Tag Archive for: FDIC

Posts

Triangle Background
, ,

Executive Letter: An Update on Recent Out-of-State Bank Failures

Rose Oswald PoelsBy Rose Oswald Poels

Since the announcement of the failures of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in Santa Clara, California and Signature Bank in New York, New York, the Wisconsin Bankers Association (WBA) has been working with the news media as well as federal- and state-level government officials to reassure the public that the banking system overall — and Wisconsin banks in particular — are safe, sound, and resilient.

On Sunday, I issued a special edition of my Executive Letter to share a summary of events as they were unfolding, including the decision of the regulators to protect all depositors affected by the Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failures. On Monday, WBA issued a statement to the news media highlighting important differences between the failed banks and Wisconsin banks. WBA has been working with newspapers, TV stations, and radio stations across the state to put the public at ease in knowing their money is safe in an FDIC-insured bank in Wisconsin.

Resources for Bank Customers

WBA has created a new consumer-facing piece explaining FDIC insurance. The one-page document can be printed out or shared digitally. It contains a high-level overview as well as links (and QR codes) directing readers to FDIC resources: Understanding Deposit Insurance and Deposit Insurance FAQs. WBA’s FDIC insurance resource — along with a range of other materials, including social media graphics for banks — is available in the Consumer Resources Hub.

My previous Executive Letter also contains talking points about how the situations at the failed banks were idiosyncratic and do not reflect the way Wisconsin banks operate. A number of unique factors converged at the same time to trigger the liquidity crisis at Silicon Valley Bank, which would not apply to Wisconsin banks that are not heavily focused on the volatile tech sector. As government officials, banking leaders, and economists have reiterated: Americans should have confidence in our banking system.

The Federal Reserve’s Bank Term Funding Program

The Federal Reserve has launched the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) to offer loans of up to one year in length to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other eligible depository institutions pledging any collateral eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve Banks in open market operations. The assets will be valued at par. The BTFP will be an additional source of liquidity against high-quality securities, eliminating a bank’s need to quickly sell such securities in times of stress.

WBA staff participated in a call on Monday with Nellie Liang, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the U.S. Treasury Department and from that call, WBA learned:

  • Bank holding companies are not able to participate in BTFP. Eligible participants include any U.S. federally insured depository institution or U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank that is eligible for primary credit under the Fed’s discount window.
  • The Federal Reserve is not looking to consider municipal securities as collateral.
  • Banks are not required to first utilize all other available funding options before seeking access to the BTFP.
  • It is not the intention of the Federal Reserve to lengthen the one-year term.
  • At some point in the future, the names of institutions who participate in BTFP will be made public in accordance with Congressional requirements.

The Federal Reserve has made an FAQ and a Terms and Conditions one-pager available regarding the program. It is my understanding the FAQs will be updated, as necessary.

The Federal Reserve announced a free webinar, Wednesday, March 15, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. ET–2:15 p.m. ET regarding the new lending program. The Federal Reserve’s Matthew Malloy, section chief – monetary policy operations and analysis, monetary affairs and Kelley O’Mara, senior counsel – legal division, will lead an Ask the Fed® webinar to provide an overview of the BTFP and address frequently asked questions that have arisen since the program’s launch. Registration for the webinar can be done through the Ask the Fed® website.

The Latest on SVB and Signature Bank Bridge Banks

Moments ago, WBA staff attended a Q&A webinar with FDIC on the status of the two failed banks. The bridge banks Silicon Valley Bridge Bank, N.A. and Signature Bridge Bank, N.A., have assumed the deposits and obligations of the failed banks. FDIC has appointed new CEOs, and their objective is to maximize the value of the entity to attract a buyer as well as minimize cost to the industry. The main theme from FDIC officials was “business as usual” — all deposits (insured & uninsured) have been transferred to the bridge bank, all contracts for services have been transferred, the bridge banks have access to borrow to ensure ample liquidity, they have the same routing number and check stock, and they can operate just as any other open and operating bank.

Our Current Focus

Our immediate priority is to make sure the public knows that the banking system is safe and sound. No taxpayer dollars will be used to repay depositors of the failed banks; longer-term policy questions about the treatment of uninsured deposits are a discussion for a later day. WBA has heard from our membership about the positive steps you are taking through both proactive and responsive conversations with your customers as well as issuing email and social media communications. Thank you for all you are doing to reassure Wisconsinites that our industry remains strong and a source of strength for our economy.

/by
Triangle Background

Special Edition Executive Letter: WBA’s Response to SVB Failure

Rose Oswald PoelsBy Rose Oswald Poels

The Wisconsin Bankers Association (WBA) is closely tracking developments related to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and will continue to keep our membership informed.

How Silicon Valley Bank Differs from Wisconsin Banks 

What happened with Silicon Valley Bank is a very unique situation. The bank was heavily connected to the tech sector, which made it vulnerable to the booms and busts of that sector. Less than 10% of its deposits were insured as they were very large deposits (largely from venture capitalists that deposited tech investment money in the bank). In contrast, Wisconsin banks have a far higher percentage of insured deposits. Because Silicon Valley Bank was heavily connected to the tech sector — both on the loan and deposit side — it was not well diversified. Again, this is a stark difference from Wisconsin banks of all sizes, which are much more diversified across different business and personal sectors.

The banking system overall and Wisconsin banks are safe, sound, and resilient. This situation is truly idiosyncratic to Silicon Valley Bank. It grew incredibly fast in a very short time frame, going from $56 billion in 2018 to over $209 billion in 2022. In the span of just one year, they nearly doubled in size, from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2021, when they went from $114 billion to $209, which is unheard of. No Wisconsin bank has grown like this. So, while Silicon Valley Bank had reached the large bank category, it got there so fast that the bank wasn’t in the large bank asset size long enough for the regulators to push through all the requirements (like stress testing). A bank needs four consecutive quarters over the asset threshold — and then there is a phase-in period. Silicon Valley Bank was still in that phase-in period and not yet subject to full-blown scrutiny.

FDIC Insurance Protects Bank Customers 

The FDIC acted swiftly and decisively, which is good to protect the banking system and customers of Silicon Valley Bank. Banks are encouraged to make sure their frontline staff are prepped to answer questions about FDIC deposit insurance coverage, and may refer to the following talking points:

  1. Customers’ deposits are protected by FDIC insurance. In the 88-year history of the FDIC, no one has ever lost a penny of an insured deposit.  
  2. The FDIC insures up to $250,000 in eight separate account categories per depositor per bank. The FDIC is completely funded by the banking industry.
    • Every bank pays risk-based premiums every quarter to support the fund.
    • The FDIC insurance fund and all of the agency’s costs come entirely from premiums paid by banks.  
    • The industry knows that a strong FDIC and deposit insurance fund are essential to the banking system. Banks stand ready to do whatever it takes to ensure the health of the fund and strength of the FDIC. The FDIC is stronger than ever before.
    • The FDIC insurance fund stood at an all-time high of $124.5 billion as of June 2022.
    • The FDIC has a $100 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, which would, by law, have to be repaid by the banking industry if ever used. The banking industry is well capitalized.
    • In total, more than 99 percent of banks are “highly capitalized” and far above the most stringent regulatory standards. 

Bankers may point customers to the FDIC’s Understanding Deposit Insurance resource, Deposit Insurance FAQs, and SVB FAQs.

Bankers may also learn more about the state guaranty fund and consider proactively calling their larger bank customers’ CFOs to talk about options such as excess deposit insurance, reciprocal deposit programs, or — in the case of municipal government money — the collateral the bank already has insuring the full amount on deposit. Also, when applicable, bankers may talk to their business customers about how they have a very solid, diversified portfolio that doesn’t have strong exposure to the tech sector.

What Happens Next 

In a statement issued on March 12, 2023 by the Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC, it was announced that FDIC will complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank in a manner that protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13. No losses associated with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank will be borne by the taxpayer. A similar systemic risk exception will be made for Signature Bank, New York, New York, which was closed on March 12 by its state chartering authority. Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.

Finally, the Federal Reserve Board on March 12 announced it will make available additional funding to eligible depository institutions to help assure banks have the ability to meet the needs of all their depositors.

Banking Industry Remains Strong 

As I recently stated in commentary on FDIC data, Wisconsin’s banking industry is in a solid position. These anomalous events at out-of-state banks do not change that. The banking system in Wisconsin and across the U.S. remains well capitalized and resilient, and the regulators’ quick response is expected to reassure the public. As always, WBA is committed to keeping our members informed on issues impacting the industry and providing resources to support your work at your bank and in your communities.

/by
Triangle Background

FDIC Numbers Show Positive 2022 Year-End Position of Wisconsin Banks

Wisconsin banks finished 2022 in a strong financial position. Fourth-quarter data from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) show consumers paying down debt and putting money into savings at the bank. The housing market remained active as home prices cooled slightly, the agricultural industry had a favorable year, and businesses continued to grow throughout 2022. While the economy is experiencing ongoing inflationary pressure and geopolitical concern, Wisconsin banks remain well capitalized and serve as trusted partners to help their customers achieve their financial goals. 

Notable indicators include: 

  • Residential loans continued to grow, both quarter over quarter (3.09%) and year over year (13.71%). With low inventory, homes continue to sell quickly. Despite recent interest rate increases, rates remain relatively low in historical context. 
  • Commercial lending increased year over year (11.09%) but slowed toward the end of the year as business owners held off on borrowing due to concerns of recession in 2023. 
  • Farm loans decreased 20% quarter over quarter yet remain up 8.12% year over year. While farmland values remain strong, sharp interest rate increases have resulted in the softening of some farm loan demand. An increase in farm income toward the end of 2022 also led to an increase in loan repayments. 
  • Credit quality continued to be strong as borrowers kept up to date on their payments. Loans and leases 90 or more days past due decreased 19.74% year over year and decreased 1.40% quarter over quarter. 
  • Deposits continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace as inflation limited the amount consumers were able to put into savings. 

Statement on the release of fourth-quarter 2022 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) numbers from Rose Oswald Poels, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Bankers Association:  

“The fourth-quarter FDIC numbers show Wisconsin’s banking industry in a solid position. While inflation persists in driving up expenses for households and businesses, the overall picture shows that more borrowers are keeping current on their loans and consumers are putting money into savings at their bank.”

/by
Triangle Background

Wisconsin Banks Remained Strong in Q3 2022 Despite Uncertain Economic Outlook

Wisconsin banks continue to be in a strong position to meet the credit needs of their customers as we close out 2022. At the same time, despite inflationary pressures, the latest numbers released by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) show that consumers continue to exhibit strong balance sheets as loan defaults remain at historic lows. With interest rates rising, banks’ profitability has increased to a net interest margin of 3.19% in the third quarter of 2022. All categories of lending have seen increases quarter over quarter and year over year. Consumers look to banks as trusted places to keep their money, resulting in deposit balances holding strong.

Notable indicators include: 

  • Residential loan demand continued to grow at a steady pace (up 5.25% quarter over quarter and 10.23% year over year) despite rising interest rates, due in part to home prices coming down. 
  • Commercial lending saw ongoing strong demand year over year (up 10.04%) although the third quarter, while still positive (up 2.25%), was at a slower pace than the prior quarter as business owners held off on borrowing due to midterm election uncertainty and recession concerns. 
  • Farm loans increased 5.80% quarter over quarter and 6.79% year over year. Farmers who had financed their own expenses in recent years — due to stimulus packages and strong balance sheets — are now more likely to borrow because of high input costs such as fuel and fertilizer and less favorable outlooks for 2023. 
  • Credit quality continues to be strong as more borrowers are keeping on top of their payments. Loans and leases 90 or more days past due decreased 19.36% year over year and 2.99% quarter over quarter. 
  • The pace of deposit growth has slowed as consumers are tapping into their savings to offset higher prices due to inflation. 

Statement on the release of third-quarter 2022 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) numbers from Rose Oswald Poels, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Bankers Association:  

“The third quarter FDIC numbers continue to highlight the strength of Wisconsin’s banks, which are well positioned to help their customers and communities heading into 2023. With recessionary concerns still top of mind, Wisconsin consumers and business owners can continue to rely on their banks as a source of trusted financial partnership and a safe place to deposit their money.” 

FDIC-Reported Wisconsin Numbers (Dollar Figures in Thousands)    

   09/30/2022  06/30/2022  QoQ Change  09/30/2021  YoY Change 
Net loans and leases  103,954,503 

 

 

 99,947,135 

 

 4.01%  93,090,387   11.67% 
Total deposits  120,347,373  118,628,924  1.45%  115,910,175  3.83% 
Commercial and industrial loans  17,533,302 

 

 

 17,147,491 

 

 2.25%  15,933,410   10.04% 
Residential loans  25,109,047  23,857,524  5.25%  22,778,040 

 

 10.23% 
Farm loans  4,704,303  4,446,562 

 

 5.80%  4,405,366 

 

 6.79% 
Total assets  148,580,986 

 

 

 145,910,527  1.83%  141,975,630    4.65% 
Assets in Nonaccrual Status  417,336  430,201 

 

 -2.99%  517,525    -19.36% 
/by

Financial Health of Wisconsin Banks Continues Into Q2 of 2022

Following a strong start to 2022, Wisconsin banks rounded out the second quarter of the year with total assets up 1.81% quarter over quarter from March 31, 2022 to June 30, 2022 and total assets up 5.54% year over year from June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2022, according to the latest numbers released by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Total deposits remained stable quarter over quarter (-0.28%) and were up 5.76% year over year. Noncurrent loans and leases continued on a significant downward trend, indicating consumers’ ability to pay down debt amidst inflation concerns.

Notable indicators include:

  • Residential lending increased over 5% year over year and quarter over quarter. Despite the Fed’s interest rate hikes, mortgage rates remain at historically low levels.
  • Commercial lending is back to where it was a year ago after seeing decreases due to supply chain issues and worker shortages. A 7.80% quarter-over-quarter increase in commercial and industrial loans indicates business owners’ renewed focus on growth.
  • Farm loans increased 19.27% quarter over quarter and 4.09% year over year. Farmers who had financed their own expenses in recent years — due to stimulus packages and strong balance sheets — are increasingly looking to borrow with high input costs such as fuel and fertilizer and less favorable outlooks for 2023.
  • Credit quality continues to improve as more borrowers are keeping up to date with their payments. Noncurrent loans and leases decreased 21.33% year over year and 11.04% quarter over quarter.

Statement on the release of second-quarter 2022 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) numbers from Rose Oswald Poels, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Bankers Association: 

“Wisconsin banks continue to meet the borrowing needs of consumers and business owners alike. Bankers understand the changing economy coming out of the pandemic and are working with their customers who are looking to purchase homes and grow their businesses. During this time of heightened inflation and ongoing global concerns, Wisconsinites can feel confident in their bank as a safe place to deposit their money and a trusted partner in meeting their financial goals.”

FDIC-Reported Wisconsin Numbers (Dollar Figures in Thousands)

/by
, ,

Executive Letter: Holding Fintech Companies Accountable

Rose Oswald PoelsBy Rose Oswald Poels

Every fall, I travel to Washington D.C. with a small group of bankers to visit regulators. During this trip, we nearly always meet with staff from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Since CFPB’s inception, we inevitably encourage the CFPB staff during each of these annual visits to focus more on the non-bank financial organizations that operate in the traditional “banking” space. Nearly every time we have this conversation, they nod and share that they provide this type of supervision typically through a complaint-based system. This means that if enough consumers complain about a particular financial organization (not a regulated bank), they will investigate and take whatever action they deem appropriate. Certainly, this has been incredibly frustrating for bankers to hear over the years given that many non-bank actors contributed to the causes of the Great Recession back in 2008 and 2009 and CFPB’s mission is that of protecting consumers. It has been too easy for CFPB to focus on the banking industry through their rulemaking and enforcement authorities since banks are easier to find with traditional brick-and-mortar offices.

I was pleasantly surprised to learn recently, however, that the CFPB has focused some of its attention on the non-bank financial industry by assessing fines to fintech companies for actions that have ultimately harmed consumers. Specifically, CFPB recently levied a $2.7 million fine against lender Hello Digit for a range of issues including misleading marketing claims such as “no overdraft fees.” This claim of no overdraft fees was one of several promises made to consumers by Hello Digit that were, in fact, not always true. Other fintechs have made similar claims regarding no overdraft fees as well, including digital lender Chime, that have turned out to be misleading or only true in a limited set of circumstances.

At the same time, the FDIC recently issued cease and desist orders against five crypto firms for making false or misleading statements suggesting that their digital assets were FDIC-insured. According to the FDIC, each of these companies made false representations on their website and social media accounts stating or suggesting that certain crypto-related products are FDIC-insured or that stocks held in brokerage accounts are FDIC-insured. As we all know, these representations are false and misleading.

There are many fintechs that are working to do the right thing and help improve the financial industry through technological efficiencies, but some reasonable level of regulation and oversight is important for these institutions just like banks. These recent regulatory actions against non-bank financial organizations are good reminders that it is important to continue sharing our concerns with regulatory agencies related to non-bank actors and to continue to stress to our clients and the public how trustworthy banks are.

If you are interested in accompanying me on a future fall regulatory agency trip to D.C., please let me know and I will add you to the list. I try to keep the group small, limited to 12 bankers, to ensure meaningful dialogue with the regulatory agencies. Bankers who have joined me in the past have found this trip to be worthwhile given much of our frustration and burden comes from regulation. In the meantime, WBA will continue to advocate for the members on these and other issues affecting the industry.

/by
, ,

A Year in Comment Letters

June 1, 2021–May 31, 2022

This year, attorneys Heather MacKinnon, Scott Birrenkott, and President/CEO Rose Oswald Poels submitted 16 comment letters in response to requests for comment on rulemaking affecting the banking industry.

Through this process, the WBA Legal Team was able to advocate on behalf of all WBA members for the betterment of the banking industry. From digital assets to examinations and fees, comment letters are a great opportunity for members of the banking industry to inform agencies about the impact of rulemaking and provide examples.

As part of the rulemaking process within the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), all agencies are required to allow the public an opportunity to comment on proposed rules for a prescribed period (minimally 30 days). All WBA members are encouraged to share their comments with federal and state agencies as requested. Information regarding comment letters, or WBA-created letter templates — when available — are typically shared with the membership in the Wisconsin Banker Daily. Additional rulemaking developments at the federal level are compiled in the monthly WBA Compliance Journal.

Once the public has commented, each agency must determine how to proceed given the feedback received. This year, the WBA Legal Team addressed five federal agencies and further helped inform said agencies on the impact of their proposed rulemaking.

Six Comment Letters Filed with the FDIC

Over the past year, WBA filed six comment letters with Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Two of WBA’s letters commented on FDIC’s actions regarding examinations. In the first, WBA commented on the FDIC’s proposed hybrid approach to bank examinations and in the second, WBA commented on the post-examination surveys related to FDIC Safety and Soundness and Consumer Compliance examinations. In each letter, WBA emphasized the importance of the FDIC establishing consistent coordination and communication with banks.

Three Comment Letters Filed with the CFPB

WBA wrote three letters this year to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Most recently, WBA responded to CFPB’s concerns regarding products which feature “junk fees,” assuring CFPB that the Wisconsin financial services marketplace is competitive, featuring a diverse range of high-quality, convenient, innovative, and competitively priced products and services. Additionally, WBA highlighted that, despite CFPB’s concerns, the market is highly regulated, and that further rulemaking is unnecessary as fees are already subject to disclosure requirements.

Four Comment Letters Filed with the FRB

This year, WBA also filed four comment letters with Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB). In one of the letters, WBA addressed FRB’s request for comment regarding the evaluation of account and services requests. WBA acknowledged FRB’s attempt to create consistency, but ultimately expressed concern with allowing access to the payment system by entities with little or no regulatory oversight, lack of protection, and minimal capital and liquidity requirements, among others. WBA proposed that FRB establish standards or requirements for users, maintain ongoing review of those involved, as well as coordinate an FRB-led evaluation committee.

One Comment Letter Filed with the HUD

In late May, WBA expressed support of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) proposal to extend a term for loan modifications. The modification would allow mortgagees to modify Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgage loans by recasting the total unpaid amount due for a new term limit of 480 months — an increase from a term limit of 360 months; allow FHA-loan borrowers similar flexibility and benefits as is available for Fannie-/Freddie-loan borrowers; and  creates yet another tool for Wisconsin’s financial institutions to use in their continued work to help find solutions for struggling borrowers to retain their homes.

One Comment Letter Filed with the OCC

In a letter filed with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), WBA was able to comment on a final rule to adopt a new Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) framework. This regulation facilitated the issuance of joint CRA to an interagency basis which would allow for greater coordination on all CRA ruling between the OCC, FRB, and FDIC for the benefit of banks serving low- and moderate-income communities.

One Interagency Comment Letter Filed

Some rulemakings are issued on an interagency basis. This year, WBA commented on the FRB, FDIC, and OCC’s proposed interagency guidance on third-party relationships related to risk management. In the letter, WBA commented that this effort would promote consistency in their guidance as well as clearly articulate risk-based principles. In addition, WBA identified several ways Wisconsin banks will be impacted by the new guidance during final implementation.

Conclusion

Industry comment is a critical aspect to the rulemaking process. It is an opportunity for the industry’s voice to be heard, and it is important that the agencies hear from banks about how rulemaking affects you. WBA welcomes feedback on comment letters because it is key that we, and the agencies, hear directly from members.

For more information on the rulemaking process, comments, and upcoming rules, contact the WBA Legal Department at wbalegal@wisbank.com. For a full list of the comment letters filed during the 2021–22 fiscal year, visit www.wisbank.com/advocacy/comment-letter-library.

*This article has been updated from previous published editions

/by
Triangle Background
,

Executive Letter: Review and Act on Deposit-related Activities FDIC Has Identified as Potential UDAAP

Rose Oswald PoelsBy Rose Oswald Poels

In recent conversations with state bankers associations across the country, as well as bankers here in Wisconsin, it is clear that regulators, particularly the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), are very focused on certain deposit-related activities citing them as violations in examinations, and also identifying them as potential unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) violations. As a result, I want to highlight these concerns again for the membership as a follow-up to my April 5 Executive Letter e-pub.

In that document, I shared information about how FDIC has identified (a) the assessment of overdraft fees for “force pay” transactions and (b) charging multiple non-sufficient funds fees (NSF fees) for the same transactions presented multiple times against insufficient funds as deposit-related activities which FDIC believes may result in a heightened risk of violations of UDAAP. In that same publication, I made recommendations to help banks take action.

In Wisconsin, as in other states, current FDIC compliance examinations include a review of disclosures and charges for these activities. FDIC examiners have been aggressive with their new interpretations, and time is of the essence for banks to act. In some cases, WBA understands that banks receiving these violations are told to go back at least 12 months to determine consumer harm.

With FDIC adopting a new interpretation that disclosing that one NSF fee would be charged “per item” or “per transaction” is not clearly defined and does not explain that the same transaction might result in multiple NSF fees if re-presented, banks should review disclosures to determine whether FDIC’s new interpretation affects the bank. If it does, banks should revise disclosure language accordingly and consider other risk-mitigating steps as outlined by FDIC in the recent publications included in the April 5 Executive Letter.

A bank needs to also understand its actual presentment process and whether it has any ability or inability to identify items resubmitted by a merchant for payment. Review should also include whether the bank can track or identify when a check — presented in physical form the first time — is represented as Automated Clearing House (ACH) the second time by the merchant. Banks should be prepared to explain to examiners their processes and any operational and system limitations in the ability to identify represented items or to trace items if an item was converted when represented.

With respect to the issue of assessing overdraft fees for “force pay” transactions, if a “no pay” bank used the Regulation E model Form A-9 to solicit a consumer’s authorization or opt-in to assess overdraft fees for ATM and one-time point-of-sale (POS) debit card transactions in “force pay” transactions, that model form should not be used in that manner. It was not intended for such transactions. In such situations, banks should review how best to disclose their practice for “force pay” transactions with their counsel.

Failure of a bank to take action will likely result in FDIC citing a UDAAP violation and potentially imposing consumer reimbursement of charges in connection with these deposit-related activities.

/by

Wisconsin Banks Start Off Strong in 2022 According to FDIC Quarterly Numbers

Wisconsin banks started the year 2022 strong with total assets up 5.04% year over year from March 31, 2021 to March 31, 2022. Despite concerns about rising inflation, total deposits were up 7.08% for the same period. The financial health of consumers was also evidenced by a 20.88% year-over-year decrease in noncurrent loans and leases.

Notable indicators include:

  • Residential lending slowed only slightly as the housing market remained a hot sellers’ market.
  • Commercial lending decreased 14.42% year over year. Supply chain issues and worker shortages continue to inhibit business growth and cause hesitancy among business owners to take out loans.
  • Credit quality continues to improve as more borrowers are keeping up to date with their payments. Noncurrent loans and leases decreased 20.88% year over year and 5.69% quarter over quarter.

Statement on the release of first-quarter 2022 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) numbers from Rose Oswald Poels, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Bankers Association:

“Wisconsin’s banking industry stands poised to meet the banking needs of Wisconsinites in 2022 as government pandemic relief funding phases out. Bankers will be keeping a close eye on global supply chain and geopolitical issues as well as the Fed’s rising interest rates going into the rest of the year.”

FDIC-Reported Wisconsin Numbers (Dollar Figures in Thousands)

/by
WBA logo

questions@wisbank.com

608-441-1200

4721 S Biltmore Ln.
Madison, WI 53718

Get our Newsletter!
Subscribe