| 
 | FDIC Federal Register Citations
 
   United
            Bank of Michigan
 
 Lisa L. Wenzel
 United Bank of Michigan
 900 East Paris SE
 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546
 616-559-7000
 
 
 
 Mr. Robert E. Feldman
 Executive Secretary
 Attention: Comments/Legal ESS
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 550 17th Street, NW
 Washington DC 20429
 
 Re: RIN Number 3064-AC50: FDIC Proposed Increase in the Threshold for the
      Small Bank CRA Streamlined Examination
 
 
 Dear Sir:
 
 I am Senior Vice President of United Bank of Michigan, located in Grand
      Rapids, Michigan, a community of just under 200,000 residents. Additionally
      we service several smaller communities ranging in size from 600 to 5,000
      residents. The bank has total assets of $375 million and is currently subject
      to large bank CRA examination criteria. I am writing to strongly support
      the FDIC ' s proposal to raise the threshold for the streamlined
      small bank CRA examination to $1 billion without regard to size of the
      bank ' s holding company. This would greatly relieve the regulatory
      burden imposed on many small banks such as my own under the current regulation,
      which are required to meet the standards imposed on the nation ' s
      largest $1 trillion banks. I understand that this is not an exemption from
      CRA and that the bank would still have to help meet the credit needs of
      its entire community and be evaluated by our regulator. However, I believe
      that this would lower our current regulatory burden by a reduction in man
      hours of at least 200 per year just for data preparation and input required
      to meet the reporting requirements.
 
 I also support the addition of a community development (CD) criterion to
      the small bank examination for larger community banks. It appears to be
      a significant improvement over the investment test. However, I urge the
      FDIC to adopt its original $500 million threshold for small banks without
      a CD criterion and only apply the new CD criterion to community banks greater
      than $500 million up to $1 billion. Banks under $500 million now hold about
      the same percent of overall industry assets as community banks under $250
      million did a decade ago when the revised CRA regulations were adopted,
      so this adjustment in the CRA threshold is appropriate. As FDIC examiners
      know, it has proven extremely difficult for small banks, especially those
      in rural areas, to find appropriate CRA qualified investments in their
      communities. Many small banks have had to make regional or statewide investments
      that are extremely unlikely to ever benefit the banks ' own communities.
      That was certainly not the intent of Congress when it enacted CRA.
 
 An additional reason to support the FDIC ' s CD criterion is that
      it significantly reduces the current regulation ' s " cliff
      effect " Today, when a small bank goes over $250 million,
      it must completely reorganize its CRA program and begin a massive new reporting,
      monitoring and investment program. If the FDIC adopts its proposal, a state
      nonmember bank would move from the small bank examination to an expanded
      but still streamlined small bank examination, with the flexibility to mix
      Community Development loans, services and investments to meet the new CD
      criterion. This would be far more appropriate to the size of the bank,
      and far better than subjecting the community bank to the same large bank
      examination that applies to $1 trillion banks. This more graduated transition
      to the large bank examination is a significant improvement over the current
      regulation.
 
 I strongly oppose making the CD criterion a separate test from the bank ' s
      overall CRA evaluation. For a community bank, CD lending is not significantly
      different from the provision of credit to the entire community. The current
      small bank test considers the institution ' s overall lending in
      its community. The addition of a category of CD lending (and services to
      aid in lending and investments as a substitute for lending) fits well within
      the concept of serving the whole community. A separate test would create
      an additional CD obligation and regulatory burden that would erode the
      benefit of the streamlined exam.
 
 In conclusion, I believe that the FDIC has proposed a major improvement
      in the CRA regulations, one that much more closely aligns the regulations
      with the Community Reinvestment Act itself, and I urge the FDIC to adopt
      its proposal, with the recommendations above. I will be happy to discuss
      these issues further with you, if that would be helpful.
 
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Lisa L. Wenzel
 Senior Vice President
 
 
 
 |