On Alabama and the Big Banks

January 8, 2013 at 7:52 am 2 comments

imagesCACIKNZ2Yesterday was a good day for Alabama and the big banks.  For those of you who may have missed it, Alabama crushed the Pontiff’s Maulers 42-14 for their second consecutive national championship.  It was clear by the end of the first quarter who was going to win the game and by the third quarter, my brother texted me to watch the end of the Knick game, which was much more entertaining, even though they lost.

Yesterday was also the day that the federal government effectively ended the parole that big banks had been on in this country in the aftermath of the banking induced Great Recession.  In the same day, Bank of America settled allegations with Fannie Mae that it had sold them mortgages that did not comply with secondary market standards; the OCC announced it is ending its monitoring of banking foreclosure processes in return for cash payouts to impacted home owners, most of which aren’t large enough to allow these home owners to afford a decent downpayment on a new house, let alone make up for a lost home; and international banking regulators agreed to scale back liquidity regulations that they proposed in 2010 in order to prevent another financial crisis.  In contrast, NCUA recently announced its lawsuit against major banks, this time J.P. Morgan, in an attempt to hold them responsible for their own sloppy underwriting standards and the CFPB will most likely be rolling out new mortgage regulations on Thursday.

To anyone watching the game last night it quickly became apparent that although Alabama and Notre Dame were playing in the same game, they didn’t belong on the same field.  And anyone who has now taken a serious look at the government’s reaction to banker malfeasance realizes that although community banks, credit unions and the behemoths like J.P. Morgan and Bank of America are treated as if they are playing the same game, they aren’t.  At least Notre Dame can get new recruits.  But credit unions have to abide by mortgage regulations that are going to make it more expensive for smaller institutions to offer homes to their members while the institutions that necessitated these regulations in the first place will either have the expertise and resources to deal with these regulations or they will simply work behind the scenes to get them watered down.

To the extent that Congress doesn’t care that only the largest banks can cope with the regulatory burden that has been imposed on the banking industry over the past five years, then the system is working great.  But unless Congress wants those institutions that caused the Great Recession to actually benefit from it, while doing nothing to prevent similar crises from recurring, then this is the chance for credit unions and community banks to actually work together.

Most importantly, the CFPB is here to stay, but Congress has the authority, last I checked, to make common sense distinctions for institutions based on asset size.  Why not, for instance, impose tougher lending standards on institutions with $25 billion or more in assets, since these are the institutions whose shoddy underwriting standards have the ability to bring down the entire system.  Why not mandate that CFPB regulations presumptively apply only to institutions over a certain asset threshold?  The CFPB has implicitly recognized this by exempting institutions that engage in minimal mortgage servicing and remittance transfers from some of its proposals.  But these exemptions don’t go far enough.  Notre Dame is like the Yankees, you either love them or hate them and I don’t love them, but when a game gets as lopsided as last night’s game, it’s no fun to watch, but all you have to do is change the channel.  When it comes to lopsided oversight of our financial system, the American public can’t change the channel and credit unions are forced to play in the game that’s getting harder and harder to win.


Entry filed under: Advocacy, Political, Regulatory. Tags: , , , .

3 Facts to Ponder on a Friday Morning Are Supervisory Committees Up to the Job?

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Paul  |  January 8, 2013 at 8:05 am

    Excuse, ma’am , but your prejudice is showing. To suggest that Notre Dame plays footbal for the Pope, or that the Pope is in anyway involved in ND football smacks of the same bigotry that led people to claim that electing a Catholic President would mean the Pope would rule over the USA. Maybe you are too young to remember those days.


    • 2. Dan  |  January 8, 2013 at 11:10 am

      Tad serious there Paul. I don’t think Henry’s reference implies bigotry. I’m sure the Vatican is a proud sponsor of their Catholic university and all it stands for. Pope is probably a big fan. I think one of the earlier Popes was a running back for ND and they retired his jersey. I don’t think the fears that led to concerns about Kennedy’s election with his faith is any different than the concerns that existed in the last election with Romneys belief. Let’s face it religion breeds intolerance.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Authored By:

Henry Meier, Esq., General Counsel, New York Credit Union Association.

The views Henry expresses are Henry’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 483 other followers