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)

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.

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.


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 For a full list of the comment letters filed during the 2021–22 fiscal year, visit

*This article has been updated from previous published editions

Triangle Background

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.

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)

FDIC-supervised banks must now report digital asset ventures

By Scott Birrenkott

Q: Is a Financial Institution Required to Notify Its Regulator When Engaging in Activities Involving Crypto Assets?

A: Yes. FDIC-supervised institutions are required to provide notification, along with certain information, when engaged in any activities involving crypto assets (digital assets). In turn, the FDIC reviews this information to provide relevant supervisory feedback.

While this requirement applies to FDIC-supervised institutions, non-FDIC supervised institutions should still consider proactively working with their prudential federal regulator. As innovations in the space of digital assets continue to develop, and financial institutions explore new relationships, working directly with your regulator is an important step to understanding compliance expectations. Digital assets present potentially unique safety and soundness risks, as well as financial stability concerns, and consumer protection considerations. The FDIC intends to review information provided in order to work with the financial institution engaged in digital asset activities as appropriate.

Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) is also considering digital asset activity. While there are currently no specific Wisconsin requirements or notification requirements, Wisconsin financial institutions should still consider working proactively with the DFI when engaged in digital assets. While both state and federal regulators support innovations, this is an area that is rapidly evolving, and often misunderstood. Transparent communications between financial institutions and their regulators can help address any potential compliance or safety and soundness concerns.

The new FDIC notice requirements can be found under Section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 CFR Part 364.

Rose Oswald PoelsBy Rose Oswald Poels

In two separate publications, FDIC has recently identified deposit-related activities which, depending upon how banks disclose charges for such activities, may result in a heightened risk of violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act — otherwise known as unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP).

FDIC has identified the assessment of overdraft fees for “force pay” transactions and charging multiple NSF fees for same transactions presented multiple times against insufficient funds as the deposit-related activities of concern. I have outlined both scenarios below.

Potential Issues with Assessing Overdraft Fees for “Force Pay” Transactions  

In a quarterly newsletter issued by its Dallas Region, FDIC outlined potential issues with assessing overdraft fees for “force pay” transactions in certain situations. There may be times when a bank authorizes an ATM or one-time POS debit card transaction based on sufficient funds in a consumer’s account at the time of authorization; however, at settlement, the account has insufficient funds to cover the transaction. Due to a bank’s contract with its payment network providers, the bank is required to pay these transactions even though the customer does not have sufficient funds in their account at settlement. FDIC refers to this type of transaction as a “force pay” transaction.

As outlined by FDIC, some banks have a policy and practice of declining to authorize and pay any ATM or one-time POS debit card transactions when a customer has insufficient funds available in the account to cover the transaction. FDIC refers to these banks as “no pay” banks. Other banks may offer an overdraft program, but some consumers do not qualify, have not yet met all eligibility requirements, or do not opt-in to participate.

FDIC has identified that some “no pay” banks solicit a consumer’s authorization or opt-in, using an overdraft opt-in form similar to the Regulation E model form A-9, to assess overdraft fees for ATM and one-time POS debit card transactions in “force pay” transactions.

FDIC stated it believes the use of the A-9 model form for this purpose may be considered deceptive, as a reasonable consumer may be misled into believing that the bank would generally pay all overdrafts caused by ATM and one-time POS debit card transactions. Additionally, the A-9 model form does not disclose that force pay transactions would be paid regardless of whether the consumer opts in. FDIC also identified how force pay transactions could lead to concerns at banks that offer overdraft programs, although those are more nuanced transactions and are not discussed here.

FDIC offered the following suggestions to mitigate risks:

  • Maintain policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements under Regulation E;

  • Ensure that disclosures provided to consumers are clear and conspicuous, accurately reflect bank practices, and do not suggest that the bank offers an overdraft program when it does not;

  • Confirm a customer’s opt-in is deactivated in the deposit processing platform when he/she does not have access to the overdraft program;

  • Verify a customer’s opt-in is deactivated in the deposit processing platform when he/she revokes his/her opt-in election or when the bank terminates the customer’s access to the overdraft program; and

  • Notify customers as soon as possible if the bank independently terminates their access to the overdraft program.

Potential Issues with Re-Presentment of Unpaid Transactions 

In a separate publication, Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights, FDIC outlined potential issues with charging multiple NSF fees for re-presentment of unpaid transactions. FDIC found disclosing that one NSF fee would be charged “per item” or “per transaction” is not clearly defined and did not explain that the same transaction might result in multiple NSF fees if re-presented. FDIC stated it believes there is risk of unfairness if multiple fees are assessed for the same transaction in a short period of time without sufficient notice or opportunity for consumers to bring their account to a positive balance.

FDIC also addressed that re-presented transactions have been the subject of recent class action lawsuits involving banks, including FDIC-supervised institutions. The lawsuits typically allege breach of contract due to the omission of important information about when the fee would be assessed.

FDIC again offered suggestions to mitigate risks, including:

  • Eliminating NSF fees

  • Declining to charge more than one NSF fee for the same transaction, regardless of whether the item is represented

  • Disclosing the amount of NSF fees and how such fees will be imposed, including:

  • Information on whether multiple fees may be assessed in connection with a single transaction;

  • The frequency with which such fees can be assessed; and

  • The maximum number of fees that can be assessed in connection with a single transaction.

  • Reviewing customer notification practices related to NSF transactions and the timing of fees to provide the customer with an ability to avoid multiple fees for re-presented items

  • Conducting a comprehensive review of policies, practices, and disclosures related to re-presentments to ensure the manner in which NSF fees are charged is communicated clearly and consistently

  • Working with service providers to retain comprehensive records so that re-presented items can be identified


I would not recommend the use of Regulation E model form A-9 as a means to obtain a consumers’ authorization or opt-in for a force pay transaction. There is not a model form for such transactions and banks need to review how best to disclose their practice for force pay transactions with their counsel. For banks offering overdraft programs, banks need to be careful how it treats a consumer’s opt-in if the opt-in election was provided but access to the overdraft protection coverage has not yet begun and when the bank terminates access to the overdraft program.

I would also recommend banks review their deposit account disclosures, statement of fees, and account rules documents to further determine how to accurately disclose an NSF fee on a re-presented item, if applicable.

If using FIPCO forms, the WBA 384 Deposit Account Rules document was revised in March 2021 to further clarify that a financial institution may charge a fee each time the same check, transfer request, or withdrawal request is returned unpaid. Language was also added to state that the depositor should review the schedule of fees for a listing and amount of such fees. Additionally, the revised form instruction also set forth that if the user intends to charge a fee each time the same check, transfer request, or withdrawal request is returned unpaid, it is important that the schedule of fees explains the financial institution’s intent to charge a fee each time rather than one fee regardless of the number of times the check, transfer request, or withdrawal request is returned unpaid.

If scrutinized by a regulator for charging multiple NSF fees for a re-presented item, I recommend the bank explain to the regulator the actual presentment process and any inability to identify items resubmitted by a merchant for payment.

Indicators reflect a healthy financial environment for Wisconsin consumers and banks 

Wisconsin banks demonstrated a strong performance at the end of 2021, while navigating the ongoing effects of the pandemic. Total assets were up 8.45% year over year from December 2020 to December 2021 and 1.16% quarter over quarter from September 2021. The financial health of consumers was evidenced by a 10.88% year-over-year increase in deposits as well as a 24.75% decrease in noncurrent loans and leases. 

Notable indicators include: 

  • Residential lending slowed slightly as the housing market began to stabilize. 
  • Commercial lending saw only a slight quarter-over-quarter increase. Some business owners had fewer borrowing needs, while others remained hesitant to borrow as their growth was hindered by supply chain issues and worker shortages. 
  • Credit quality trends continued, with borrowers largely keeping up to date on their loans and leases. 

Statement on the release of fourth-quarter 2021 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) numbers from Rose Oswald Poels, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Bankers Association:  

“Wisconsin’s banking industry remains in a solid position as the economy continues to steadily rebound from the onset of the pandemic. While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine casts uncertainty on the 2022 global economy, the overall financial outlook is positive.” 

FDIC-Reported Wisconsin Numbers (Dollar Figures in Thousands)


Rose Oswald Poels

Banks well-positioned to help customers navigate any economic headwinds

By Rose Oswald Poels, WBA President and CEO

As we continue to navigate the evolving health pandemic heading into 2022, Wisconsin banks are well-positioned to serve the varying needs of their customers and communities. Through the third quarter of 2021, Wisconsin’s 176 headquartered banks are financially strong with continued high levels of liquidity that will allow them to meet their customers’ various borrowing needs.

The continued resiliency of the industry was evident in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) third quarter numbers. Nearly all of the industry is profitable and more than 72% of Wisconsin banks saw earnings gains and good credit quality through the third quarter of 2021. Wisconsin banks also saw a slight increase in net loans in the third quarter compared to the prior quarter, led largely by residential real estate lending; however, on a year-over-year (YoY) basis, lending was down 2.44%.

Overall, loan demand throughout last year was weak, and I expect that to continue for at least the first six months of 2022 and perhaps longer. Commercial loan demand was particularly low as Wisconsin banks saw a more than 23% decline in commercial and industrial loan portfolios in the third quarter of 2021 compared to the same quarter the prior year. This is largely attributed to factors, such as workforce shortages and supply chain issues, that will persist into 2022. These two factors alone have stunted growth in the business sector as many retail businesses are forced to alter their hours of operation and manufacturers to cut back production, all of which results in lower loan demand. In addition, many of these businesses received one or more forms of government stimulus or low-cost emergency loans, resulting in lower demand for traditional loans from banks as their balance sheets remained financially healthy.

The agricultural sector is expected to have a growth in profitability in the coming year in part to having received government stimulus or low-cost emergency loans over the last few years as well as having experienced a strong year last year. Farmland loans remained at nearly the same levels in the third quarter of 2021 compared to both the prior quarter and the same period in the previous year. Farm loans rose by 3.26% compared to the prior quarter but were down 7.83% compared to the third quarter in 2020. According to the national Fall 2021 Agricultural Lender Survey produced jointly by the American Bankers Association and Farmer Mac, agricultural lenders expect 70% of their borrowers to be profitable through 2022.

Wisconsin banks continue to be a safe place for consumers to keep their money, as evidenced by a 10.42% YoY climb in deposits from the third quarter of 2020 compared to the third quarter of 2021. I expect these deposit balances to remain high as economic headwinds in 2022, notably inflation and the Omicron variant of COVID-19, will likely cause stock market fluctuations that often make investors nervous.

Despite these economic challenges, I expect the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates only once during 2022, which will impact the banking industry’s profitability. With continued weak overall loan demand and the prolonged low interest rate environment putting pressure on the net interest margin of Wisconsin banks, 2022 could be a more difficult year for the banking industry. Nonetheless, with the industry’s strong financial condition, banks are positioned well to weather the upcoming year.

Founded in 1892, the Wisconsin Bankers Association (WBA) is the state’s largest financial industry trade association, representing more than 200 commercial banks and savings institutions and over 21,000 employees.

The Association represents banks of all sizes from banks in rural Wisconsin to the state’s largest financial institution in Green Bay, and nearly 98 percent of banks in the state are WBA members.


During our second-quarter update, we will look at the changing landscape of the deposit area and all the hot spots for compliance. This is a look-see at what has passed and what is to come. Learn more in this incredible catch-all program for those of you on the deposit side of the compliance and operations area.

Covered Topics

  • FDIC Insurance Changes on Trusts
  • CFPB released on March 16th a statement that discrimination issues could apply to trusts
  • FDIC Supervisory Highlights focus on Regulation E yet again—Flexible OD Programs
  • Hot Spots on Regulation E continue
  • Beneficial Ownership proposed changes
  • Proposed IRA Changes pass the House—calling it Secure Act 2.0
  • OFAC and Ukraine what you need to know and do

Who Should Attend
Deposit Compliance, Deposit Operations, Training, Branch Staff, and Senior Management.

Instructor Bio
Deborah Crawford is the president of Gettechnical Inc., a Virginia based training company. She specializes in the deposit side of the financial institution and is an instructor on IRAs, BSA, Deposit Regulations and opening account procedures. She was formerly with Hibernia National Bank (now Capital One) and has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Louisiana State University. She has 30+ years of combined teaching and banking experience.

Registration Options
Live Access, 30 Days OnDemand Playback, Presenter Materials and Handouts $279

Available Upgrades:
12 Months OnDemand Playback + $110
12 Months OnDemand Playback + CD + $140
Additional Live Access + $75 per person


Are you prepared for your next examination? Do you understand the 2022 supervisory priorities? Unfortunately, it seems that 2022 is not starting out any better than 2021. Thus, the regulators continue to “covidize” examination expectations to recognize the pandemic’s increasing impact on banking operations and a rapidly changing economic landscape.


  • Understand the focus of FDIC 2022 examinations
  • Appreciate the impact of the recent supervisory priorities
  • Use improved examination preparation strategies
  • Access insightful examination resources

Big or small, well run or not, every bank will undergo regular and rhythmical examinations. Fortunately, it’s an open-book test! The Risk Management Manual of Examination Policies and Consumer Compliance Examination Manual offer a bird’s-eye view of the entire process. Imagine being able to maximize the examination cycle rather than dread it or being in a position to tell your story effectively rather than defending every operational decision and accounting entry.

This program will go through the new technology and examination strategies that will help your institution thrive during the next exam. From available resources to a review of recent examination changes, this is a must-attend webinar. Join us to learn the best way to navigate the nature and scope of the exam as well as the best available strategies to effectively present your business plan and mission to examiners.

This informative session is designed for senior executives, directors, Audit Committee members, managers, compliance personnel, audit staff, and anyone involved with the examination process.


  • Recent FDIC supervisory highlights
  • Regulatory guidance on examinations
  • Checklist of FDIC resources
  • PDF of slides and speaker’s contact info for follow-up questions
  • Attendance certificate provided to self-report CE credits
  • Employee training log
  • Interactive quiz

NOTE: All materials are subject to copyright. Transmission, retransmission, or republishing of any webinar to other institutions or those not employed by your agency is prohibited. Print materials may be copied for eligible participants only.

MEET THE PRESENTER – David A. Reed, JD, Reed & Jolly, PLLC
Attorney, author, consultant, and nationally recognized speaker, David Reed is a partner in the law firm of Reed & Jolly, PLLC. He provides guidance to financial institutions on establishment and revision of policies and procedures, organizational compliance, collections, security, contractual agreements, regulatory matters, and corporate governance. His engaging speaking style has made him a nationwide lecturer on regulatory compliance, consumer lending, bankruptcy, and collections.

A former trial attorney and vice president and general counsel of a large regional financial institution, Reed is also a Certified Fraud Examiner. He is particularly known as an expert in the areas of operations, bankruptcy, and collections. He has trained state and federal examination staff on numerous issues, including BSA, ID theft red flags, SAFE Act, third-party contract management, and bankruptcy.


  • $245 – Live Webinar Access
  • $245 – OnDemand Access + Digital Download
  • $320 – Both Live & On-Demand Access + Digital Download