regular basis evaluate whether the relationship with the vendor is on balance a relationship with keeping.  

***For More Information on FinTech’s and Financial Institutions visit http://www.VCM4you.com***

[1] OCC BULLETIN 2013-29

[2] Ibid.