On CRA Reg
Inner City Press Tells FRB Bronx Branches
Lack & Lackluster No Credit for Jails
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
FEDERAL COURT / S
Bronx, Feb 15 – Whether or not
the U.S. Community
Reinvestment Act will be again
enforced under the new
Administration and its
regulators is an open
question.
On the
25th day of the new
Administration, Fair Finance
Watch with Inner City Press on
the FOIA filed comments with
the Federal Reserve Board on
its proposal on the CRA: "Re
Docket Number R-1723 and RIN
Number 7100-AF94
Dear Chair Powell, Secretary
Misback and others in the
FRS: On behalf of
Inner City Press / Fair
Finance Watch (ICP), this is a
timely comment on the
Community Reinvestment
Act.
ICP has been
increasingly concerned by the
Federal Reserve System's
rubber-stamping of merger
applications, which are the
enforcement mechanism of the
CRA, as well as with the Fed's
lack of transparency is
withholding large portions of
applications and of its
communication with and about
applicants.
On the
policy issues raised in the
Fed's ANPR, Fair Finance Watch
joins in the comments of the
NCRC of which it is a proud
member. A few additional,
question-specific responses:
"Question 1. Does
the Board capture the most
important CRA modernization
objectives? Are there
additional objectives that
should be
considered?"
No. The
Federal Reserve has overseen
the mass closing of bank
branches serving low and
moderate income communities;
meanwhile fintechs and even
crypto-currency entities are
moving into banking without
any accountability to LMI
communities. These must be
addressed - with public
hearings, FOIA responses, and
the too-needy but
never-occurring denial of
explansion applications.
"Question 3.
Given the CRA's purpose and
its nexus with fair lending
laws, what changes to
Regulation BB would reaffirm
the practice of ensuring that
assessment areas do not
reflect illegal discrimination
and do not arbitrarily exclude
LMI census
tracts?"
Given how the
Board's merger approval orders
explain away fair lending
disparities including in HMDA
data and the demographics of
assessment areas, this appears
to be a disingenuous question.
Or, this recommendation: if
the Board as stated recognizes
CRA's "nexus with fair lending
laws," it should directly
address these on merger
applications. For example, in
the NYC MSA, banks which
exclude the South Bronx and
Upper Manhattan should not
have their applications
approved.
"Question 7.
Should banks have the option
of delineating assessment
areas around deposit-taking
ATMs or should this remain a
requirement?"
Obviously this
should remain a requirement.
"Should delineation of new
deposit- or lending-based
assessment areas apply only to
internet banks that do not
have physical locations or
should it also apply more
broadly to other large banks
with substantial activity
beyond their branch-based
assessment areas? Is there a
certain threshold of such
activity that should trigger
additional assessment
areas?" Of course
banks should be assess
everywhere they take deposits
and / or make loans: five of
either.
"Is $750 million
or $1 billion an appropriate
asset threshold to distinguish
between small and large retail
banks? Or should this
threshold be lower so that it
is closer to the current small
bank threshold of $326
million? Should the regulation
contain an automatic mechanism
for allowing that threshold to
adjust with aggregate national
inflation over time?"
Lower -
down to $326 million or lower
still. Automatic adjustment
would be fine.
"Question 22.
Does the performance ranges
approach complement the use of
a presumption of
“satisfactory”? How should the
Board determine the
performance range for a
“satisfactory” in conjunction
with the threshold for a
presumption of “satisfactory”?
How should the Board also
determine the performance
ranges for “outstanding,”
“needs to improve,” and
“substantial
noncompliance”?"
Again, big
picture: it is absurd how low
the percentage of banks
getting even "needs to
improve" is. So the
performance ranges have to be
changed, made less grade
inflationary.
"Question 24. In
addition to the number of
branches and the community and
market quantitative benchmarks
discussed above, how should
examiners evaluate a bank's
branch
distribution?"
There are far too few branches
in LMI communities - and those
there provide too little
service. Without (yet) naming
it, a bank on 149th Street in
the South Bronx for months
during the pandemic made
itself entirely inaccessible
to residents of the community,
already underbanked. Nothing
was done.
"Question 50.
Should volunteer activities
unrelated to the provision of
financial services, or those
without a primary purpose of
community development, receive
CRA consideration for banks in
rural assessment areas? If so,
should consideration be
expanded to include all
banks?" No, and no.
Question 51.
Should financial literacy and
housing counseling activities
without regard to income
levels be eligible for CRA
credit?
No - otherwise,
lower income people will be
even further underserved.
Question 61. What
standards should the Board
consider to define “essential
community needs” and
“essential community
infrastructure,” and should
these standards be the same
across all targeted
geographies?
Given disparities
and other human rights issues,
the idea of banks getting CRA
credit for criminal justice
systems must be rejected."
Meanwhile
in Federal court, PNC Bank and
its Midland Loan Services have
been sued for usury, predatory
lending and civil conspiracy,
under New York and Federal
law.
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|