| LEGACY BANK From: Shaye Ross [mailto:ShayeR@legacybank.com] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 5:31 PM
 To: Comments
 Cc: psmith@aba.com
 Subject: RIN No. 3064-AC50
 Dear Sir or Madam:
         I am Supervisor of Loan Administration for Legacy Bank, located in 
        central Oklahoma. I am writing in regards to the FDIC’s Proposal to 
        Increase the CRA Small Bank Threshold to $1 Billion, without regard to 
        the size of the bank’s holding company. Approving this proposal would 
        greatly relieve the regulatory burden imposed on small banks under the 
        current regulation, which also are the same standards on our nation’s 
        largest $1 trillion banks. I do understand that we would still be 
        required to help meet the credit needs of our communities and would be 
        evaluated by our regulator. I believe you will find that smaller banks 
        are more likely to serve the needs of their community because they 
        depend on the community to survive.
         I also support the addition of a community development 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 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 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.  
        I strongly support the FDIC’s proposal to change the definition of 
        “community development” from only focusing on low- and moderate-income 
        area residents to including rural residents. I think that this change in 
        the definition will go a long way toward eliminating the current 
        distortions in the regulation. We caution the FDIC to provide a 
        definition of “rural” that will not be subject to misuse to favor just 
        affluent residents of rural areas.  
        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. 
        Shaye RossSupervisor - Loan Administration
 Legacy Bank
 Oklahoma City, OK
 |