In Buffalo, Ban Ki-moon Spins for M&T Bank Accused of Discrimination and Money Laundering: BANK-imoon?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 17 -- Buffalo based M&T Bank has the been stalled its in proposal to acquire New Jersey's Hudson City Savings Bank since 2012, due to US government allegations that M&T has violated lending and anti-money laundering rules.

  M&T's merger application has been challenged under the Community Reinvestment Act, including by Fair Finance Watch; the bank has been sued under the Fair Housing Act.

  But UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on August 14 gave a speech to “150 invited guests at M&T headquarters in downtown Buffalo.” 

  Did Ban mention the lending discrimination or money laundering charges? We don't know - unlike other speeches Ban gives, this one was not distributed to the press corp which covers the UN, much less put on the UN's website.

  It would have been easy for Ban and his team to learn about the status of M&T Bank by the most cursory of web searches. Bloomberg News on April 15 of this year reported that the bank's partner“disproportionately denied home loans to black borrowers -- 3.21 times more frequently than whites in the greater New York area  -- according to an analysis of public data by Fair Finance Watch.”

  This Bloomberg piece was published in the Buffalo News the same day; the Buffalo News back on October 10, 2012quoted Fair Finance Watch that M&T made “119 loans to white borrowers, but just 17 to Hispanics, who were denied 1.91 times more often than white borrowers.”

   This same Buffalo News, which apparently alone until now reported on Ban's Buffalo trip, said that 

“Ban Ki-moon may not be a household name. But as Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban is an international rock star in the realm of world affairs – the Mick Jagger of international diplomacy. Which begged the question:  Why was he in Buffalo Friday? There’s a story behind the visit. Ban, 71, was invited by Robert G. Wilmers, chairman and chief executive officer of M&T Bank. The two have known each other for some time, Ban said. He first met Wilmers during a foreign relations visit to the Republic of Korea, where Ban had served as minister of foreign affairs and trade prior to taking over as Secretary-General at the United Nations in 2007. Ban ended up inviting Wilmers to his home, where the two discussed matters of common concern. On Friday, Ban spoke at a dinner for about 150 invited guests at M&T headquarters in downtown Buffalo.”

   The question arises: who were the 150 people invited by M&T? Did they pay to attend, or gain invitations due to payments to or business arrangements with M&T? If so, is charge for a speech by the UN Secretary General appropriate?

   Ban has previously offered praise to banks and corporations with questionable records - but often this has been justified with the argument that to address climate change, you have to deal with polluters and those who finance them. But in this case, did Ban push for any changes at M&T? It is not even a member of the UN's “blue-washing” Global Compact. Did Ban even ask Wilmers?

Footnote: Wilmers may blame M&T's problems on underlings. Ban Ki-moon has experience with such scapegoating, most recently on rapes in the Central African Republic being blamed only on local commander Babacar Gaye of Senegal, and not his (and UN Peacekeeping's) boss, Herve Ladsous of France. We'll have more on this.
   

As CIT Group Says Wait For Its Community Reinvestment Act Plan, Federal Reserve's New Precedent?

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, December 23 -- 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.

  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."

  That's basically saying, approve our merger (on which the Fed is required to consider CRA), and THEN we'll tell you about CRA.

  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.

   

As BB&T Seeks to Buy Susquehanna Bancshares, Fair Finance Watch Shows Its Disparities in Texas & Kentucky

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 12 -- Well before today's mega-merger announcement by BB&T, seeking to buy Susquehanna Bancshares for $2.5 billion, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has been 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.

   Now BB&T announces a much larger proposal, to buy Susquehanna and its 245 branches in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and West Virginia. Such an application requires approval, after a comment period and possible public hearings, by the Federal Reserve. We'll have more on this.

  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.

After CIT Withholds Community Reinvestment Act Plan, Fed Grants Inner City Press FOIA Request, Extension of Comment Period

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 15 -- The secret recordings of then Federal Reserve examiner Carmen Segarra about Goldman Sachs and regulatory capture have given rise to calls for oversight hearings by at least two US Senators, and to spin from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

  On October 10, Inner City Press was sent heavily redacted copies of two letters from the CIT Group to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, supposedly in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act - nowuploaded to Scribd here and here. 

  CIT sought to withhold even its Community Reinvestment Act plan. Inner City Press raised the issue to Fed Chair Yellen in Washington - and today, 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.

   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.

   

As Valley National Bank Redlines, OCC Gets Vague Bronx Commitment, Rubber Stamps 1st United Merger Application, No Public Benefit

By Matthew R. Lee

SOUTH BRONX, NY -- While the US Federal Reserve is subject to high profile accusations of being "captured" by those it regulates in the wake of staffer Carmen Segarra's leaking of Goldman Sachs related audio, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, by one measure, is even more captured.

   Since May Inner City Press and others have commented to the OCC about Valley National Bank's proposed acquisition of 1st United Bank in Florida. Valley National in New York City has no branches above 88th Street in Manhattan and none in the Bronx. It is old-school redlining, in its mortgage lending as well.

  After denying Inner City Press access to information responsive to its Freedom of Information Act requests, now the OCC has approved Valley National's application, saying as part of a condition that Valley National will do better in the Bronx, then admitting in a footnote that the bank provided no detail.

  The OCC's Conditional Approval says Valley National "committed to hiring a dedicated lending team to develop commercial loans in the Bronx, New York (Bronx). Pursuant to this commitment, Valley National represented that it has hired two additional lending officers." 

  But then in a footnote, the OCC says, "Valley National did not provide additional detail related to the work of the new dedicated lending team in the Bronx."

  Unlike the Federal Reserve, the OCC says it does not consider if there is any public benefit to mergers. The OCC says:

"the commenters refer to the need for the merger to create a "public benefit." Under 12 CFR 225.24(a)(2)(iii), which applies to proposals submitted to the Board of Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System by bank holding companies seeking to engage in nonbanking activities, the holding company is required to provide a "statement of the public benefits that can reasonably be expected to result from the proposal." In reviewing a financial institution's application to merge with another financial institution, in this instance the application to merge 1st United with and into Valley National, the OCC considers the "convenience and needs of the community to be served" as required under 12 U.S.C. § 1828(c)(5)."

  The OCC gives weight to it own Community Reinvestment Act exams, but consider its record, in data compiled by NCRC:

In the first eight months of 2014, the OCC conducted 266 CRA exams and did not award a single national bank a rate of substantial non-compliance or even "Needs to Improve." The FDIC and the Federal Reserve both awarded grades in each of these categories, albeit the Fed only one of each.

  Perhaps understandably, the OCC's Valley National Conditional Approval says, at footnote 4, "Some of the commenters' concerns were directed at the OCC's CRA performance evaluation process and, as such, are not addressed in this letter."

  So when will these concerns be addressed?

  The OCC, part of the Department of Treasury, and its recent denial of access to bank information under the Freedom of Information Act, and on appeal.

  Beginning in May, Inner City Press began requesting information from the OCC about Valley National Bank and its proposed acquisition of Florida-based 1st United Bank. 

  Fair Finance Watch and other NCRC members showed that Valley National's lending was disparate:  In 2012 in the New York City MSA for refinance loans, Valley National made 2152 such loans to whites and only 38 to African Americans -- entirely of keeping with the demographics and demographics of home ownership in the New York City MSA. Valley National denied 67% of such applications from African Americans, versus only 34.5% of such application from white.

  A first Inner City Press FOIA request about Valley National, the OCC's Rosalye Settles said she mis-understand, putting the entire request on hold then threatening to dismiss it.

  On June 8, Fair Finance Watch filed a second comment, including that:

Valley National has branches only below 88th Street in Manhattan (in which, intriguingly, a "Yellowbrick Real Estate Capital" breaks into the top five in pre-foreclosures).

  Valley National has no branches in Harlem, Washington Heights or The Bronx, predominantly African American and Latinos, low and moderate income areas.

  In Queens, it's Middle Village and Kew Gardens. In Brooklyn, Valley National's branches are along Ocean Parkway and in Bay Ridge. What about East New York, Brownsville, Bushwick and Bedford Stuyvesant?

  On July 16, Valley National submitted a response to the OCC, giving the OCC a full copy and a "redacted" or partially blacked out copy, as provided to Inner City Press,here.

  Inner City Press submitted a FOIA request to the OCC challenging the redactions. But the OCC's Marilyn Burton denied the FOIA request, saying it did not request any documents. Click here for the OCC's FOIA denial.

 So Inner City Press submitted an appeal, linking to exactly the redacted documents as Valley National provided to the OCC. But the OCC Frank Vance ruled that this was not an appeal, copy here. After all of this, the OCC this month hauled off and rubber stamped Valley National's merger application.

  This is how banks get over. And Fair Finance Watch, and Inner City Press, aim to expose and end these practices. Watch this site.

   

IMF Says Post Crisis, Austrian Banks Focus on Local Deposits, Unlike Baltics, Hungary, Slovenia: Community Reinvestment Act Echoes

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 15 -- The global financial meltdown triggered by predatory lending is still the focus of many International Monetary Fund Article IV reviews, such as that of Austria released under embargo on September 15.

  The IMF says "the main impact of the crisis was on the internationally active banking system and public debt. Before the crisis, Austrian banks had expanded rapidly in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe (CESEE). As their funding dried up post-Lehman, and their assets suffered from the end of the credit boom in CESEE, Austrian banks came under pressure and needed government support."

  Beyond the bailouts, Austrian banks now rely more on local deposits for what lending they do. The IMF has yet to pursue this idea as is done in the US Community Reinvestment Act. As to Austria, the IMF says: "In most countries in CESEE, the decline in cross border funding has to a large extent been offset by an increase in domestic deposits and the level of credit has not declined. Notable exceptions include the Baltics, Hungary, and Slovenia."

  We'll have more on this.

  On September 11, two days after 124 nations in the UN General Assembly voted to start a process on sovereign debt restructuring, Inner City Press asked the International Monetary Fund, "What is the IMF's comment on the “sovereign debt restructuring” resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 9? The resolution cites the IMF's work on the issues, in 2003."

  At the IMF's embargoed briefing on September 11, IMF spokesperson William Murray provided a long answer, including that the IMF is working on a "market based" solution, particularly on debt contractual terms to prevent "hold out" problems. He mentioned, as he had to, Argentina, which has had it own contentious relation with the IMF.

  Clearly, Argentina -- and Bolivia as chair of the Group of 77 -- were aware of these IMF efforts when they pursued the issue in the UN General Assembly. We'll have more on this.

  In the last briefing, Inner City Press asked the IMF about ebola. This time, Murray cited the economies of Liberia and Sierra Leone shrinking 3 to 3.5%, and Guinea by 1.5%.

  On Portugal, he said the IMF has received no communication about an early pay-off.

  Inner City Press also asked the IMF for its view of Cyrus' foreclosure laws -- sounds like the IMF doesn't like them -- as well as Yemen and Egypt:

What is the IMF's view of the partial roll back by Yemen's government of its initial cut in fuel subsidies?

On Egypt, what is the status of the IMF's work with the country? What is the IMF's comment on Bank of America Merrill Lynch saying it expects no near-term IMF engagement with Egypt?

  We'll have more on this as well.

When Argentina's foreign minister Héctor Timerman held a press conference at the UN at 5:30 pm on September 9, he was flanked not only by Argentina's ambassador to the UN Maria Cristina Perceval but also the chair of the Group of 77, Sacha Llorenti of Bolivia.

  They spoke of 11 countries opposing their resolution on sovereign debt and vultures funds, or sovereign debt restructuring, including the United States. Timerman took the high road, saying that Argentina would present a project with the G77 and speak with all opponents.

  He asked how the UN General Assembly, which he called the most democratic forum, could be involved in so many fields but not this one. Why indeed.

   Back in June, Inner City Press thanked Timerman and his finance minister Axel Kicillof on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, then asked if Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital hold stakes in other G77 members, and if the case shows the need for reform, that countries should have at least the same debt restructuring rights as corporations.

  Kicillof added, states and the people (pueblos) they represented. He said that in the G77 meeting, Peru had spoken. An attentive Inner City Press reader chimed in with a question about Ecuador, which sold bonds just this week.

  But in that case, new language tried to avoid the Argentina decision of the US Supreme Court, just as Belize and Armenia have also done on their debt. Watch this site.

  Follow @innercitypress Follow @FUNCA_info