Archive for the ‘ICBA’ Category

A House Divided

Friday, August 20th, 2010

I read with interest the perspectives offered to the membership of the Texas Bankers Association by its chief paid executive, “Someone has to be lying!”, and 2010 volunteer Chairman, “Did you get a carve out?”, in the current issue of Texas Banking magazine (August 2010).  Both offered rather dramatic observations of the recently passed Dodd/Frank bill and its likely effect on community banks and the industry as a whole.  More specifically, the authors elected to confuse bankers with the notion that the Independent Community Bankers Association of America (ICBA) and (by inference) its state affiliates (including IBAT) were to blame for the bill’s harmful provisions by engaging and negotiating in the political process rather than standing with TBA in total opposition to the bill.

Assertions were made that the final bill was made worse by the industry being divided relative to positions important to community banks, and had the industry only spoken clearly with “one voice” a far better outcome would have likely been achieved.  To both I say, “hogwash.”

Big banks and community banks aren’t a house divided; they are two different houses.  However, when placed under the same roof, they do become the proverbial house divided.

No one would argue the fact that the final bill that passed contained many harmful provisions to banks both large and small.  But to suggest that the best strategy for the entire industry was to disengage and oppose does a disservice to the very bank members they purportedly represent, and hides the true issue of the very real dilemma that any conflicted membership trade association has today…that is, it is impossible to serve two masters.  The truth is that many community bank friendly provisions of the measure could not be supported by these organizations lest they be seen as favoring one contingency of their membership over another.

This industry conflict was not newly discovered with the introduction of the Dodd/Frank financial reform bill.  It was recognized some thirty-six years ago when 254 forward looking, progressive community bankers organized the Independent Bankers Association of Texas.  They realized that, as the industry continued to evolve, the political and regulatory interests of the community banker would not be fairly represented, yielding instead to policy positions of the large national and regional banks.  After all, they concluded, the day would come when some large dues paying financial institution votes would be more equal than others.

And boy, were they spot on.  It has been played out hundreds of times in the halls of the Texas Legislature and United States Congress since that time and it will again.

I for one am proud to work for an organization where black is black and white is white.  We don’t have to second-guess positions on important pieces of legislation.  We do not have to look over our shoulder and wonder if we are picking winners and losers in our own ranks or disengage from the process because of conflicted interests.  We do speak forcefully with a single voice…the community bank voice.

IBAT’s founding fathers did not create this organization to sit idly by and watch the community bank franchise erode over time.  That commitment is shared by the many IBAT volunteer leaders who give selflessly of their time and talents and it is the cornerstone of the principles we embrace today and tomorrow.

I am not one to tear down someone else’s house to make mine look bigger.  I don’t have to.  A house divided cannot sustain itself over time.  It will collapse on its own.

Posted in Barney Frank, community banks, Dodd bill, financial regulatory reform, IBAT, ICBA, Independent Bankers Association of Texas | 10 Comments »

The “Rest of the Story” on the Dodd Bill

Monday, May 17th, 2010

We’ve received a number of calls and emails from bankers regarding the present status of the financial reform bill in the Senate, and the strategies being pursued by various trade associations.  Guest blogger Steve Scurlock, IBAT Executive Vice President, provides his observations in this Missing Linc post.

As strange as this may sound, I’ve always been a fan of Kurt Vonnegut, with his bizarre sense of imagination and very unique writing style.  He refers in one of his books to “peepholes,” and how the same situation or event can be perceived differently based upon the perspective of those watching events unfold.

Consider the following observations on the current state of play with the Dodd bill, (S. 3217) as being through my “peepholes…”

The American public is mad at “banks”, and our industry has very much become a political target.  There has been plenty of bad behavior over the years, primarily among the largest banks, both commercial (or “traditional” or whatever) and investment, to incite this anger.  And this economic crisis is the latest in a long saga.  The only possible silver lining?  Community banks are finally being seen as the “good guys” by the lawmakers, the press and the public.  In this environment, we’re pretty happy not to be perceived as “one industry.”  Can’t really imagine how aligning with the giant banks (most of whom have substantial investment banking operations as well) and their ample baggage benefits community banks in the present environment.

Case in point is the Durbin amendment on interchange.  We, along with every other banking trade group, fought this thing as hard as we could.  We spoke with “one voice” . . . community banks, big banks and yes, even credit unions.  I would submit that the abuses of some in the industry no doubt contributed to the passage of this awful amendment, the latest example being the rush by some of the large issuers to raise interest rates and change terms on credit card agreements prior to effective dates of the CARD Act.  The $10 billion exemption is obviously an unworkable scenario and really no exemption at all, but the promise that these provisions wouldn’t impact small institutions was apparently enough to persuade a number of Senators to jump on and support this horribly misguided “consumer” amendment.  Once again, community banks are caught up in the backwash of a “fix” for a problem we neither created nor in which we participated.

By all indications from a wide array of insiders and experts, financial reform legislation is going to pass in some form.  There are Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress and a Democratic President.  We are in an election year.  The Republicans cannot afford to be painted as the party of Wall Street going into the November elections.

The public and the politicians aren’t mad at Main Street and community banks.  But they’re plenty upset with the antics of Wall Street and the biggest banks in the country.  The Dodd bill went to the Senate floor by unanimous consent (there were no objections) not because of a particular position on the part of any trade association, but because of a political reality that something had to be done, especially in light of the (coincidentally timed?) Goldman charges, the hyper-charged political climate and clamoring by the press and constituents.

We have a choice.  First, we can recognize reality and work to make a bill as good as it can be.  There are some very positive provisions for community banking in the bill, and they didn’t happen by accident.  The change in insurance assessments is a huge win for community banks.  Not for the big banks, who will soon begin to pay their fair share, but for community banks.  Finally addressing too-big-to-fail is a huge win for community banks, who have dealt with an unlevel playing field for way too long in so many areas.  IBAT remains strongly in support of both of these provisions and can do so because we represent our members and only our members.

Or in the alternative, we can just be against moving forward at all.  It’s infinitely easier and sells well to “just say no.”  But in the end, if “no” isn’t a viable option, what exactly has been accomplished?

There is plenty to hate in this bill for everyone.  Please know that the large institutions have substantially more to hate, as is evidenced by recent rhetoric and attacks seeking to lay blame on community banking organizations.

IBAT is on record as being opposed to the passage of the House version, and have made our serious concerns very clear to both our Senators as well.  We have maintained throughout the process, however, that there are some significant changes that need to be made to present law, especially as it relates to community bank competitiveness and fair treatment.  The too-big-to-fail keep getting bigger, the investment banks keep doing what they’ve always done and the community banks get MOUs and C&Ds . . . and more and more regulations and burdens to deal with.

We have great apprehension regarding a number of provisions in both bills, with the CFPA/B at the top of the list.  Unless otherwise directed by the IBAT Board, I don’t see a position other than continued opposition without some very meaningful changes.  We will continue to work with our national association, which has done a remarkable job representing their only constituency, community banks, and others who share our passion to protect community banking interests in this very messy process.

Posted in CARD act, CFPA, CFPB, community banks, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Dodd bill, Durbin amendment, financial regulatory reform, Goldman Sachs, IBAT, ICBA, Independent Bankers Association of Texas, Main Street, S3217, Texas Community Banking, too big to fail, wall street | No Comments »

Looking The Gift Horse In The Mouth

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

The New 30 Billion Community Bank/Small Business Initiative:  If you are like me, you shuddered last Wednesday night when you heard the President announce to joint session of Congress the desire for Congress to authorize and pass a new fund for community banks…some 30 billion dollars of repaid TARP to be made available to community banks under 10 billion in total assets for small business lending.  This week, the President laid out the specifics of the plan. 

My initial skepticism centered on three central issues:

 1.    Would the program look anything like the TARP of old and the onerous strings connected with acceptance and repayment?;

 2.    Do community banks really need more liquidity at a time when small business lending demand is lackluster; and,

 3.    What would be the public perception associated with accepting a government stimulus initiative, even one that is meant to benefit small business?

After a cursory review of the program, I must say it is a good start.  The program has no similarities to the troubled TARP program the American public has grown weary of.  We can all thank the Independent Community Bankers Association of America (ICBA) for the role they played in its final design.

 Unfortunately two central issues remain.  One, credit worthy borrowers are scarce and apprehensive to expand inventories and personnel until such time as economic conditions improve.  And second, community banks have deep reservations about accepting any perceived “government assistance.”  These two reasons alone will likely inhibit the program’s acceptance and success.

I am not one to look a gift horse in the mouth.  We should all be grateful that this Administration has come to realize that community financial institutions can play a significant role in America’s economic recovery and is willing to provide financial assistance.  The small business sector relies on the general well being of the local bank as a principal source for their credit needs and it is the small business that fuels job growth to the tune of three out of every four net new jobs created in this country.  And we learned in that same state of the union speech that jobs are priority one of this administration, at least in the short term.

But if the Administration is intent on really stimulating lending to small business via the community banks, two things must happen.  They must encourage the regulators to exercise some forbearance in commercial real estate concentrations and valuations, and relax policies that require these same institutions to increase core capital beyond what has traditionally been regarded as acceptable capital guidelines. A suitable alternative would also provide the legislative means for banks to grow capital.

The facts are these.  Community bankers are passing on good loans to long established credit worthy borrowers to avoid concentrations (and regulatory criticism or enforcement action) in the commercial real estate sector. And how are most small business loans secured?  Owner occupied commercial real estate.

There are too many legislative and regulatory roadblocks prohibiting community banks from growing core capital. Congress should take immediate steps to allow banks, particularly Subchapter S banks (which now number in the thousands nationwide) to increase capital by permitting these institutions to issue a second (preferred) class of stock.  In addition, C corp. banks and S corp. banks can both benefit by changing the onerous accounting rules which require banks to mark real estate to a temporarily impaired market value, thereby artificially depleting capital.

Finally, Congress should permanently change the deposit insurance assessment rules to an asset based formula which would transfer the burden of recapitalization and long term stability of the fund to the systemically important too big to fail banks commensurate with risk.  More capital could be retained by community financial institutions and be put to use in the small business lending sector.

IBAT has been among the leaders in advocating these changes for some time. We must continue our efforts to make our voices heard.  None of these solutions carry the stigma of another government/taxpayer bailout, and provide real stimulus.

I fear this gift horse will never leave the starting gate.  Let’s saddle up and advocate for positive legislative and regulatory change to ensure that many good small business entities will continue to have access to the credit they need and deserve.

Posted in community banks, IBAT, ICBA, Independent Bankers Association of Texas, TARP | No Comments »

One Voice – A Community Banking Voice

Friday, July 31st, 2009

There are some bankers that believe our industry would be better off politically with a single, unified voice.  One does not have to venture any farther than the halls of Congress to dismiss that belief as a tired old myth.

Who, after all, wants to shackle their hands and ankles to the “too big to fail” banks and their unregulated affiliates and subsidiaries and jump off the 14th Street Bridge into the Potomac?  But that’s precisely what some bankers and their trade associations would have you do; dismissing the efforts of the community banking lobby as nothing more than a “distraction” and chastising us for our divide and conquer mentality to protect our unique interests. They would go as far as making claims that a unified industry with a unified message is the only true way to move a political football.

Tell that to Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.  In a recent Washington Post article describing how community banks are central to the current regulatory reform proposal, Chairman Frank describes the big bank lobby this way:  “The larger financial institutions have the opposite of political clout today.  They’re radioactive. The only way the big banks can win is if they get the community banks to be their troops.”  And the Chairman is not unique in his views.  Texas’ Congressional delegation understands it too.  I know because I hear it in every office we visited in Washington this week and every time we make calls in the wake of this whole economic mess.  “You guys are the good guys in the industry,” they tell us.  “We would like to find a way to make sure we don’t disenfranchise the community banks as we debate this.”

The current Obama regulatory reform proposal is enough to scare the crap out of any of us.  All we need is another regulator to get a broad legislative mandate to regulate products and services in the name of consumer protection, relegating us to “cookie cutter” and “plain vanilla” products and services.  That proposal, courtesy of the unregulated “shadow” banking industry would translate into nothing more than socialized banking designed to eliminate customer convenience and choice while raising costs. That’s not how the greatest economic system in the world has evolved, nor how it will be strengthened in the future.  You can bet if we can carve community banks out from under this Consumer Financial Protection Agency, we damn sure will do it.

So don’t tell us to get in line and leave the lobbying to groups that have divided interests and hope that somehow you will fairly represent the interests of community banks.  We didn’t cause this mess and we are tired of helping the big banks clean it up in the form of higher regular and special FDIC assessments, suffocating new regulations and bad industry public relations.

We will continue speaking with one voice…a community banking voice.

Posted in bank regulators, Barney Frank, community banks, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, FDIC, ICBA, Independent Bankers Association of Texas, special assessment, systemic regulator, Texas Community Banking, too big to fail, wall street | No Comments »

Preserving the Dual Banking System

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

Early this month I had the opportunity to hear Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner speak to the ICBA Washington Policy Summit. He was clear in his intent at that time that this administration was in the final planning stages in releasing their recommendations for reconstituting the bank regulatory system.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article by Paletta writes “the new bank regulatory agency could prove controversial because it would consolidate the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision and strip supervisory powers from the FDIC and the Federal Reserve.” The Federal Reserve would likely be deemed “the systemic regulator” and the FDIC would be relegated to receivership and insurance.

Another set of eyes?

Paletta goes on to report that the Administration has no intent to eliminate the dual banking system and stir controversy among the more than 5,000 state chartered banks. State charters and state regulators would be preserved but a single federal regulatory agency would have jurisdiction rights to examine the state banks and provide what the administration calls “another set of eyes. This approach would also prohibit “financial institutions from “shopping” for the best regulator.

Wait a minute. What would be the point of having a state charter and a state regulator if you also have to open your doors to the new OCC? Our dual banking system has served this country well for decades. One has to ask if this isn’t a back handed approach to create one super regulator for all banks who are systemically unimportant. Charter choice is not about “shopping” for the best regulator. It is about personal choice.

The Administration instead should be focusing on is preserving the existing regulatory structure as we know it and establishing a bifurcated regulatory system by establishing a community bank state or national charter and a commercial state or national charter along permissible banking power activities. Regulatory structure should be commensurate with risk depending on which charter choice you choose. Our current financial crisis was not caused by community financial institutions sticking to basic banking principles. It was caused by large commercial banks that expanded their reach into risky commercial enterprises.

A single federal regulator with jurisdiction over all systemically unimportant national and state banks would destroy, in this bloggers eyes, the dual banking system as we know it. It is not the current system that is broken, just the current one size fits all application of bank regulation.

Let’s all hope the Administration goes back to the drawing board, or in the event they advocate this new plan, Congress will see fit to ensure community banks are not further penalized for the sins of others.

Posted in bank regulators, community banks, comptroller of the currency, FDIC, federal reserve, IBAT, ICBA, Independent Bankers Association of Texas, office of thrift supervision, state bank charter, systemic regulator, systemically important, systemically unimportant, Texas Community Banking, Timothy Geithner, too big to fail, treasury | No Comments »