As
SoFi Applies For Bank, FFW
Opposes Evasion, Interest Rate
North of 20%, FinTech
By Matthew R.
Lee, New
Platform
NEW YORK, June 15
– As the fintech industry in
the US tries to move into
banking, either through a new
charter or, like SoFi, an
end-run using the Utah
industrial bank loophole, Fair
Finance Watch and others are
raising issues. Fair Finance
has commented to the FDIC, and
Inner City Press made requests
citing FOIA: "Re: Timely
Opposition to the Application
by FinTech Company SoFi to
Open a Bank, Including
Offering a Secured Credit Card
at Upward of 20% interest and
trying to limited CRA to Utah
To the Addressees at the FDIC:
On behalf of Inner City
Press / Fair Finance Watch,
this is a timely comment on
the application by fintech
company SoFi to open an
FDIC-insured industrial bank
in Utah, to limited its CRA
assessment area to (part of)
Utah while project business
nationwide, and to claim that
a secure credit card with
interest rate north of 20% is
a CRA program. We request
public hearings and denial of
the application.
As you know, the
drive by fintech companies to
get into banking is a matter
of controversy, with the OCC
have proposed a new type of
charter. This end run would
set a bad precedent, of
gerrymandered CRA and even
predatory lending as CRA.
The application - with
portions apparently withheld
that should be released under
FOIA and now whatever ex-parte
rules the FDIC has - states
twice that “the bank will
offer a secured credit card
utilizing its credit card and
deposit infrastructure to the
LMI community and
the members
with a 'shallow credit' file
[with] the following
features... a much higher
interest rate north of 20%
percent.” This is
outrageous.
For the record, also in
support of the public hearing
request, from the WSJ: “the
entire sector is in trouble.
Growth has slowed dramatically
because of deeper worries
about consumer-loan defaults
and shifting preferences among
some investors for other kinds
of debt. Some of the largest
online lenders have cut jobs,
with Avant Inc. and Prosper
Marketplace Inc. shrinking
their number of employees by
more than 25%. Confidence also
was bruised badly when
LendingClub pushed out its
chief executive in May because
of a scandal involving
fabricated loan data. In the
second quarter,
venture-capital investments
into lending startups fell by
nearly half from a year
earlier.. SoFi itself stumbled
when consumers flooded its
website after the lender ran
an ad during the Super Bowl in
February. Applicants who
didn’t hear from SoFi for days
blasted it in online ratings.”
Ready for prime time and FDIC
insurance?
Again, we request
public hearings, and on the
current record the denial of
SoFi's application." In other
news, Sterling Bank, which is
applying for approvals to
acquire Astoria Bank, is known
by its regulators to have
filed unreliable Community
Reinvestment Act data from at
least 2014 through 2016, a document
obtained by Inner City Press
shows. The story, and outrage,
has been picked
up by the American
Banker newspaper here,
by Paul Davis and Allison
Prang, crediting Inner City
Press - and Sterling Bank had
no comment. Instead,
Sterling's outside counsel
Wachtel Lipton chose to
snail-mail its response to the
wrong address, and not e-mail
it to Fair Finance Watch. Via
here,
with envelope re-submitted to
Fed and OCC. The OCC has now
put up a roadblock to
releasing the records Inner
City Press has requested under
the Freedom of Information
Act, writing: "The purpose of
this letter is to seek
additional information
pertaining to your recent
request for information from
the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency. Your request
dated May 13, 2017 was
received in my office on May
15, 2017. You requested any
and all records related to
Sterling Bank's application(s)
to acquire Astoria and
Sterling Bank's CRA data. Upon
further review, we determined
that we need clarification on
the date range for search of
Sterling Bank’s CRA data. If I
have not received this
information by COB June 19th I
will assume that you no longer
seek this information and
consider your request closed."
How did it take the OCC a full
MONTH to come up with this?
This while the Federal Reserve
has granted Inner City Press'
request for expedited
treatment of its FOIA request
for all records, promising the
responsive documents by June
1. But then the Fed, in a June
1 letter, unilaterally
extended its time to June 22.
First Fed letter on Scribd, here.
Regulators
Said Sterling's CRA Data Unreliable,
Sterling Mis-Sends Response, Fed
Expedites ICPs FOIA, Here by Matthew
Russell Lee on Scribd
Fair
Finance Watch has asked both the Fed and
OCC to extend their comment periods past
this date. Watch this site. Sterling has
issued
a press release ("covered" without any
analysis by Reuters)
that "the Federal Reserve inadvertently
made public confidential supervisory
information.. Because of the legal
constraints relating to disclosure of
confidential supervisory information, we
are working closely with our regulators
to craft a more detailed public
response." Sterling is working WITH the
regulators - the judges in this case -
to spin its inaccurate data? After on
its last acquisition, challenged by ICP,
having to make a CRA compliance plan?
Inner City Press has submitted Freedom
of Information Act requests (a response
here)
and Fair Finance Watch has filed
additional comments to the Federal
Reserve and OCC, demanding public
hearings into the unreliable data AND
into how the regulators were dealing
with (or covering up) the issue, in
stealth. We'll have more on this: the US
Federal Reserve denied Fair Finance
Watch's request to extend the comment
period on Sterling's application, in
which even the Fed suspects there is
incorrect CRA data.
On May 11, the
Federal Reserve Bank of New
York along with questions
about about branch closures
and a CRA plan required after
Fair Finance Watch's previous
challenge to Sterling asked:
"In a letter dated December
23, 2016, from the OCC to
Sterling Bank regarding the
OCC's data integrity review,
the OCC stated that Sterling
Bank's 2014-2016 CRA data is
not reliable and that Sterling
Bank lacks an effective
process for collecting,
verifying and reporting such
data. To the extent that any
of the CRA data in the notice
is incorrect, submit the
corrected data. In addition,
describe Sterling Bank's
efforts to address its CRA
data compliance management
deficiencies."
So on April 26 in
Sterling's analysts' call, did
CEO Jack Kopnisky or Senior
EVP Luis Massiani disclose the
“unreliable” CRA data to,
among others, Dave Bishop –
FIG Partners, Casey Haire –
Jefferies, Alex Twerdahl –
Sandler O'Neill,, Collyn
Gilbert – KBW, Matthew Breese
– Piper Jaffray and Erik Zwick
– Stephens Inc? Questions
about this deal (here)
and the Fed's commitment to
public scrutiny are raised by
its simultaneous denial of
FFW's request for a hearing
and to extend the comment
period. There is no indication
that the "corrected" CRA data
would ever be made available
to the public, or that this
issue would not have been
swept under the US bank
regulators' carpet, like so
many others. We'll have more
on this.
Regulators
Say Sterling Bank's CRA Data
Unreliable, Astoria Merger Document
Shows, Here by Matthew
Russell Lee on Scribd
Background: after Astoria
Bank's protested
proposal to be acquired by New
York Community Bank fell apart
in late 2016, it found a new,
equally controversial suitor:
Sterling Bancorp. Now Fair
Finance Watch has submitted a
first Community Reinvestment
Act challenge to the proposed
merger, receipt of which the
Federal Reserve has now
confirmed, here.
Inner City Press' summary of
FFW's filing: "Dear Chair
Yellen, Secretary Misback and
others in the FRS: This is a
timely first comment opposing
and requesting an extension of
the FRB's public comment
period on the Application by
Sterling Bancorp, Montebello,
New York (“Sterling”) to merge
with Astoria Financial
Corporation, Lake Success, New
York, and indirectly acquire
Astoria Bank (“Astoria”).
This would be a combination of
banks with disparate and in
places highly irregular Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act
(“HMDA”) data. The proposal is
the desperate result of the
failure of Astoria's attempted
merger with NYCB. That is no
reason to approve this
mis-conceived combination. The
applicant's Sterling National
Bank (“Sterling”) in the New
York City MSA in 2015 for
African Americans for home
purchase loans denied the
applications of African
Americans 3.58 times more
frequently than those of
whites - much worse than other
lenders. Sterling made only 22
such home purchase loans to
African Americans, versus 495
to whites (and only 37 to
Latinos) - again, much more
disparate than other lenders.
This bank should not buy
Astoria. Remember: in the
Nassau Suffolk MSA in 2013,
Sterling made 149 home
purchase loans to whites – and
only one to an African
American. For home improvement
loans, Sterling made 30 to
whites, none to African
Americans. Taken together,
this is unacceptable. The
comment period should be
extended to clarify – or
refile – the HMDA data;
evidentiary hearings should be
held; and on the current
record, the application should
not be approved.
For the record, the CRA plan
required after Fair Finance
Watch's previous protest, we
contend has not been complied
with, and request evidentiary
and public hearings on that
basis.
Also for
the record: 'The
NYCB-Astoria Financial Merger
is Kaput: Consumer advocates
were among the groups that
opposed NYCB’s acquisition of
Astoria…'"
In
January, disparate lender
Investor Bancorp, on which
Fair Finance Watch previously
got a condition imposed saw
its proposal with Bank of
Princeton fall apart.
There's
also Capital One - Cabela, on
which Inner City Press
commented: "In the New York
City MSA in 2015, the most
recent year for which HMDA
data is available, for
conventional home purchase
loans Capital One denied the
applications of whites 23% of
the time, while denying
African Africans fully 45% of
the time, and Latinos even
more, 46% of the time. This is
unacceptable.
Meanwhile, Capital One
is “closing branches in
Laurel, Gaithersburg,
Frederick and Merrifield.”
Capital One came back with
snark, as has Simmons National
-- but then announced
including to NCRC that
it will withdrawn its
application. Onward.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in
the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2017 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
for
|