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

CHEROKEE BANK

October 6, 2004

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- Proposed Revisions to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

Dear Mr. Feldman,

Cherokee State Bank (“Bank”), a $243 million bank (state, non-member) with five branches located in St. Paul, Minnesota, welcomes this opportunity to comment on the proposal to increase the “small institution” test for banks under the CRA from $250 million to $1 billion, without regard to holding company affiliation. Four of our branches are located in urban settings. Our flagship office and one branch are located in moderate-income census tracts. Another branch opened in 1994 in a Hispanic market, is located in a low-income census tract.

We strongly support the FDIC’s proposal to raise the threshold for the streamlined small bank CRA examination to $1 billion without regard to the size of the bank’s holding company.
After both the OCC and the Federal Reserve Board withdrew proposed revisions to CRA, the FDIC’s decision to move forward and propose new changes could not have been easy. Yet the language in this proposal clearly indicates the FDIC is trying to find the common ground between the following forces:

• The concern that the proposal is somehow changing or diluting the CRA
• The concerns of the community groups that community banks will stop lending and investing in low/moderate income areas
• The complaints from community bankers regarding an ever-growing regulatory burden that is helping to accelerate the merger trend
• The challenge of allocating agency resources to cover the more frequent, time-consuming, and complex large bank CRA exams.

The following is an examination of these forces in relation to the proposal:
Is the FDIC proposal somehow changing or diluting the CRA with this proposal?
No. The original intention of CRA was to encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate- income neighborhoods consistent with safe and sound lending practices. Actually, the proposal increases the likelihood that a bank, both urban and rural, achieves the goals of CRA. By re-defining what constitutes a large bank, the FDIC is really saying it makes no sense to expect a $250 million bank to devote significant time and efforts to seek loans, investments and services that may meet the technical definition of community development, but may make no sense to the community being served. The proposed community development criterion encompasses both the spirit and intent of the CRA.

Will the proposal encourage community banks to abandon low/moderate income areas within the communities they serve?
Absolutely not. The assumption by some community groups that reinvestment in a low and moderate income areas occurs because of CRA and that the proposed changes to the CRA will cause community banks to stop lending and serving the credit needs of all members of the community is incorrect. The CRA did not exist when Cherokee Bank began lending locally in 1908, sixty-nine years before the CRA was enacted. It was well understood by the Bank’s founders that the long-term viability of the bank was directly related to the success of the local community. The Bank’s philosophy of serving the local community did not change because of the creation of the CRA in 1977. We are proud of our ninety-six year tradition of helping all the communities we serve to grow and prosper. We have always seen our success tied directly to the success of the communities we serve.
Because a bank is examined using the streamlined CRA exam procedures does not mean that it is exempt from CRA. Community banks would continue to be examined to ensure they lend to all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income individuals and neighborhoods. In that regard nothing would change, but what will change for both the banks and the examining agencies is the cost and efficiency of the CRA exam.
By adding the community development criterion, the FDIC’s proposal is responding to the community groups concerns. Banks would still be required to help meet the credit needs of their entire communities and the new community development criterion will be an opportunity for banks to demonstrate their community development strengths. The flexibility offered by the community development criterion would be welcomed by bankers. However, it needs to be designed so that a balance is achieved between the need of community groups to assess the banks’ community development successes and the community banks’ need for regulatory relief.

Will the proposal placate the community bankers that complain of the regulatory burden?
We find it ironic that community groups seem oblivious to the costs associated with items like the large bank CRA data collection and reporting requirements, yet these same groups decry the bank mergers that eliminate local banks from the community. They want the local decision makers with a vested interest in the success of the community, not someone making decisions five states away. Community groups cannot have it both ways. They are missing the direct connection between the ability of the community banks to comply with the ever-growing regulatory burden and competing against the large institutions at the same time. The large institutions can more effectively manage the regulatory burden by developing processes and procedures and spreading the development costs across many banks. Standard forms, centralized processing and strong internal controls are developed that not only create additional efficiencies, but result in a uniform, high standard end product. Community banks, while being held by examiners to the same high standards for the end product, do not share the luxury of spreading the costs and creating those same large bank efficiencies. For us, the implementing and ongoing costs for the regulatory burden come from just one source, our bottom line. One of the major reasons for the bank consolidation trend is the inability of community banks to absorb the costs associated with the ever-growing and complex regulatory burden. The large bank CRA data collection and reporting requirements are examples of the ever growing, complex and costly regulatory burden for “small” community banks.

The community development criterion must be developed and tested so that it is significantly less burdensome than the large bank data collection and reporting requirements, otherwise no regulatory relief for small banks will be achieved under this proposal. Also, we oppose making the community development criterion a separate test from a bank’s overall CRA evaluation. Again, our concern is that the regulatory burden will not be reduced by this proposal, just “replaced”.

Does the proposal make sense for the FDIC as a regulator?
Definitiely. We believe the FDIC, in particular, should have a strong interest in seeing an increase for what asset size constitutes a large bank. No other regulatory agency will have as many banks moving past the existing $250MM threshold to large bank status in the near future. Also, it must be a continual challenge to not only develop a staff with CRA expertise, but also meet the maximum time deadlines between CRA exams. The current timeframe between exams for small banks rated “Satisfactory” is five years. Currently, the timeframe for large banks rated “Satisfactory” is two years. Therefore, if the large bank threshold is not increased, not only will there be more large banks to examine, but the timeframe between exams for many community banks would decrease from five years to two years placing additional stress on agency resources.
While current small bank streamlined examination process is much simpler for examiners, it still accomplishes the goals of the CRA. By not increasing the threshold more banks will be subject to the more complex large bank exam. From the risk standpoint, one has to question if spending numerous hours analyzing complex loan and community data, preparing core tables and then writing a carefully worded report for a $250MM community bank is the best use of agency resources. Again, for an agency that has seen considerable restructuring recently in an effort to make the best use of available resources, does it make any sense to complete a large bank CRA exam on a $250MM community bank every two years? If consensus is not built through the comment letter process, the deciding factor in the debate to change the large bank threshold may be the FDIC’s ability to manage the increased number of large bank CRA exams.

The FDIC proposal to increase the large bank threshold to at least $1 billion without regard to the size of the bank’s holding company is an example of regulators, financial institutions and community groups working together to forge a more effective, yet fair, approach to the goals of the CRA. For both banks and consumer groups, the reduced costs of regulatory burden will not only assist with the continued viability of community banks, but also add resources back to the community in the form of new loans, products and services. For regulators, the proposal allows them to allocate examination resources to better match risk, schedules and examiner expertise. And most importantly, for all groups engaged in the discussion, the proposal ensures that the spirit, intent and measurable successes of the CRA remain intact.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views on this important proposal.

Sincerely,
Heidi R. Gesell      
President and CEO

William J. Patient
 CRA and Compliance Officer

Last Updated 10/13/2004 regs@fdic.gov

Last Updated: August 4, 2024