FEDERAL COURT, July 27 – As the FDIC
along with the OCC takes aim at the Community Reinvestment
Act, the FDIC is encouraging applications for FDIC
insurance from financial bottom feeders, with little
transparency. On July 27 Inner City Press comments to the
FDIC and Utah on the application by Flex Rent:
July 27, 2026
Tried by FDIC website form but was told "
Your file exceeds the maximum allowed size limit of 10MB.
Please resize your file and try uploading again" - for the
comment below. FDIC comment intake not working - comment
period must be extended.
So by email:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
New York Office and Director, Division of Risk
Management Supervision 550 17th Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20429
Re: Timely opposition to the
application of Flexible Finance, Inc. for Federal Deposit
Insurance for Proposed Flex Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah and
Utah DFS (no application noticed yet)
Dear Director(s) and to whom it may
concern at the FDIC:
Fair Finance Watch writes to
comment in opposition to the application of Flexible
Finance, Inc. ("Flex") for federal deposit insurance for
its proposed industrial bank subsidiary, Flex
Bank. Flex is not a new or
untested entity seeking a bank charter without a record of
abuses to point to; it is a consumer-facing fintech with a
documented, substantial complaint record concerning the
exact product — Flex Rent — that the proposed bank would
issue directly.
Public complaint sources show Flex
has been the subject of hundreds of consumer complaints
alleging: failure to remit rent payments to landlords on
time despite having withdrawn funds from the consumer's
account, in some cases resulting in landlord-assessed late
fees or loss of housing; deceptive solicitation practices,
including marketing to tenants on the false premise that
their landlord or property manager had an existing
relationship with Flex, which landlords have since
publicly denied; unreturned or delayed refunds of consumer
funds; and a pattern of inaccessible customer service that
leaves consumers unable to resolve billing disputes. Flex
currently carries a 1.6 out of 5 rating across 127 reviews
on PissedConsumer.com, with only 16% of reviewers
indicating they would recommend the service.
These are not isolated service
complaints. They go to the core of whether Flex has the
managerial capacity and consumer-protection track record
appropriate for a federally insured depository
institution, particularly one proposing to issue its
high-fee credit product — a split fee of up to 3% per
draw, plus a recurring monthly membership fee reported at
figures ranging from $5.99 to $14.99, plus an additional
processing fee — directly against consumers' single
largest recurring expense:
rent. Under 12 C.F.R. Part
354, industrial bank deposit insurance applicants are
subject to specific commitments regarding safety,
soundness, and consumer compliance, and FFW is aware of no
basis on which an applicant proposing to take insured
deposits nationwide, marketed specifically toward
financially stretched renters, should be exempt from a
meaningful CRA framework. If Flex's application does not
include a CRA plan, or if the FDIC does not intend to
require one as a condition of approval, FFW requests a
public hearing on that question alone, given its direct
bearing on whether this proposed bank will serve, rather
than extract fees from, the communities most likely to use
its product.
FFW hereby requests a copy of
Flex's application to the FDIC, including in particular
any section addressing the institution's plans for
compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. Before
submission of these comments we requested the application
via the restored button on the FDIC website, and received
back "to lee Thank you for your request to receive
the public, non-confidential portion of the selected
deposit insurance application. The FDIC appreciates
your interest and will forward the requested application
to the email address indicated."
We again note in the FDIC's
proposal RIN 3064-AG10: "the FDIC has received a limited
number of public comments in response to subpart C
applications.... Therefore, the FDIC is proposing to
eliminate the public notice and related public comment
period from subpart C and to make conforming changes to
subpart A of 12 CFR part 303 of the FDIC
Rules." See, e.g., Sept 10, 2025: https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/the-fdic-is-undercutting-a-key-element-of-the-cra
The Community Reinvestment Act specifies
that "the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency
shall (1) assess the institution's record of meeting the
credit needs of its entire community, including low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe
and sound operation of such institution; and (2) take such
record into account in its evaluation of an application
for a deposit facility by such
institution."
That is, the only enforcement mechanism of CRA is its
consideration on applications for deposit facilities:
branches, and proposed mergers like this
one. But now the
Federal regulator(s) blithely have eliminated public
notice and public comment on banks' proposals to
expand. The above-quoted reasoning is that few
comments are filed. So, that is now
changing. We note now in July 2026
reports at the FDIC and OCC intend to go further back on
CRA then the previous reg, and de facto exempt many many
banks based on size - we oppose that in
advance. The comment period
should be extended; evidentiary hearings should be held;
and on the current record, the application should not be
approved.
Please immediately send all requested
information -- including a complete copy of the
application, during the comment period -- and responses by
e-mail
Please also confirm receipt of this formal
submission. If you have any questions, please immediately
telephone the undersigned, at (718)
716-3540.
Very Truly Yours, Matthew R. Lee
Executive Director Fair Finance Watch (and Inner
City Press)
cc: Utah DFI(Flex application still not on
website, not updated since July 14, 2026, as of February
27, 2026)
Watch this site
