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


MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA


August 27, 2004

Thomas J. Curry, Director
Federal Deposit Insurance Colporation
550 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20429

Dear Sir:

Mercy Housing is a not-for-profit, national organization committed to developing affordable, service-enriched housing for individuals, families, and people with Special needs. Mercy Housing works with local governments, lending institutions, investors and private organizations to help fund our efforts. Because of our involvement in strengthening the nation's poorest communities, we are familiar with the positive impact that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) has made on strengthening America's communities by requiring insured depository institutions to use their deposits to meet the credit needs of low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities.

We understand that the FDIC shortly will consider a proposed rule change by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) to increase the asset threshold for the CRA small bank exam from $250 million to $1 billion. We believe this proposal could have negative consequences for hundreds of communities, including many in rural areas, and we urge you not to adopt it.

While we understand that the OTS ruling is intended to help reduce regulatory burden for small banks, no studies have been conducted on the potential benefits – or harm – of such a change. There is considerable evidence to believe that proposal could have severe, unintended consequences for the flow of much-needed private capital and services to LMI communities.

If the FDIC adopts the OTS' proposal, 2,000 fewer insured institutions, with assets of nearly $1 trillion, would have far less impetus to provide investments and services in LMI communities – and an estimated $5 billion that would have been available, under the current rules, for affordable housing and community development over the next few years would be lost.

In California, the impact will be even greater, because banks of this size make up a greater proportion of financial institutions here than in the nation as a whole. Also, because institutions with assets between $250 million and $1 billion comprise a substantial market share in rural and exurban areas, the proposed change also means that in some states and many communities there will no longer be any insured institutions with a CRA impetus to invest in affordable housing, tax credits, and even financial literacy training. This would have a disproportionate impact in the Central Coast, Northern California, and the fast-growing Central Valley and Sierra Foothills.

As federal resources for affordable housing and community development continue to dwindle, our nation's poorest communities can ill-afford to lose billions of dollars in private investment and services. We urge FDIC not to move forward with OTS' proposal, and we urge all four bank regulatory agencies to continue to consider rule changes that update CRA for the communities the Act is intended to serve.

Sincerely,
Greg Sparks
Regional Vice President

 

Last Updated 09/14/2004 regs@fdic.gov

Last Updated: August 4, 2024