After Banker Calk Pled Not Guilty Inner City Press Fraud Qs to OCC Which Says CRA and HMDA Are Up to Banks

By Matthew Russell Lee, Video, Alamy photos

SDNY COURTHOUSE, May 28 – Steven M. Calk of FDIC-regulated Federal Savings Bank was presented and arraigned on May 23 for financial institution bribery for corruptly using his position with FSB to issue $16 million in high-risk loans to Paul Manafort in a bid to obtain a senior position with the Trump administration, namely Undersecretary of the Army.

  Back on May 23 Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York accepted the government's proposal of $5 million bond with no co-signer (although that is usually required for moral suasion) and travel allowed throughout the United States (though more defendants are usually confined to the Soutern and Eastern District of NY and one other district). Money talks.

  Afterward in front of the SDNY courthouse Inner City Press asked Calk's lawyers Daniel Stein and Jeremy Margoles about Manafort saying he had misstated his financial situation to get the FSB loans. When did Calk know? They did not answer. Video here, Facebook video here.  Inner City Press' Alamy photoshere.

  On May 23, still from the SDNY courthouse covering other cases including one involving the death penalty, Inner City Press reportedfinding no U.S. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data for "Federal Savings Bank." But there's more. 

The Federal Savings Bank's website, while providing a generic link to the FDIC, and a statement "Member FDIC," has no link for the U.S. Community Reinvestment Act. (Nor does it mention the indictment of Stephen Calk, simply listing his brother John Calk now as CEO and Vice Chairman. Who is the chairman?)

  It lists a loan production office on Avenue J in Brooklyn, and two deposit taking braches in Illinois. Did it see some exemption from the CRA and other consumer protection laws? From fair lending laws? 

  Earlier on the morning of May 24 Inner City Press asked the FDIC, "Having covered yesterday's arraignment of the Chairman of The Federal Savings Bank in the SDNY courthouse, including the FDIC's involvement, I checked the bank's website and found "Member FDIC" but no mention of the Community Reinvestment Act."

  The FDIC's spokesperson David Barr, to his credit, responded quickly, writing to Inner City Press: "The Federal Savings Bank, Chicago, is regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. They would be responsible for CRA and regulatory oversight. You should contact the OCC for more information."

  Now the OCC under Comptroller Joseph Otting has done everything possible to block the release of information, denying FOIA fees waivers and expedited treatment, refusing comments. But for now online the OCC has said this about The Federal Savings Bank: "While TFSB originated a substantial majority of its loans outside of its AAs; the bank’s business strategy is to operate as a mortgage banking entity with a nationwide presence and market place. Taking the bank’s business strategy into consideration the bank’s performance under this lending criterion is deemed reasonable." Reasonable? Bribery, too, seems to have been part of its business strategy, right under the nose of the OCC of Otting. 

  Before 2 pm on May 24 Inner City Press in writing asked Otting's OCC: "This is a Press question for the OCC, from Inner City Press... Please confirm that The Federal Savings Bank is subject to HMDA, and/or if it is below a threshold, as I can find no data in its name on FFIEC.gov. Also, please today provide as an OCC response to the Press this OCC-regulated bank's CRA public file and other information in the OCC's possession concerning the bank's CRA and fair lending performance.   Is it normal for a bank not to mention these things on its website, nor to provide any link to its actual regulator, the OCC, but only to the FDIC?     Please explain what steps the OCC is taking beyond Stephen Calk no longer being the CEO. What about his brother?"

  More than three hours later, even to the questions at the end, the OCC had only provided this:   "We are reviewing your questions, but we may not be able to respond by your deadline.     Regards,  Stephanie        Stephanie Collins  Manager, Media Relations  Public Affairs Operations  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency." This is the same OCC which has delayed FOR MONTHS providing basic information about a merger it has now already rubber stamped. 

  On the morning of May 28 Inner City Press received from the OCC a statement that The Federal Savings Banks is subject to HMDA - how they are listed in the HMDA database remains a question - and this: "Question:  Is it normal for a bank not to mention these things [CRA and HMDA] on its website, nor to provide any link to its actual regulator, the OCC, but only to the FDIC?  [OCC answer:] This question is best directed to the bank."

  So wait: Otting's OCC leaves it entirely up to the banks it ostensibly regulates whether to mention on their website and presumably branches CRA, HMDA or even the OCC where consumers could complain? We'll have more on this. 

  Stephen Calk was quoted, at least in 2012, opposing regulation: "As Mr. Stephen Calk writes in the September 7, 2012 edition of Origination News: “Basel III is designed to level the playing field among major banking institutions that operate internationally. Force-feeding these same rules to community banks in the United States is unnecessary and in fact counter-productive, particularly in the current economic environment.” Basel III is one thing. But no Community Reinvestment Act?

The Federal Savings Bank lists locations - and bankers - in       Arizona - Scottsdale California - Irvine Colorado - Fort Collins Delaware - Selbyville Florida - Sarasota Illinois - Chicago Illinois - Lake Forest Illinois - Oak Brook Illinois - Park Ridge Indiana - Bloomington Indiana - Indianapolis Kansas - Overland Park Louisiana - Laplace Maryland - Annapolis Maryland - Timonium CD Massachusetts - Lawrence New Jersey - Hackensack New Jersey - Lakewood New York - Brooklyn New York - Melville New York - New York New York - Queens North Carolina - Raleigh Ohio - Columbus Rhode Island - South Kingstown Tennessee - Nashville Virginia - Alexandria Virginia - Fredericksburg Virginia - Newport News Virginia - Richmond Virginia - Vienna Virginia - Warrenton...  We'll have more on this.

Inner City Press Asks UN DESA About UN Rapes, Statistics for Disparate Lending to Women, US Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 20 -- When the UN held a press conference on its statistical report on the status of women on October 20, Inner City Press asked how the issue of (disparate) lending to women, for small businesses and housing, was measured by the UN -- apparently it isn't -- and if UN Peacekeeping's immunity for sexual abuse doesn't contribute to the issue of victims not reporting what happens to them. Video here.

   UN DESA's Lenni Montiel gave a passionate response on sexual abuse, saying that as a Resident Representative he informed staff of all UN agencies, funds and programs that such conduct is unacceptable. In the hallway afterward, he made clear he was talking about UN civilians personnel, saying that peacekeeping is another matter. Indeed it is -- see here, where UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous on September 11, 2015 linking rapes to “R&R.”

   The lending question was construed as about inheritance and property rights -- it is distinct -- and was put under the rubric “Poverty.” Inner City Press cited, for the first time at the UN, the US Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. We'll have more on this.

On women, peace and security, does the UN live up to the mandates of UN Security Council resolution 1325? On October 13, Inner City Press asked visiting speakers from Syria and Libya if two UN envoys, Lakhdar Brahimi and Tarek Mitri, lived up to Resolution 1325. The answer was “No.” Video here.

   Mouna Ghanem of the Syrian Women's Forum for Peace said Brahimi didn't; she said that women shouldn't be used as window-dressing.  Amal Bugaighis of the Libyan Human Rights Association confirmed what Inner City Press had earlier reported, that UN envoy Tarek Mitri had been dismissive of CEDAW, the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. 

  The promotion for the press conference, at least as sent by the dubious UN Correspondents Association -- which took money from “brothel magnate” Ng Lap Seng, here -- said there would be a presentation from or about Yemen. But there was not, so it was impossible to ask about that UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed. We'll have more on this.

Back on October 12, one month after UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous linked peacekeepers' rapes in the Central African Republic to"distraction" and R&R, here, Inner City Press asked Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, UN Women Executive Director, and Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, former UN official and lead author of a new Global Study about what Ladsous said, sitting where they were, about rapes and R&R.”

  Both said they hadn't seen Ladsous' comments, so Inner City Presstweeted the YouTube link to @phumzileunwomen and @UN_Women asking for their comments, even as they answered. After Coomaraswamy responded generally about linking rape to recreation, Inner City began to say, Sent you the link -- but was cut off by the UN Women moderator, who said “Let others ask questions.” But there was only one more question.

  Then, Inner City Press showed Coomarswamy the beginning of Ladsous' comments on a laptop. But the UN Correspondents Association sidekick cut in, “Excuse ME,” to ask yet another UN official to come to a $90 fundraiser. This is the same UNCA which took money from South South News then both gave it an award and produced Ban Ki-moon for a photo op with SSN's controller, the now jailed David Ng. This is UN, this is the UN. But what will  Mlambo-Ngcuka and Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy now do about Ladsous' comments? Watch this site.   

More Sharing ServicesShare|

Goldman Sachs Only Refinanced Mortgages of Whites in NYC Area in 2014, New Data Shows, Public Hearings on GE Capital Proposal Demanded

By Matthew R. Lee

NEW YORK, September 22 -- The lack of seriousness in US bank regulation grows from the relatively smaller to the largest banks, with Goldman Sachs the most recent example. Goldman is trying to speed through Federal Reserve approval to buy $16 billion in insured deposits from GE Capital, and the Fed so far seems bent on helping. It began by withholding basic parts of Goldman's application, click here to view.

  On September 22, 2015, the Federal Reserve belatedly released the 2014 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data. A quick review of the lending of Goldman Sachs Bank USA in the New York City Metropolitan Statistical Area shows the Goldman Sach focus which should require publish hearings in this case. 

  Fair Finance Watch, hours after the data was released, has commented to the Federal Reserve at the highest level that "in the New York City MSA in 2014, for conventional home purchase loans (Table 4-2), Goldman Sachs Bank USA made 45 such loans to whites, only two to African Americans and only one to a Latino. For refinance loans (Table 4-3), Goldman Sachs Bank USA made 16 loans to whites and NONE to African American or Latinos. This is inconsistent with the demographics of the New York City MSA and with other lenders' records; it further militate for the timely requested public hearings."

  Goldman Sachs has purported to respond to the comments of Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch by releasing a small amount of the withheld information, and arguing that what the wider Goldman Sachs does cannot or will no be considered by the Federal Reserve on this Bank Merger Act application by Goldman Sachs Bank. We've put Goldman Sachs' response online, here. It says:

“FFW states that the audio released by examiner Ms. Carmen Segara requires an extension of the comment period and a public hearing... GS Bank believes the issue is outside the scope of the statutory factors for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act... Goldman Sachs Bank USA ('GS Bank') hereby submits its response to the three comment letters, submitted on September 2, September 3 and September 9, 2015 (the 'Comment Letters'), by the Inner City Press's Fair Finance Watch ('FFW')....

"FFW makes accusations of 'predatory practices' in the 'mortgage field' and 'municipal finance,' and states that there are a number of compliance settlements that must be reviewed in connection with the Application. FFW references several articles related to lawsuits, settlements and other events, all but one of which involve Goldman Sachs but not GS Bank. GS Bank respectfully submits that such comments are not substantiated by specific arguments or facts. GS Bank notes that none of the articles relate to GS Bank itself, and believes these issues are outside the scope of the statutory factors for Board consideration under the Bank Merger Act.”

  Goldman Sachs is arguing that the acts of a parent company cannot be considered when its bank applies to buy ($16 billion) in insured deposits, an absurd argument. FFW has submitted another comment to the Fed, including that 

"ICP has received by mail from Goldman Sachs' counsel a purported response which claims that issues ranging from conflict of interest and under-regulation by the FRB (evidenced for example by the audio leaked by whistleblower Carmen Segarra) is not cognizable under the Bank Merger Act - an absurd argument. The FRB would be the decision maker, therefore such issues must be addressed.

 "Goldman Sachs cavalierly states that since it withdrew some of its indefensible requests for confidential treatment of its application, that issues is resolved. It is not - too much is still being withheld. Significantly, Goldman Sachs has offered no explanation of the specious requests for confidential treatment it made, denying commenters access to information during the comment period. As others now argue, the comment period would be extended and hearing held."

  Inner City Press will be covering this wider National (Community Reinvestment Coalition) protest, in which it joins; it has also submitted more comments to the New York State regulator, in a proceeding currently slated to come to a head on September 28, the first day of the UN General Assembly debate.

Goldman Sachs' Response to Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch Comments on GE Capital Application, Sept 1... by Matthew Russell Lee

 As Inner City Press exposed last month, Royal Bank of Canada jumped the gun and began doing business with City National Bank without any Federal Reserve approval (see Los Angeles Times, here.)

 Now, even as New York regulators says their comment period on Goldman Sachs' GE Capital proposal extends at least through September 28, Goldman has published fine print notices in the New York Post and a newspaper in Utah saying the Federal Reserve will stop listening on September 19.

  Really? After the Fed made Goldman Sachs a bank holding company with no public comment period at all, so Goldman could get a bail-out? After the Fed's coziness with Goldman Sachs was again demonstrated, by the audio taped by then-Fed examiner Carmen Segarra?

  Inner City Press immediately submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all of Goldman Sachs' GE Capital application and related records. The Federal Reserve has provided a heavily redacted copy, on which Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch has commented to the FRB in Washington:

"Among many other things, Goldman Sachs believes it can withhold the volume of deposits it seeks to acquire from GE Capital Bank, WHAT is seeks to acquire (and what not to acquire) from GE Capital Bank, its number of employees in Utah, the contact people on its application, the number of non profit organizations it tells the FRB it serves on the board of -- presumptively public -- and even the NAMES of the exhibits it seeks to withhold entirely. This is abusive and unprecedented and the FRB must, in response, have the comment period begin again. Otherwise, applicants only benefit by making absurd and abusive requests for confidential treatment. There is much more to be said, including at the public hearings ICP is requesting, but it is imperative that the Board act on this as quickly as possible."

Goldman Sachs' Heavily Redacted "Confidential" Application to the FRB to Acquire GE Capital Bank Deposits by Matthew Russell Lee

  
  When Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company literally overnight in 2008, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch and others including NCRC asked the Fed how this was done with no public comment period at all. 

  The answer, it seems, is to be found in the audio leaked by Carmen Segarra of the Federal Reserve, showing further Fed favors for Goldman Sachs.

 With this history, and Goldman's history in predatory lending with Litton Servicing and as an underwriter, see Occupy Wall Street video here, and UN / migration connection here, it seems clear that the Fed must hold public hearings on Goldman Sachs' GE Capital application, when it is filed. 

  But with the Federal Reserve, you can never be too sure, or too careful.

  When Community Bank System of upstate New York filed with the Fed nine answers to questions asked after Inner City Press' challenge, it tried to withhold fully eight of the nine responses. More here.

  Inner City Press immediately filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the whole submission - and even the Federal Reserve saw through Community Bank System's absurdly -- and tellingly -- overbroad withholding, releasing all but one part of one of the eight withheld responses. But since then, all the Fed has done is seek a mere antitrust control commitment.

  Here's is the Federal Reserve's letter to Inner City Press granting most of its FOIA request:

Freedom of Information Act Ruling Rejecting Community Bank System Withholding 8 of 9 Responses on Oneida Ap... by Matthew Russell Lee

here is the now unredacted version of Community Bank System's submission. 

Unredacted Version of Community Bank System's Responses on Oneida, After ICP's FOIA Request by Matthew Russell Lee

We'll have more on this.

Background: The largest bank merger recently proposed, that of Royal Bank of Canada and affluent-focused Los Angeles-based City National Bank, has since April been the subject of a Community Reinvestment Act challenge by Fair Finance Watch.

  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 the pending proposal of Community Bank System - Oneida, the Syracuse Post-Standard disclosedthat "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 Community Bank System does comment to the media -- if only to blame the messenger -- while larger RBC and CNB do not. Arrogance?

 On Community Bank System's blaming the messenger, FFW has commented to the Fed that it will "will comment again when Community Bank System I 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, Community Bank System'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 Community Bank System 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."

   Now Community Bank System is trying to withhold eight of its nine responses; Inner City Press is challenging this under the Freedom of Information Act, comparing Community Bank System's outrageous withholding at the Fed with other banks, and with Community Bank System's to the OCC, more here.

   

Community Reinvestment Act Protest to Royal Bank of Canada - City National, Fair Finance Watch on Lending Disparities

By Matthew R. Lee

NEW YORK, April 18 -- The largest bank merger recently proposed, that of Royal Bank of Canada and affluent-focused City National Bank, is the subject of a Community Reinvestment Act challenge by Fair Finance Watch.

  This comes after the M&T - Hudson City merger stalled after similar filings by FFW. On Royal Bank of Canada / City National, the April 23 filing with 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 has 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 that, here for the NJ Bergen Record, also citing Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch.

 But there's more, and its worse. FFW has just 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.

Exclusive: CIT's Thain Met Fed Staff 3 Weeks Before OneWest Merger, FOIA Response Shows, Loan Loss Redactio... by Matthew Russell Lee

  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.  Today, Inner City Press / Fair Finance Watch exclusively uploads these documents, in preparation for the public hearing, and beyond. Watch this site.

   

For Federal Reserve, Obama Nominates Allan Landon, Evader of HMDA, Appearance of Impropriety at FHLB of Seattle: Predatory Bender?

By Matthew Russell Lee

SOUTH BRONX, January 6  -- The US Federal Reserve, already accused of being too close to industry and playing hide the ball on CIT - OneWest and other proposed mergers, will receive under President Barack Obama another banker, Allan Landon -- one forced to resign from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle after the "appearance of impropriety." Predatory bender continues?

  Landon headed Bank of Hawaii which as Inner City Presspreviously reported - and re-upped earlier today - was one of the few bank to try to evade the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act by providing it data not electronically in a form it could be analyzed, but only in paper form. 

  The Federal Reserve told Fair Finance Watch such evasion was permitted due to the regulation's lack of specificity. Now today Bank of Hawaii's Landon is nominated to join this Federal Reserve Board. Fox guarding the hen house?

  Here is the SEC settlement concerning Landon and the FHLB fo Seattle - which is being allowed, without public input, to merge with the FLHB of Des Moines.

   Meanwhile 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.