After
ICP Challenges
People's
United Bank's
Suffolk Bid,
Fed Asks 13
More Questions
By
Matthew R. Lee
NEW
YORK, October
31 -- The lack
of seriousness
in US bank
regulation
grows from the
relatively
smaller to the
largest banks
like Goldman
Sachs - down
to People's
United Bank
now trying to
buy Suffolk
County
National Bank
while barely
lending to
people of
color in New
York.
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch
on August 13
challenged
this
application
and People's
United, as it
did Bancorp
South in 2014,
which led to
redlining
charges by the
Department of
Justice and
Consumer
Financial
Protection
Bureau.
Now
the Federal
Reserve, as
released to
Inner City
Press on
October 31,
has asked
People's
United a
series of
questions,
including for
Community
Reinvestment
Act
information
from 2013,
2014, 2015 and
2016 year to
date, it's
(lack of)
lending to
African
Americans and
small
businesses,
its claims
about
RBS Citizens
Bank branches
and
restrictions
imposed in
connection
with the still
only proposed
- and opposed
- merger.
We'll have
more on this.
Inner
City Press
submitted its
review of the
just-released
2015 Home
Mortgage
Disclosure Act
data. Inner
City Press has
now commented
to the Federal
Reserve:
"in
2015 in the
New York City
MSA, People's
United made
110 home
purchase loans
to whites and
only ONE to an
African
American and
only four to
Latinos...
In 2015, for
refinance
loans in the
New York City
MSA, People's
United made
103 loans to
whites, only
five to
African
Americans and
only two to
Hispanics.
People's
United record
is scarcely
better on Long
Island, where
it snapped up
Bank of
Smithtown and
Citizen's Bank
as it now
proposes to do
to Suffolk
County
National Bank.
In 2015 for
home purchase
loans on Long
Island
People's
United made 49
home purchase
loans to
whites, only
four to
African
Americans and
only four to
Latinos. For
refinance
loans it mad
70 loans to
whties, only
one to an
African
American and
only four to
Latinos.
Again, this is
systematic
redlining;
this proposed
acquisition
could not
legitimately
be approved
and People's
United should
be referred
for
prosecution
for redlining
by the
Department of
Justice and
CFPB."
Responding to
ICP and NCRC,
People's
claims that
acquiring
another
suburban bank
would improve
this disparate
record in New
York City.
How?
On
September 7,
the General
Counsel of
People's
United Robert
E. Trautmann
filed a
response,
which as to
the analysis
of New York
City redlining
submitted by
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch
argues that
the
disparities
are OK because
People's
supposedly
only recently
entered the
market.
But it entered
in 2010. How
long can it
call this
recent? And
why should it
be permitted
to build
itself up on
Long Island
while this
redlining of
New York
City's lower
income
communities of
color
persists?
Tellingly,
People's
United Bank's
purported
response to
Inner City
Press'
redlining
analysis calls
New York Times
the “Lower
Hudson Valley
region.”
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch
filed with the
US Office of
the
Comptroller of
the Currency:
"a
timely first
comment
opposing and
requesting an
extension of
the OCC's
public comment
period on the
Application by
People's
United to buy
The Suffolk
County
National Bank
of Riverhead,
NY. The
newspaper
notice says
the comment
period runs at
least through
August 16;
this comment
is timely.
People's
United
proposes to
buy Suffolk
County
National Bank
and its 27
branches in
New York. But
in the the New
York City MSA
in 2014, the
most recent
year for which
Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act
data is
publicly
available,
People's
United made 82
home purchase
loans to
whites and
NONE to
African
Americans or
Latinos. This
is redlining;
this proposed
acquisition
could not
legitimately
be approved
and People's
United should
be referred
for
prosecution
for redlining
by the
Department of
Justice and
CFPB.
For refinance
loans in the
New York City
MSA in 2013,
People's
United made 24
loans to
whites, 1 to
an African
American and
four to
Hispanics. For
home
improvement
loans in the
New York City
MSA in 2013,
People's
United made
eight loans to
whites, and
NONE to
African
Americans or
Latinos.
People's
United record
is scarcely
better on Long
Island, where
it snapped up
Bank of
Smithtown and
Citizen's Bank
as it now
proposes to do
to Suffolk
County
National Bank.
In the
Nassau-Suffolk
MSA in 2014,
People's
United made 48
home purchase
loans to
whites and
NONE to
African
Americans. For
home
improvement
loans it made
16 loans to
whites and
NONE to
African
American or
Latinos.
In this
context, the
comment period
should be
extended so
that public
evidentiary
hearings can
be held, and
the
application
should be
denied."
In April 2014,
Inner City
Press
submitted a
protest to the
Federal
Reserve of the
"Applications
of
BancorpSouth
to merge with
Ouachita
Bancshares
Corporation
and thereby
indirectly
acquire
Ouachita
Independent
Bank, and with
Central
Community
Corporation,
and thereby
indirectly
acquire First
State Bank
Central Texas,
Austin, Texas
- Round Two."
Fair
Finance
Watch's
analysis to
the Fed showed
that "in the
Jackson MS MSA
for
conventional
home purchase
loans,
BancorpSouth
made 258 loans
to whites,
only 17 to
African
Americans and
five to
Latinos.
BancorpSouth's
denial rate
for whites was
7.4% while for
African
Americans it
was 25.8% --
3.49 times
higher. This
was troubling.
NOW,
more
troubling: in
2013 for
conventional
home purchase
loans in the
Jackson MS,
BancorpSouth's
denial rate
for whites was
4.5% while for
African
Americans it
was 26.4% --
now 5.87 times
higher.
In 2012 in the
Baton Rouge LA
MSA for
conventional
home purchase
loans in 2012,
BancorpSouth
made 60 such
loans to
whites; only
three to
African
Americans and
one to a
Latino.
NOW, more
troubling: in
2013 for
conventional
home purchase
loans in the
Baton Rouge
MSA,
BancorpSouth
was up to 72
loans to
whites - but
NONE to
African
Americans."
BancorpSouth
was then
changed by the
government
with
"redlining by
placing its
branches in
the Memphis
area outside
of minority
neighborhoods
and directing
nearly all its
marketing away
from such
neighborhoods."
That should
happen here.
There's also
those in the
middle,
seeking to
become a
Systemically
Important
Financial
Institution
like New York
Community
Bancorp is,
applying to
buy Astoria
Bank.
After
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch
filed a timely
protest, the
Federal
Reserve On
January 8
asked NYCB 14
questions.
Inner City
Press has put
the Additional
Information
letter online
here,
including a
request to
know which
branches NYCB
would close,
how it would
try to sell of
Astoria's
loans, etc.
Inner City
Press said,
there should
now be more
fair lending
questions, and
the comment
period should
be extended.
On
January 21,
the Federal
Reserve
informed Inner
City Press /
Fair Finance
Watch that the
Fed is
re-opening and
extending its
comment period
on NYCB -
Astoria until
Tuesday,
February 16.
We'll have
more on this (see here).
Back
on January 15,
after Inner
City Press /
Fair Finance
Watch also
filed comments
with the FDIC,
that agency
has written to
NYCB's Joseph
Ficalora
asking for a
response, and
stating that
"We
are writing in
reference to
the enclosed
e-mail that we
received from
Executive
Director
Matthew Lee,
of Inner City
Press/Fair
Finance Watch
concerning
your
institution's
application to
acquire
Astoria Bank.
We reviewed
the subject
e-mail in
accordance
with the
guidelines of
12 C.F.R.
Section 303,
and deemed it
a Community
Reinvestment
Act (CRA)
protest for
the purpose of
your
application.
The subject
e-mail raises
issues
regarding your
institution's
record of
lending to
African
American and
Latino
persons. The
anticipated
time and
research
required to
investigate
these issues
has
contributed to
the removal of
your
institution's
application
from expedited
processing."
NYCB's
home mortgage
lending is
extremely
disparate; its
multi-family
lending, some
to slumlords,
is no defense.
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch
has filed this
with the Fed:
“On behalf of
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch,
this is a
timely first
comment
opposing and
requesting a
complete copy
of an and an
extension of
the FRB's
public comment
period on the
Application by
New York
Community
Bancorp
('NYCB') to
acquire 100%
of the voting
shares of
Astoria
Financial Corp
and indirectly
acquire
Astoria Bank.
The
applicant NYCB
in the New
York City MSA
in 2014 made
109 home
purchase loans
to whites --
and only THREE
to African
Americans. For
refinance
loans, NYBC in
the the NYC
MSA in 2014
made 27 loans
to whites and
only ONE to an
African
American.
While
NYCB may
attempt to
minimize these
severe
disparities by
pointing to
multi-family
loans, there
are
significant
complaints
about that
lending; note
also this
account of
the CFPB which
lists the
ostensibly
mostly
multi-family
NYCB with more
complaints
against it
than banks
that are both
larger and
more “retail."
In the
Nassau Suffolk
(Long Island)
MSA in 2014
NYCB made 107
home purchase
loans to
whites -- and
only ONE to an
African
American,
while denying
African
Americans 4.7
times more
frequently
than whites.
For refinance
loans, NYBC in
the the Long
Island MSA in
2014 made 52
loans to
whites and
only three to
African
Americans and
only TWO to
Latinos, while
denying
Latinos 2.32
times more
frequently
than whites.
In the
Cleveland,
Ohio MSA
(where NYCB
bought Ohio
Savings), NYCB
in 2014 made
17 refinance
loans to
whites in 2014
and only one
to an African
American,
while denying
African
Americans,
while denying
African
Americans
three times
more
frequently
than whites.
Similar
disparities
exist for NYCB
in New Jersey,
Arizona and
Florida -- ICP
is requesting
public
hearings on
this
ill-conceived
proposed
merger.
As the
Federal
Reserve surely
knows, this
proposal was
driving by
activist
investor
pressure on
Astoria (by
Basswood
Capital
Management
LLC); both
institutions'
securities
fell
significantly
in price when
it was
announced. The
price to
consumers
would include
the closure of
branches,
disclosure of
which should
be demanded
during the
extended
comment period
and at the
requested
public
hearing(s).
The
comment period
should be
extended;
evidentiary
hearings
should be
held; and on
the current
record, the
application
should not be
approved.”
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch,
which also
opposes NYCB's
requests for
approvals from
the FDIC, New
York and other
regulators,
has prepared
this
comparison of
NYCB to other
lenders:
“In the Nassau
Suffolk (Long
Island) MSA in
2014 NYCB made
107 home
purchase loans
to whites --
and only ONE
to an African
American,
while denying
African
Americans 4.7
times more
frequently
than whites.”
While NYCB
made 107 home
purchase loans
to whites for
one to an
African
Americans
(ratio of
107-to-1), the
aggregated in
2014 for home
purchase loans
on Long Island
had a ratio of
13.41 loans to
whites for
every loan to
an African
American
(15,081 loans
to whites,
1125 loans to
African
Americans).
NYCB is eight
times more
disparate than
other lenders.
Also on
Long Island,
compared to
NYCB's 4.7
denial rate
disparity
between
African
Americans and
whites, the
aggregate
denied African
Americans 1.66
times more
frequently
than whites.
NYCB is 2.83
times more
disparate than
other lenders.
NYCB in
the New York
City MSA in
2014 made 109
home purchase
loans to
whites -- and
only THREE to
African
Americans.
While
NYCB made 109
home purchase
loans to
whites and
three to
African
Americans in
NYC (ratio of
36.3-to-1),
the aggregated
in 2014 for
home purchase
loans in the
New York City
MSA had a
ratio of 11.39
loans to
whites for
every loan to
an African
American
(47,166 loans
to whites,
4,140 loans to
African
Americans).
NYCB is 3.19
times more
disparate than
other lenders
in the New
York City MSA.
Meanwhile
Goldman Sachs
is trying to
speed through
Federal
Reserve
approval to
buy $16
billion in
insured
deposits from
GE Capital,
and the Fed,
documents
released to
Inner City
Press under
the Freedom of
Information
Act (FOIA)
show, is
inappropriately
bent on
helping,
including by
closing its
comment
period...
The Federal
Reserve has
belatedly
responded to
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance
Watch's
September 2
FOIA request,
with some of
its internal
documents,
many heavily
redacted. FOIA
letter here;
FOIA
documents
released to
ICP here,
and embedded
below.
While
Inner City
Press is
appealing,
even as
released the
documents show
that Goldman
Sachs through
its law firm
Sullivan &
Cromwell
reached out to
Fed General
Counsel Scott
Alvarez in May
2015 about the
transaction,
and was
largely able
to vet it with
the Fed's
staff by July,
even receiving
an "additional
information"
request before
any
application
was filed.
Since the
public cannot
comment or ask
questions
before a
transaction is
announced,
this
"pre-review"
by the Fed in
essence cuts
public review
and
transparency
out of the
process. The
Fed's rules
against
ex-parte
communications
can't be
triggered
before there
is an
application.
But should Fed
review be
held, and
apparently
completed,
before there
is any public
notice?
The
deal was
publicly
announced on
August 13 and
Goldman Sachs
on August 18
submitted the
apparently
pre-approved
application.
Inner City
Press / Fair
Finance Watch
submitted a
comment and
FOIA request
(delayed until
now); the end
of the FOIA
response has a
redacted
reaction to
the "public
comment." Now
others have
commented and
a campaign has
begun. But has
the Fed
already made
up its mind?
On
Goldman Sachs,
Federal
Reserve's
Initial FOIA
Response to
Inner City
Press on GE
Capital Bank
by Matthew
Russell Lee
On
October 20,
the Federal
Reserve asked
Goldman Sachs
five
questions, but
not on the
predatory
lending issues
raised... Only
this from
Goldman Sachs,
only
snail-mailed
by its
counsel:
Goldman
Sachs' 2d
Reply to Inner
City Press, As
Fed Withholds
FOIA Documents
by Matthew
Russell Lee
On
October 13
Inner City
Press
published the
Federal
Reserve's
communications
with the CIT
Group's
outside
counsel,
which shows
how the
release of
public
documents is
allowed by the
Fed to be
delayed. CIT
made
disingenuous
requests for
confidential
treatment of
information
that could not
be withheld,
without any
repercussion.
They were
rewarded with
FOIA appeal
denials by Fed
Governor Jay
Powell; now
Goldman is
trying to
withhold
information
that should be
public. Will
there be any
repercussion
or
accountability?
Watch this
site.
Revealed:
Federal
Reserve Asking
CIT Group
About Inner
City Press
FOIA Request:
Now Goldman
Sachs? by
Matthew
Russell Lee