Skip to main content
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government
Dot gov
The .gov means it’s official. 
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
Https
The site is secure. 
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Federal Register Publications

FDIC Federal Register Citations



Home > Regulation & Examinations > Laws & Regulations > FDIC Federal Register Citations




FDIC Federal Register Citations



SOUTHWEST BANK

August 24, 2004

Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
550 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20429
RIN #3064-AC50

Public Information Room
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
250 E Street, SW
Mailstop 1-5
Washington, DC 20219
RIN #3064-AC50

Ms. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20551
RIN #3064-AC50

Regulation Comments
Chief Counsel's Office
Office of Thrift Supervision
1700 G Street, NW
Washington, DC 20552
RIN #3064-AC50

Re: RIN #3064-AC50 Small Bank CRA Threshold

Dear Sir or Madam:

Recently, I submitted a letter expressing my grave concern over the Federal Reserve’s Notice 04-47, announcing that they were withdrawing their recommendation to amend CRA. Now I would like to take this opportunity to express my support of the FDIC’s new endeavor to amend the CRA regulations in a way that hopefully will bring agreement between all the agencies, the financial institutions who support the recommended changes, and the community organizations who should be pleased to see initiatives that will continue to support the efforts of community banks to support both low-and-moderate income individuals as well as individuals who live in rural areas. That specific segment of our communities was over looked from the outset of these regulations, and hopefully will now be brought into the same playing field as others.

In the prior letter, I was whole heartedly in favor of both an increase in the definition of “Small Banks” (up to $1 billion) as well as anything that can be done to continue to improve the alternatives that are available to our rural communities to participate in community development funds and programs. As I said earlier, “Let’s raise the small bank definition to $1 billion, and let’s also change the regulation to allow the community development capital to go along with the increase. What is there to say that these rural communities should be further penalized by not allowing them access to the capital just because the reporting threshold is raised to a higher amount?”

Although small banks do not have to track and report their loans under the current rules, data is available at the time of an exam to provide examiners with the information on a limited segment of the bank’s portfolio, to demonstrate it’s lending activities, as well as it’s ability to make qualified investments and provide for other banking activities and services provided in it’s assessment areas. This information is available because most small banks (and large ones too for that matter) can track their loans internally by some easy coding method, without having to do excessive record keeping, financial information tracking, etc. It is far easier to code our loans once when they’re booked, and only have to look up a small amount of additional information for specific loans or customers at the time of an exam, then be subjected to excessive and expensive record keeping, tracking and reporting, year after year after year.

The new NPR states that “we are proposing to add a mandatory community development criterion for those small banks with assets over $250 million, and we are proposing to amend the community development definition to emphasize the importance of investments and services in rural communities.” I would also like to quote from the FIDC’s February 2004 NPR by stating the following: “Institutions’ capacities to undertake certain activities, and the burdens of those activities, vary by asset size, sometimes disproportionately. Examples include identifying, underwriting, and funding qualified equity investments, and collecting and reporting loan data.” With this in mind, I believe the FDIC’s first idea of assessing a bank’s record of helping to meet the needs of its assessment area(s) through a combination of community development lending, qualified investments, or community development services is something that most community banks could support. Regarding the request for comments on the idea of “applying a separate community development test”, I do not think this should be undertaken until the financial institutions who will be affected by a separate test, are given the opportunity to review the recommendations and comment on them before they are implemented. Only the financial institutions themselves can adequately express whether such a separate test would be achievable within their own organizations. We should not be faced with requirements that are not practical or are impossible to achieve. And until the Regulators develop the test, I do not know how any of us can answer the questions raised about weighing the activities in assigning a performance rating or overall performance rating. One last comment I would add is that I concur with the idea of amending the definition of community development for rural communities.

Conclusion
The reporting and tracking requirements of becoming a “large” bank versus a “small” bank are totally out of proportion in relation to the benefit to “small” banks. The main purpose served by the large bank reporting is to make the examiner’s jobs easier when they perform an exam. Even though we are a small bank, at our last exam I was asked to provide the examiners with income information for the customers they had selected to review. When I questioned why we were being asked to provide the information (ahead of their physical on-site exam), I was told “it will make our jobs easier and reduce the time we spend reviewing the files during the exam.” It was very apparent to me that it would take much less time and expense to look up the information for 15 or 20 loans, as it would ultimately take to track and report the required financial information on all small business and farm loans, required for “large” banks.

The decision to increase the threshold for “small” banks should take into consideration the original purpose of CRA, which is to ensure that these institutions are meeting the credit needs of the communities they serve. This can be ascertained during an onsite exam, without the excessive costs associated with the “large” bank reporting requirements. Additionally, the affect of raising the limit to $1 billion will not have a significant impact on the overall industry assets covered by the regulation as a whole. In addition, the changes suggested concerning “community development” should allow small banks the freedom to choose among the community development activities which best suite the banks’ overall strategy.

Sincerely yours,
Karen A. Schoenbucher
Vice President & Compliance Officer

Last Updated 08/24/2004 regs@fdic.gov

Last Updated: August 4, 2024