Showing posts with label bank mergers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bank mergers. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

As Federal Reserve Approves CIT-OneWest, Transparency Lacking, Dominguez on Way


By Matthew R. Lee
NEW YORK, July 21 -- When the US Federal Reserve approved the merger of CIT and One West on July 21, it was a year minus a day after the deal was announced to the public. But as Inner City Press discovered using the Freedom of Information Act, the Fed met with CIT about the deal before it was announced, and withheld information throughout the review, through approval. See FOIA response, here; see NCRC member CRC's BadBankMerger.com, here.
  While as reported below the Fed is now at least asking some questions about the largest bank merger recently proposed, that of Royal Bank of Canada and affluent-focused Los Angeles-based City National Bank (whichsince April has been the subject of a Community Reinvestment Act challenge by Fair Finance Watch) there are more and more questions about the Fed's transparency.
  So which way will the Fed go: more or less transparent? More or still less attuned to the consumer lending issues which triggered the meltdown? On July 20 the Obama administration announced its nomination for a seat on the Fed of
Kathryn M. Dominguez, a Professor at the University of Michigan with previous stints at the IMF and the Fed. 
  U Mich puts online several of Dominguez' publications,here, ranging from Argentina to Japan, but very little about consumer lending, much less the Community Reinvestment Act or fair lending. We'll have more on this.
 The LA Times has reported on the "letter from the Fed [which] asks the banks to respond to questions raised in written comments by [FFW]. Spokesmen for the banks declined to comment.... Fair Finance Watch, a New York advocacy group for minorities, questioned a deal between the banks in a June 11 comment letter to the Fed."
  Inner City Press first put that Fed letter online, here; then Canada's National / Financial Post reported without credit it had "obtained" it. 
  By contrast, in another pending proposal, CBSI - Oneida, the Syracuse Post-Standard disclosed that "Inner City Press forwarded the letter to news outlets. Some of the Fed's questions focus on whether Community could improperly control matters at Oneida in advance of the acquisition. Community is working on Fed's questions, said Hal Wentworth, Community's senior vice president for retail banking."
  One common theme is that non-control (and therefore antitrust) laws are being violated. One difference is that CBSI does comment to the media -- if only to blame the messenger -- while larger RBC and CNB do not. Arrogance?
 On CBSI's blaming the messenger, FFW has commented to the Fed that it will "will comment again when CBSI has provided a copy of its response to the FRS' questions of July 13. Beyond the CRA and impermissible “control” questions raised therein, we wish at this time to raise the issues that, in a public response to ICP's comments, CBSI's SVP for retail banking said the following, in a prepared statement no less:
'In a statement today, Hal Wentworth, Community's senior vice president for retail banking, said that Inner City Press is not a local group and pointed out that letter was the only one filed on the Oneida deal. "This activist does not do business with either Oneida or Community Bank."'
If it would be inappropriate for CBSI to comment on or disclose information about its customers, in this context the same applies to the above-quoted, which, separately, is reminiscent of human rights abusing countries emphasizing where the rights groups who study and report on them are based."
  On June 6, FFW submitted into the record before the Fed:
"RBC, City National off to friendly start ahead of $5.4B takeover Globe and Mail, May 26, 2015, quoted from below.
  Now the Federal Reserve has asked RBC:
"A commenter alleged that in May 2015 RBC and CNB collaborated to extend credit to a customer of CNB.  Please address this claim. In your response, discuss in detail in detail whether RBC exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of CNC or CNB without prior approval of the Board. In addition, discuss whether, since entering into the proposed transaction, RBC and CNB have collaborated, or plan to collaborate, on extending credit to any other borrower, and describe the nature and circumstances of those collaborations."
  There are other problems, including RBC's non-compete agreement with PNC Financial Services. But this gun-jumping should be fatal to the proposed merger. FFW put this into the record before the Fed:
“Royal Bank of Canada won’t complete its $5.4-billion (U.S.) purchase of Los Angeles-based City National Bank for months, but the two banks are already getting a jump on doing business together.

City National chief executive officer Russell Goldsmith got a call earlier this month from a long-time customer who wanted speedy approval of a loan worth hundreds of millions of dollars to do an acquisition.

“But he was familiar with RBC, knew about the merger and asked whether RBC could help get this done.”“The client knew it was an amount of money beyond what we would normally lend,” the 65-year-old Harvard-educated lawyer said in an interview.

Working closely with Blair Fleming, head of RBC’s U.S. capital markets unit, the two banks signed off on the loan within 72 hours.

'It’s typical of what we do,” explained Mr. Goldsmith, whose grandfather co-founded City National in 1954 and whose father, Bram, is chairman emeritus. “We have a relationship [with the client]. …We already had the financial information. So we could do what we needed to do. On top of it, having RBC Capital Markets come into it meant we could do it with greater scale.'”
  FFW has told the Fed: This is entirely inappropriate and the FRB must act, publicly.  The Federal Reserve sent the letter.


 Please note that RBC's belated release of some documents it improperly sought confidential treatment for does not resolve ICP's FOIA request - we are awaiting an FRB ruling in order to, if need be, appeal. The comment period, including for the reasons set forth above, must be extended and on the current record, the application must be denied and enforcement action(s) taken.
   The Federal Reserve Board granted FFW an extension of the comment period on the proposed merger, through June 11, FRB letter here, due to RBC improperly withholding information which was subsequently released after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Inner City Press.
   FFW comment on June 11 - but submitted to the Fed an objection dated June 6 noting the two banks admitted they are already working together on transactions, without any authorization.
  This all comes after the M&T - Hudson City merger stalled after similar filings by FFW, NCRC and others. On Royal Bank of Canada / City National, FFW's filing to the Federal Reserve says
City National Bank is known as a bank directed at the (most) affluent. RBC is that as well:
In the New York City MSA in 2013, for conventional home purchase loans, RBC made no loans to African Americans or Latinos. It made one loan to a white applicant (for $1.8 million) and six to “race not available” applicants, for a total of over $36 million.
RBC Bank (Georgia), in the Atlanta MSA in 2013 for conventional home purchase loans made one such loan to an African American, six to whites, and none to Hispanics. In the Raleigh NC MSA in 2013, RBC Bank (Georgia) made two loans to whites, none to African Americans or Latinos.
City National Bank, in the NYC MSA in 2013 for home purchase loans, made no loans to African American or Latino borrowers. It made 10 loans to whites - none denied -- and 35 to “race not available.” By income, there were 36 loans to upper income borrowers, and only one to the other income tranches.
City National Bank, in the Los Angeles MSA in 2013 for home purchase loans, made two loans each to African Americans and Latinos. It made fully 45 loans to whites.
City National Bank, in the Nashville MSA in 2013 for home purchase loans, made no loans to African American or Latino borrowers. It made one loan to a white borrower - none denied -- and six to “race not available.” FFW contests City National Bank's compliance with HMDA.
How is this consistent with the CRA? For the record, RBC previously bumbled in the USA with Centura and Alabama BanCorporation. Now it returns, only for the affluent. Hearings are necessary.
 Under the Freedom of Information Act, Inner City Press / FFW  submitted a
"a formal request under FOIA for the exhibits that Royal Bank of Canada has claimed are confidential and that the Federal Reserve has withheld from Inner City Press on its April 8 response to Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch's April 4 request, including but not limited to the 'RBC Bank (Georgia), N.A. CRA Plan,' the list of subsidiaries, information pertaining to the U.S. structure of Royal Bank."
The withholding of this CRA plan - hearkening to the Federal Reserve rejected CIT's request to withhold such a plan, and extension of the comment period and holding of public hearing(s) - is outrageous; it must be released sufficiently before any closing of the comment period such that ICP can comment on it. We are therefore requesting all of the withheld exhibits (listed below)

AND all Federal Reserve communication with or about Royal Bank of Canada or City National since July 1, 2014.

Beyond the request for communications, including emails and text messages, these exhibits:

City National Corporation Subsidiaries; Information Pertaining to the U.S. Structure of Royal Bank; Integration Framework; Due Diligence Summary; Royal Bank of Canada Organizational Chart; RBC USA Holdco Corporation Organizational Charts; City National Corporation Organizational Chart; Pro Forma Financial and Related Information; Asset Quality Information; Risk Management Information; Royal Bank of Canada BSA/AML Compliance Program; Information pertaining to BSA/AML Integration; Interconnectedness Analysis;RBC Bank (Georgia), N.A. CRA Plan; Source of Funds; City National Corporation Dividend Information; Principal Information Information Pertaining to Item 3(2) and Item 12 of Form FR Y-3F

None of this information has been provided, even the CRA plan. The comment period must be extended and on the current record, the application must be denied.

  Inner City Press previously reported that filing by FFW with the Federal Reserve against M&T's application, that Hudson City in the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2011 made only five home purchase loans to African Americans, compared to hundreds to whites while denying the applications of African Americans 3.21 times more frequently than whites.
  That 2011 data was quoted by Bloomberg News earlier this month reporting that now the Department of Justice and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are investigating Hudson City, putting the M&T deal, also challenged by NCRC and others, in doubt. Click here for thathere for the NJ Bergen Record, also citing Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch.
 But there's more, and its worse. FFW has filed this comparison to 2013 with the Federal Reserve:
"Hudson City's record was even worse in 2013 than in the 2011 data cited above. In the NYC MSA for conventional home purchase loans, while Hudson City made (only) five such loans to African Americans in 2011, this fell to only FOUR such loans to African Americans in 2013, compared in 2013 to 427 such loans to whites: a more than one hundred to one ratio, totally out of step with the demographics and other lenders' records.
"For refinance loans in the NYC MSA, while Hudson City in 2011 made 8 such loans to African Americans in 2011, this fell to only SEVEN such loans to African Americans in 2013, compared in 2013 to 801 such loans to whites: again a more than one hundred to one ratio, totally out of step with the demographics and other lenders' records.

"This is presumptive discrimination and the reported DOJ and CFPB investigations are entirely appropriate and should be deferred to by the FRB. What does this say, as well, about M&T's due diligence and managerial resources?"
  Why has the Federal Reserve not dismissed M&T's application?
  The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, part of the US Treasury, is scarcely better, releasing to Inner City Press on March 9 a redacted copy of Sterling's CRA presentation, here.
 Now on April 17 the Federal Reserve has asked Sterling questions about inconsistencies in its previous responses, and about Green Campus Partners. We'll have more on this.
  See here on the CIT Group and another belated Freedom of Information Act response to Inner City Press from the Federal Reserve on February 20. Uploaded exclusively here, embedded below.
   Back on August 26, 2014, Inner City Press submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Reserve Board for CIT's application to acquire OneWest and for the Federal Reserve's communications with or about the companies since January 1, 2014.
  After Inner City Press and Fair Finance Watch repeatedly complained about the withholding even of CIT's Community Reinvestment Act plan, and after the Fed and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had agreed to ICP's and others' request for a public hearing, now scheduled for February 26, only on February 20 -- seven months after the request -- did the Fed provide the responsive documents, over one thousands pages.
  Many of the released pages are redacted in full, others have redacts to for example sentences referring to documents about CIT's [REDACTED]. Inner City Press has submitted a Freedom of Information Act appeal and request that the comment period be extended.
  But even as released, and exclusively uploaded today here, the document show the degree of insider treatment CIT, its CEO John Thain and its lawyers including Rodgin Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell are given by the Federal Reserve.
   While the proposed merger was only announced to the public on July 22, 2014, it appears in Federal Reserve correspondence as far back at April 24, 2014.
  On that day, Michael Lipman of the Federal Reserve Board's Banking Supervision and Regulation (BS&R) department wrote to three others that “Based on details from the most recent CIT April BOD meeting, there is a likelihood CIT may approach FRB in the near term to discuss an acquisition of OneWest NA (Private, ~$23B in assets ). Couple points [REDACTION]. I will keep you updated as discussions develop. [REDACTION].” Page 1 of ICP upload; appealed.
   Then in June, Rodgin Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell and CIT's John Thain arranged to meet with the Federal Reserve, to some it appears to receive a form of pre-approval of the proposal. 
   On June 24 senior Fed staff were asked to hold time to meet with Rodgin Cohen. On June 25, Lipman wrote again: 
“CIT is meeting with FRBNY (John Ricketti and others) next Monday at 11am to discuss a potentially large acquisition. CIT has yet to send a discussion deck but will have more details later this week (OneWest continues to be the assumed target: $22B out of CA). John Thain’s secretary has bee guided to me to help set up a meeting in DC and I am expecting to hear from her by Friday. That said, it is also possible that they may reach out to one of you; CPC Cheatham is under the impression they have a different contact in DC as well (he is not sure who).” Page 6 of ICP upload.
  Later that day it was said that “the meeting with be in Scott's office so space will be limited.” Scott is Scott Alvarez, the Fed's longtime general counsel.
  On June 30, the Fed's Richard Naylor wrote to Lipman, “ I wouldn’t worry about any briefing material for Scott. Most likely Rodgin will do all the talking...”
   Scott Alvarez's self-described Gate-keeper told Lipman who would come: “The Chairman and CEO of CIT and 6 other guests; 3 from One West; 1 from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and 2 from Sullivan and Cromwell. Total of 13 outsiders.” Page 163 of ICP upload.
    These “outsiders” sound like insiders.


  The next day the attendees were described:
Readout of Meeting on Proposed Merger between CIT and OneWest Tue 7/1/2014 12p-1p, B-4001
Outside Attenders: ~13
Executives from CIT (~7-8) included CEO John Thain, formerly CEO of Merrill Lynch
Executives from OneWest (~3) included CEO
Lawyers (~2-3) included Rodgin Cohen (Sullivan Cromwell) and a Wachtell Lipton lawyer
Board Attenders: ~10-12
  So the “outsiders” from Wall Street had more attendees that the Fed, even insider the Fed.
    The Fed's Alison Thro put it in context: “Rodgin is coming in to preview the proposed acquisition because it will be the first transaction to create a more than $50 billion institution since Dodd-Frank was enacted.”
  Also on June 30, the Fed's Elizabeth Kiser wrote to Fed economist Jacob Gramlich, “I dug a bit and found some materials on CIT’s [REDACTED].” There follow more than 100 pages of redacted material. Page 25 to 149 of ICP upload; appealed.
   By July 9, still before any public announcement by CIT, the project had been code-named Carbon / Oxygen and the Fed was reviewing (and now apparently redacting) the OneWest / Indymac / FDIC Loan Loss Agreements. These will be discussed at the February 26 public hearing, and beyond.
  Once they applied for approval and groups like Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch, NCRC, CRC and others submitted comments in opposition, the Fed was required to follow its rules against ex parte communications.
  But the extensive communications that took place before then were withheld for seven months, and some are still being withheld. Watch this site.

 
  

Friday, July 3, 2015

RBC - City National Gun Jumping Questioned by Federal Reserve, After Fair Finance Watch Raised It, Inner City Press Puts Fed Letter Online Here


By Matthew R. Lee
NEW YORK, July 3 -- The largest bank merger recently proposed, that of Royal Bank of Canada and affluent-focused City National Bank, has since April been the subject of a Community Reinvestment Act challenge by Fair Finance Watch.
  Now Royal Bank of Canada has been asked more questions by the Federal Reserve. Inner City Press hasuploaded the letter, here.
  On June 6, FFW submitted into the record before the Fed:
"RBC, City National off to friendly start ahead of $5.4B takeover Globe and Mail, May 26, 2015, quoted from below.
  Now the Federal Reserve has asked RBC:
"A commenter alleged that in May 2015 RBC and CNB collaborated to extend credit to a customer of CNB.  Please address this claim. In your response, discuss in detail in detail whether RBC exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of CNC or CNB without prior approval of the Board. In addition, discuss whether, since entering into the proposed transaction, RBC and CNB have collaborated, or plan to collaborate, on extending credit to any other borrower, and describe the nature and circumstances of those collaborations."
  There are other problems, including RBC's non-compete agreement with PNC Financial Services. But this gun-jumping should be fatal to the proposed merger. FFW put this into the record before the Fed:
“Royal Bank of Canada won’t complete its $5.4-billion (U.S.) purchase of Los Angeles-based City National Bank for months, but the two banks are already getting a jump on doing business together.

City National chief executive officer Russell Goldsmith got a call earlier this month from a long-time customer who wanted speedy approval of a loan worth hundreds of millions of dollars to do an acquisition.

“But he was familiar with RBC, knew about the merger and asked whether RBC could help get this done.”“The client knew it was an amount of money beyond what we would normally lend,” the 65-year-old Harvard-educated lawyer said in an interview.

Working closely with Blair Fleming, head of RBC’s U.S. capital markets unit, the two banks signed off on the loan within 72 hours.

'It’s typical of what we do,” explained Mr. Goldsmith, whose grandfather co-founded City National in 1954 and whose father, Bram, is chairman emeritus. “We have a relationship [with the client]. …We already had the financial information. So we could do what we needed to do. On top of it, having RBC Capital Markets come into it meant we could do it with greater scale.'”
  FFW has told the Fed: This is entirely inappropriate and the FRB must act, publicly.  The Federal Reserve sent the letter.


 Please note that RBC's belated release of some documents it improperly sought confidential treatment for does not resolve ICP's FOIA request - we are awaiting an FRB ruling in order to, if need be, appeal. The comment period, including for the reasons set forth above, must be extended and on the current record, the application must be denied and enforcement action(s) taken.
   The Federal Reserve Board granted FFW an extension of the comment period on the proposed merger, through June 11, FRB letter here, due to RBC improperly withholding information which was subsequently released after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Inner City Press.
   FFW comment on June 11 - but submitted to the Fed an objection dated June 6 noting the two banks admitted they are already working together on transactions, without any authorization.
  This all comes after the M&T - Hudson City merger stalled after similar filings by FFW, NCRC and others. On Royal Bank of Canada / City National, FFW's filing to the Federal Reserve says
City National Bank is known as a bank directed at the (most) affluent. RBC is that as well:
In the New York City MSA in 2013, for conventional home purchase loans, RBC made no loans to African Americans or Latinos. It made one loan to a white applicant (for $1.8 million) and six to “race not available” applicants, for a total of over $36 million.
RBC Bank (Georgia), in the Atlanta MSA in 2013 for conventional home purchase loans made one such loan to an African American, six to whites, and none to Hispanics. In the Raleigh NC MSA in 2013, RBC Bank (Georgia) made two loans to whites, none to African Americans or Latinos.
City National Bank, in the NYC MSA in 2013 for home purchase loans, made no loans to African American or Latino borrowers. It made 10 loans to whites - none denied -- and 35 to “race not available.” By income, there were 36 loans to upper income borrowers, and only one to the other income tranches.
City National Bank, in the Los Angeles MSA in 2013 for home purchase loans, made two loans each to African Americans and Latinos. It made fully 45 loans to whites.
City National Bank, in the Nashville MSA in 2013 for home purchase loans, made no loans to African American or Latino borrowers. It made one loan to a white borrower - none denied -- and six to “race not available.” FFW contests City National Bank's compliance with HMDA.
How is this consistent with the CRA? For the record, RBC previously bumbled in the USA with Centura and Alabama BanCorporation. Now it returns, only for the affluent. Hearings are necessary.
 Under the Freedom of Information Act, Inner City Press / FFW  submitted a
"a formal request under FOIA for the exhibits that Royal Bank of Canada has claimed are confidential and that the Federal Reserve has withheld from Inner City Press on its April 8 response to Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch's April 4 request, including but not limited to the 'RBC Bank (Georgia), N.A. CRA Plan,' the list of subsidiaries, information pertaining to the U.S. structure of Royal Bank."
The withholding of this CRA plan - hearkening to the Federal Reserve rejected CIT's request to withhold such a plan, and extension of the comment period and holding of public hearing(s) - is outrageous; it must be released sufficiently before any closing of the comment period such that ICP can comment on it. We are therefore requesting all of the withheld exhibits (listed below)

AND all Federal Reserve communication with or about Royal Bank of Canada or City National since July 1, 2014.

Beyond the request for communications, including emails and text messages, these exhibits:

City National Corporation Subsidiaries; Information Pertaining to the U.S. Structure of Royal Bank; Integration Framework; Due Diligence Summary; Royal Bank of Canada Organizational Chart; RBC USA Holdco Corporation Organizational Charts; City National Corporation Organizational Chart; Pro Forma Financial and Related Information; Asset Quality Information; Risk Management Information; Royal Bank of Canada BSA/AML Compliance Program; Information pertaining to BSA/AML Integration; Interconnectedness Analysis;RBC Bank (Georgia), N.A. CRA Plan; Source of Funds; City National Corporation Dividend Information; Principal Information Information Pertaining to Item 3(2) and Item 12 of Form FR Y-3F

None of this information has been provided, even the CRA plan. The comment period must be extended and on the current record, the application must be denied.

  Inner City Press previously reported that filing by FFW with the Federal Reserve against M&T's application, that Hudson City in the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2011 made only five home purchase loans to African Americans, compared to hundreds to whites while denying the applications of African Americans 3.21 times more frequently than whites.
  That 2011 data was quoted by Bloomberg News earlier this month reporting that now the Department of Justice and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are investigating Hudson City, putting the M&T deal, also challenged by NCRC and others, in doubt. Click here for thathere for the NJ Bergen Record, also citing Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch.
 But there's more, and its worse. FFW has filed this comparison to 2013 with the Federal Reserve:
"Hudson City's record was even worse in 2013 than in the 2011 data cited above. In the NYC MSA for conventional home purchase loans, while Hudson City made (only) five such loans to African Americans in 2011, this fell to only FOUR such loans to African Americans in 2013, compared in 2013 to 427 such loans to whites: a more than one hundred to one ratio, totally out of step with the demographics and other lenders' records.
"For refinance loans in the NYC MSA, while Hudson City in 2011 made 8 such loans to African Americans in 2011, this fell to only SEVEN such loans to African Americans in 2013, compared in 2013 to 801 such loans to whites: again a more than one hundred to one ratio, totally out of step with the demographics and other lenders' records.

"This is presumptive discrimination and the reported DOJ and CFPB investigations are entirely appropriate and should be deferred to by the FRB. What does this say, as well, about M&T's due diligence and managerial resources?"
  Why has the Federal Reserve not dismissed M&T's application?
  The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, part of the US Treasury, is scarcely better, releasing to Inner City Press on March 9 a redacted copy of Sterling's CRA presentation, here.
 Now on April 17 the Federal Reserve has asked Sterling questions about inconsistencies in its previous responses, and about Green Campus Partners. We'll have more on this.
  See here on the CIT Group and another belated Freedom of Information Act response to Inner City Press from the Federal Reserve on February 20. Uploaded exclusively here, embedded below.
   Back on August 26, 2014, Inner City Press submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Reserve Board for CIT's application to acquire OneWest and for the Federal Reserve's communications with or about the companies since January 1, 2014.
  After Inner City Press and Fair Finance Watch repeatedly complained about the withholding even of CIT's Community Reinvestment Act plan, and after the Fed and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had agreed to ICP's and others' request for a public hearing, now scheduled for February 26, only on February 20 -- seven months after the request -- did the Fed provide the responsive documents, over one thousands pages.
  Many of the released pages are redacted in full, others have redacts to for example sentences referring to documents about CIT's [REDACTED]. Inner City Press has submitted a Freedom of Information Act appeal and request that the comment period be extended.
  But even as released, and exclusively uploaded today here, the document show the degree of insider treatment CIT, its CEO John Thain and its lawyers including Rodgin Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell are given by the Federal Reserve.
   While the proposed merger was only announced to the public on July 22, 2014, it appears in Federal Reserve correspondence as far back at April 24, 2014.
  On that day, Michael Lipman of the Federal Reserve Board's Banking Supervision and Regulation (BS&R) department wrote to three others that “Based on details from the most recent CIT April BOD meeting, there is a likelihood CIT may approach FRB in the near term to discuss an acquisition of OneWest NA (Private, ~$23B in assets ). Couple points [REDACTION]. I will keep you updated as discussions develop. [REDACTION].” Page 1 of ICP upload; appealed.
   Then in June, Rodgin Cohen of Sullivan & Cromwell and CIT's John Thain arranged to meet with the Federal Reserve, to some it appears to receive a form of pre-approval of the proposal. 
   On June 24 senior Fed staff were asked to hold time to meet with Rodgin Cohen. On June 25, Lipman wrote again: 
“CIT is meeting with FRBNY (John Ricketti and others) next Monday at 11am to discuss a potentially large acquisition. CIT has yet to send a discussion deck but will have more details later this week (OneWest continues to be the assumed target: $22B out of CA). John Thain’s secretary has bee guided to me to help set up a meeting in DC and I am expecting to hear from her by Friday. That said, it is also possible that they may reach out to one of you; CPC Cheatham is under the impression they have a different contact in DC as well (he is not sure who).” Page 6 of ICP upload.
  Later that day it was said that “the meeting with be in Scott's office so space will be limited.” Scott is Scott Alvarez, the Fed's longtime general counsel.
  On June 30, the Fed's Richard Naylor wrote to Lipman, “ I wouldn’t worry about any briefing material for Scott. Most likely Rodgin will do all the talking...”
   Scott Alvarez's self-described Gate-keeper told Lipman who would come: “The Chairman and CEO of CIT and 6 other guests; 3 from One West; 1 from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and 2 from Sullivan and Cromwell. Total of 13 outsiders.” Page 163 of ICP upload.
    These “outsiders” sound like insiders.


  The next day the attendees were described:
Readout of Meeting on Proposed Merger between CIT and OneWest Tue 7/1/2014 12p-1p, B-4001
Outside Attenders: ~13
Executives from CIT (~7-8) included CEO John Thain, formerly CEO of Merrill Lynch
Executives from OneWest (~3) included CEO
Lawyers (~2-3) included Rodgin Cohen (Sullivan Cromwell) and a Wachtell Lipton lawyer
Board Attenders: ~10-12
  So the “outsiders” from Wall Street had more attendees that the Fed, even insider the Fed.
    The Fed's Alison Thro put it in context: “Rodgin is coming in to preview the proposed acquisition because it will be the first transaction to create a more than $50 billion institution since Dodd-Frank was enacted.”
  Also on June 30, the Fed's Elizabeth Kiser wrote to Fed economist Jacob Gramlich, “I dug a bit and found some materials on CIT’s [REDACTED].” There follow more than 100 pages of redacted material. Page 25 to 149 of ICP upload; appealed.
   By July 9, still before any public announcement by CIT, the project had been code-named Carbon / Oxygen and the Fed was reviewing (and now apparently redacting) the OneWest / Indymac / FDIC Loan Loss Agreements. These will be discussed at the February 26 public hearing, and beyond.
  Once they applied for approval and groups like Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch, NCRC, CRC and others submitted comments in opposition, the Fed was required to follow its rules against ex parte communications.
  But the extensive communications that took place before then were withheld for seven months, and some are still being withheld. Watch this site.

 
  

Friday, February 6, 2015

With CIT OneWest Proposed Merger Under Fire, Now Public Hearing Feb 26 by Federal Reserve & OCC


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, February 6 -- The US government's ongoing corporate bailout following the 2008 meltdown triggered by predatory lending continues to reverberate in one of the largest proposed mergers of 2014 now into 2015.

  Now on February 6, a public hearing has been announced:
"The Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) on Friday announced a joint public meeting on the proposal for CIT Group, Inc., Livingston, New Jersey, to acquire IMB Holdco and its subsidiary, OneWest Bank, National
Association, both of Pasadena, California. The proposal also includes the merger of CIT Bank into OneWest Bank.

"The purpose of the meeting is to collect information relating to the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, including a review of the insured depository institutions’ performance under the Community Reinvestment Act. The agencies also will consider and collect information on other factors in making a decision on the application, including the effects of the proposal on the stability of the U.S. banking or
financial system, the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the companies and banks involved in the proposal, and competition in the relevant markets.

The public meeting will be held at the Los Angeles Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 950 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California, on Thursday, February 26, 2015, beginning at 8:00 a.m. PST."
  On December 22, pressing for approval of its application to acquire OneWest, CIT told the Federal Reserve, "CITB and OWB are not yet able to provide specific details about the expanded Community Reinvestment Act portfolio because this will be based, in part, on input from CITBNA’s to-be-formed Community Development Advisory Board following the closing of the Transaction."
  As Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch said at the time, that's basically saying, approve our merger (on which the Fed is required to consider CRA), and THEN we'll tell you about CRA.
 Now on February 5, CIT Group has submitted a "revised" CRA Plan to the Federal Reserve. Inner City Press has put the document online, here.
 Meanwhile, on the long-pending application by M&T to acquire Hudson, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch on February 5 submitted into the record before the Fed the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York charging M&T with discrimination in lending, adding "It is unreasonable and inappropriate for the Federal Reserve System to ignore or refuse to receive into the record all information since the comment period close so long ago." We'll see.
 The CIT - OneWest context: here is an email that OneWest CEO Joseph Otting sent to Wall Street and other financiers, to lobby the Fed, h/t CRC:
From: Otting, Joseph M [at] owb.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 5:00 PM
Cc: Haas, Alesia Jeanne; Tran, Cindy; Kim, Glenn
Subject: Support For OneWest Bank

Dear Friends,

We were excited to announce on July 21, 2014, that IMB HoldCo LLC, the parent company of OneWest Bank entered into a merger agreement with CIT Group Inc. As part of the applications for regulatory approval of the transaction, our regulators are interested in the perspectives of the public. We are writing you to seek your support of the Bank and pending merger. This merger, if approved, would create the largest bank headquartered in Southern California with a full suite of banking products and services, which will allow us to better serve our customers. We would retain and grow jobs and are committed to continuing and expanding our efforts to serve the economic and development needs of our community. I would like to ask you to take a moment to click on the link below and submit a letter of support adding any of your own words or thoughts.

Please submit your letter by clicking here, or by visiting our website at www.OneWestBank.com/merger-support (if the link isn't clickable or part of the link is cut off, please copy and paste the entire URL into your browser's address bar and press Enter)

Thank you for your support.  Best wishes for a successful 2015 and please call on me if I can ever be of assistance.

Joseph M. Otting
President and CEO
OneWest Bank N.A.
888 East Walnut Street
Pasadena, CA 91101
  Now Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch, along it's sure with the California Reinvestment Coalition, has submitted this to the Fed demanding that public hearing in fact be held, after what an independent bank consultanttold Bloomberg News is "unusual" outreach to Wall Street contacts by OneWest.  What will the Fed do?
  The Fed had asked CIT to "provide the final version of the document 'CIT Bank N.A. Community Reinvestment Act Plan,' the draft of which was included as Annex C to the letter responding to the public comments submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York."
  One question is, will the Federal Reserve Board in this case and in others coming up, and fast, require the actual submission for CRA plans and allow for public comment on them?
 On December 18 CIT gave the Fed statements from the FDIC, in essence not to worry about the Loss Share Agreements OneWest has won from the FDIC:
"OWB acquired assets from three failed banks — IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB ('IMFB'), First Federal Bank of California, and La Jolla Bank, FSB (the 'Failed Banks'). The FDIC entered into Shared-Loss Agreements with OWB in these acquisitions with respect to certain of the acquired assets."
  Now the regulators say, don't worry as CIT seeks to take these loss-shares over, although their value will not for now be disclosed:
The FDIC's Division of Resolutions and Receiverships does not release shared-loss payment information on individual acquirers or assets because those records often contain material, non-public information, and their release could harm the negotiating posture of the acquirer with respect to a particular borrower or asset, thereby potentially increasing the amount of a covered loss to the FDIC.”
  This is called stonewalling, or a cover-up. We'll have more on this.
* * *
  Back on November 17, four days before a rare Senate hearing on the regulatory capture of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York posed a series of questions to CIT Group, trying to buy OneWest. 
  CIT provided Inner City Press with a copy of its answer to the Fed's November 17 questions (answers to the Fed's November 25 questions have not yet been provided.)
  CIT says "OneWest has discussed the Transaction with staff of each of FannieMae and FreddieMac (the 'GSEs') and will be filing an application in connection with the change of control of OWB in order for OWB to continue as a seller/servicer for the respective GSE. OneWest is now in the process of preparing the appropriate applications, which it expects to submit as soon as possible, and no later than year-end."
  But will OneWest provide notice of these applications to the GSEs to the groups which have timely protested its applications to the Fed and OCC? The OCC heard much about OneWest, and CIT, at a December 2 EGRPRA hearing in Los Angeles. Why not just hold public hearings on this proposed mega-merger? And on another one, announced but not yet applied for?
 On November 21, Federal Reserve Bank of New York President Dudley described anti revolving door safeguards and a desire for "good culture" at banks.
  Good culture? How then did the predatory lending meltdown take place? And anti-revolving door? How can it be, then, that a former Federal Reserve Legal Division supervisor is writing for BB&T's deals to those who used to work under her?
  As soon as Dudley left the stand, a more serious anti revolving door protection was proposed.
  Dudley was asked about Goldman Sachs' warehouses, and JPM Chase's abuse of the energy markets, but didn't directly answer.  Since then he has toured The Bronx - we'll see what if any difference it makes.
  The Fed on November 17 asked for answers to four questions it sent to the CIT Group, with a copy to Inner City Press.
  Inner City Press and others have challenged CIT's application to acquire OneWest; as previously set forth below, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has been challenging BB&T, showing the disparities in BB&T's lending record.
  On BB&T's application to acquire 41 branches in Texas from Citibank, Fair Finance Watch showed the FDIC for example that for conventional home purchase loans in the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2013, BB&T made 65 such loans to whites, and NONE to African Americans.

  The FDIC's Acting Deputy Regional Director for Compliance replied that "the FDIC deems your correspondence to constitute a protest."
  BB&T through law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz submitted a response which admitted that in Houston “the percentage of Mortgage Loans made to low and moderate income borrowers during the first six months of 2014 was also below the 2013 aggregate industry average.” BB&T Response at Page 11, which also notes at 10 that at least one of the Citibank branches BB&T seeks to acquire, it would shutter.
  And so on November 10 Fair Finance Watch submitted more extensive comment opposing BB&T's application to acquire Bank of Kentucky, including that bank's disparities in the Cincinnati regional area and BB&T's in the Louisville MSA, where in 2013 BB&T made 229 conventional home purchase loans to whites, and only 12 to African Americans and only six to Latinos, while denying 41.7% of applications from Latinos versus only 17.5 of application from whites, a disparity of 2.38 to 1.
   How will the Fed's precedent(s) on CIT - OneWest be applied?
  The secret recordings of then Federal Reserve examinerCarmen Segarra about Goldman Sachs and regulatory capture have given rise to calls for oversight hearings by at least two US Senators. Their hearing will now occur on November 21. Relatedly, BB&T's response from the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz is penned by a former Federal Reserve Board Legal Division supervisor.
 On November 7, Inner City Press was sent a redacted copy of CIT Group's "Cash Flow Projections" and "Risk Management" from its application to acquire OneWest and go above the $50 billion, Too Big Too Fail threshold. Inner City Press immediately put the partially redacted document online on its website, here.
  First, how could such information be withheld for a bank seeking to become Too Big To Fail?
  Second, how could the Federal Reserve insist that the comment period is closed, while information that was improperly withheld is belatedly released?
  On October 10, Inner City Press was sent heavily redacted copies of two letters from the CIT Group concerning its proposed acquisition of OneWest to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, supposedly in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act - nowuploaded to Scribd here and here
   On October 18, Inner City Press & Fair Finance Watch challenged these redactions under FOIA, and submitted  comments on CIT's mockery of the Community Reinvestment Act to both the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
  CIT sought to withhold even its CRA plan. Inner City Press raised the issue to Fed Chair Yellen in Washington - and on October 15, the Federal Reserve called Inner City Press and left a voice mail to say its request for extension of the comment period, because of the incorrectly withheld CIT documents, has been granted until October 22. 
   While appreciating the Fed's comment period extension, the context and public policy questions recently raised must be noted.
  For now, on October 18 Inner City Press & Fair Finance Watch submitted a fourth timely comment to the Fed, critiquing the belatedly released CRA Plan, and demanding release of still - withheld information:
   The CIT CRA Plan which CIT improperly withheld states, in Section III, that “the Bank has lending and support operations primarily located in Florida, New York and New Jersey” -- then states its CRA Program is in Salt Lake City, Utah and “the western United States.”

  This is makes a mockery of CRA, explicitly separating the bank's lending operations from its “CRA” operations.

  In Section IV, CIT makes claims about outreach and “public participation” in its CRA Plan - but in outreach and participation excluded the communities in which CIT has its lending operations (FLA, NY and NJ) and from which, on information and belief, it collects insured deposits.  

  This is makes a mockery of CRA, explicitly separating the bank's deposit taking from its “CRA” operations and outreach. See limited list of contacts in Appendix C, and proof of publication in (only) the Salt Lake Tribute and Deseret News.

  Even in its artificial limited assessment area, CIT's “New CRA Assets” are less than 1% of its Assets.

  While still improper, the above provide a motive for CIT's attempt to withhold its CRA Plan from the public...
  As to CIT's October 8 letter, ICP has already timely commented “there is also the question of the agreement the FDIC reached with IndyMac / OneWest, and whether wannabe SIFI CIT would assume it, as a windfall. These are important questions militating for both the required extension of the comment period, and for public hearings.”

  In the October 8 letter, CIT begins a sentence on page 3 “Clawback provisions exist for the First Fed and La Jolla portfolios [REDACTED.]” CIT also redacts, on page 6, information related to the OnWest / IndyMac Consent Order; HAMP (Page 7); deposits collected over the Internet (Page 8); Lending (Page 9); Governance and Risk Management (page 10-12); and Resolution Plan (Page 12). CIT also heavily redacts what it calls “confidential questions” (pages 14-16), and exhibits. This information must be released, and the comment period extended.  In an abundance of caution, ICP has submitted a FOIA request to this effect.
  The Fed's secrecy is endemic.  The head of the FRBNY since 2009, William Dudley, has insisted that supervision by the Fed and its regional banks is "completely in the public interest." He cites, in support of this, something he calls "horizontal" supervision, which to many has the context of being supine. 
  And the Federal Reserve Banks are, in fact, owned by the banks they ostensibly regulate. And as Inner City Press has previously reported, while merger applications go in the first instance to the Federal Reserve Bank, they have only the power to approve, not deny or even impose conditions, the applications.
  Horizontal, indeed.
  This horizontal position is the rule, not the exception. Inner City Press routinely submits Freedom of Information Act requests for communication between the Fed and banks applying for mergers.
  Most recently, the Fed has extended its deadline for responding to Inner City Press' request on CIT - OneWest, on which it purported to close its public comment period on September 24:
FOIA Request No. F-2014-00380
Dear Mr. Lee,
On August 27, 2014, the Board of Governors ("Board") received your electronic message dated August 26, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552... On August 28, 2014, the Board’s Freedom of Information Office made an interim production of responsive documents consisting of the public portion of the application by CIT Group Inc. and Carbon Merger Sub LLC to acquire and merge with IMB HoldCo LLC, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of OneWest Bank... Pursuant to section (a)(6)(B)(i) of the FOIA, we are extending the period for our response until October 9, 2014, in order to consult with two or more components of the Board having a substantial interest in the determination of the request. If a determination can be made before October 9, 2014, we will respond to you promptly.
How can the public be shut out before it has the basic information it has requested? Now, only because CIT mis-published public notice, the Fed's comment period has been extended to October 10. (A new Office of the Comptroller of the Currency comment period has opened, through October 24.)
  The Federal Reserve Board has asked CIT some questions, including “discuss CIT Group's plans to manage OneWest Bank's mortgage servicing assets and nontraditional mortgage loan portfolio." Nontraditional mortgages - that would be, subprime.
Tellingly, when lawyers leave the Federal Reserve's Legal Division, many go to white shoe law firms that submit bank merger applications to the same people they until recently worked with or supervised.
  Inner City Press, Bronx-based Fair Finance Watch and NCRC have repeatedly raised this to the Fed, without meaningful response.
So here's hoping that Carmen Segarra's courage, in secretly making the recordings and then releasing them, leads to increased oversight of and reform at the Fed. 
 The problem is, while some in Congress are willing to criticize the Fed, the real parties in interest here are the largest banks and investment banks in the country. Who in Congress will directly challenge those? Watch this site.