skip to main navigation skip to secondary navigation skip to content
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
skip to content

Annual Report 2012

Consumer and Community Affairs

The Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (DCCA) has primary responsibility for carrying out the Board's consumer financial protection and community development programs. DCCA conducts consumer-focused supervision, research, and policy analysis, as well as implements statutory requirements and facilitates community development. These activities promote a fair and transparent consumer financial services market, including for traditionally underserved households and neighborhoods.

Throughout 2012, the division engaged in numerous consumer and community-related functions and policy activities in the following areas:

  • Consumer-focused supervision and examinations. The division provided leadership for the Reserve Bank consumer compliance supervision and examination programs in state member banks and bank holding companies through: policy development, examiner training, supervision oversight, fair lending, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) and flood enforcement, analysis of bank and bank holding company applications in regard to consumer protection, and processing consumer complaints.
  • Consumer research and emerging-issues and policy analysis. The division analyzed emerging issues in consumer financial services policies and practices in order to understand their implications for the economic and supervisory policies that are core to the central bank's functions, as well as to gain insight into consumer decisionmaking.
  • Community development activities. The division continued to promote fair and informed access to financial markets for all consumers, recognizing the particular needs of underserved populations by engaging lenders, government officials, and community leaders. Throughout the year, DCCA convened programs to share information and research on effective community development policies and strategies.
  • Consumer laws and regulations. The division continued to administer the Board's regulatory responsibilities with respect to certain entities and specific statutory provisions of the consumer financial services and fair lending laws. DCCA also drafts regulations and official interpretations and issues regulatory interpretations and compliance guidance for the industry, the Reserve Banks, other federal agencies, and congressional staff.

Supervision and Examinations

The Board's Division of Consumer and Community Affairs develops and supports supervisory policy and examination procedures for consumer protection laws and regulations, as well as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), as part of its supervision of the organizations for which it has authority, including holding companies, state member banks, and foreign banking organizations. The division also administers the Federal Reserve System's risk-focused program for assessing consumer compliance risk at the largest bank and financial holding companies in the System, with division staff ensuring that consumer compliance risk is effectively integrated into the consolidated supervision oversight of the holding company. The division oversees the efforts of the 12 Reserve Banks to ensure that compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations is fully evaluated and fairly enforced. Division staff provides guidance and expertise to the Reserve Banks on consumer protection laws and regulations, bank and bank holding company application analysis and processing, examination and enforcement techniques and policy matters, examiner training, and emerging issues. Staff review Reserve Bank supervisory reports, examination work products, and consumer complaint analyses and responses. Finally, staff members participate in interagency activities that promote uniformity in examination principles, standards, and processes.

Examinations are the Federal Reserve's primary method of enforcing compliance with consumer protection laws and assessing the adequacy of consumer compliance risk-management systems within regulated entities. During the 2012 reporting period (July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012), the Reserve Banks conducted 282 consumer compliance examinations of state member banks and 11 examinations of foreign banking organizations.

Bank Holding Company Consolidated Supervision Program

During 2012, staff in the Bank Holding Company (BHC) Consolidated Supervision Program had responsibility for reviewing more than 110 bank and financial holding companies to ensure consumer compliance risk was appropriately incorporated into the consolidated risk assessment for the organization. Through a combination of risk-focused, on-/off-site examination and monitoring activities, supervisory staff were able to assess the impact enterprise-wide consumer issues had on the overall risk profiles of the consolidated entity. In addition, as a result of changes brought about by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act), supervisory functions related to savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs) were transferred to the Board, and SLHCs were added to the portfolio of entities covered by the Consolidated Supervision Program.

On December 17, 2012, the Federal Reserve issued guidance entitled "Consolidated Supervision Framework for Large Financial Institutions," 1 which sets forth a new framework for the consolidated supervision of large financial institutions. The framework strengthens traditional microprudential supervision and regulation to enhance the safety and soundness of individual firms. It also incorporates macroprudential considerations to reduce potential threats to the stability of the financial system and to provide insights into financial market trends. The consolidated supervision framework has two primary objectives:

  1. enhance the resiliency of firms to lower the probability of failure or inability to serve as a financial intermediary
  2. reduce the impact on the financial system and the broader economy in the event of a firm's failure or material weakness

BHC Consolidated Supervision Program staff also participated jointly with staff of the Board's Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation on numerous Dodd-Frank Act-related implementation projects regarding supervisory assessment fees, consolidated supervision, and thrift holding company integration. Also, as part of the consolidated supervision of BHCs, staff continued to monitor compliance with the provisions in the consent orders that were implemented in 2011 at the four mortgage servicers and 10 BHCs for which the Federal Reserve has supervisory authority. Staff's oversight is designed to determine if the servicers and BHCs have corrected the noted deficiencies, that future abuses in the loan modification and foreclosure process are prevented, and that borrowers are compensated for financial injury they suffered as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in the foreclosure process.

On July 11, 2012, the Federal Reserve issued "Guidance on a Lender's Decision to Discontinue Foreclosure Proceedings," 2 which emphasizes the importance of appropriate risk management practices and controls in connection with a decision not to complete foreclosure proceedings after they have been initiated. The objective of the supervisory process related to abandoned foreclosures is to confirm that an institution manages its decision to initiate and/or discontinue foreclosure proceedings in a prudent manner. The policy letter notes four key concepts that banking organizations with residential mortgage servicing operations should ensure are covered in their policies and procedures:

  1. notification to borrowers
  2. communication methods
  3. notification to local authorities
  4. obtaining and monitoring collateral values

Mortgage Servicing and Foreclosure: Implementing and Overseeing the Independent Foreclosure Review

Throughout 2012, the Federal Reserve continued to work with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) to provide remediation to consumers who were harmed by certain banking organizations in their residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing operations.3 (See box 1.)

During the first half of the year, the agencies worked to develop a remediation framework to provide examples of situations where compensation or other remediation would be required for those borrowers who had been deemed to be financially harmed as a result of errors, misrepresentations, and other deficiencies in the foreclosure process. In June, the Federal Reserve and the OCC issued guidance to help ensure that similarly-situated borrowers would be treated in the same manner, with remediation for injuries, including lump-sum payments (from $500 to $125,000 plus equity), suspension or rescission of a foreclosure, loan modification or other loss mitigation assistance, correction of credit reports, or correction of deficiency amounts and records.4 The results of the independent consultants' file review were originally intended to determine whether a borrower was eligible for remediation, with regular oversight and review of the process, including testing of files by Federal Reserve and OCC examiners.

Throughout the second half of 2012, the agencies and consultants worked diligently to expand outreach to potentially affected borrowers and to conduct case-by-case reviews of mortgage files. The reviews of the mortgage files was necessarily detail-oriented and time consuming, and the agencies, servicers, community organizations, and financial institutions shared great concern about the delay in compensating borrowers. This concern reached a critical level by the end of 2012, and the agencies and the majority of the financial institutions involved agreed to renegotiate the terms of the consent orders to expedite payments to all borrowers in the 2009-10 period. In early January 2013, 13 mortgage servicing companies subject to the consent orders for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing agreed to pay more than $9.3 billion in cash payments and other assistance to help borrowers.5 The sum includes $3.6 billion in cash payments to eligible borrowers and $5.7 billion in other assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.6

As a result of this agreement, participating servicers ceased the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) program, replacing it with a broader framework allowing eligible borrowers to receive compensation significantly more quickly. The OCC and the Federal Reserve accepted this agreement because it provides the greatest benefit to consumers subject to unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices during the relevant period in a more timely manner than would have occurred under the review process. The agreement also includes additional incentives for servicers to provide more foreclosure assistance to borrowers. Borrowers covered under the agreement will receive compensation whether or not they filed a request-for-review form, and borrowers do not need to take further action to be eligible for compensation. For those servicers that are not participating in the agreement, the IFR process will continue.

The resolution of the IFR marks an important milestone and, combined with the other corrective measures in the consent orders, a major step forward toward improving mortgage servicing. In addition, all remaining articles in the original consent orders remain in full force and effect to correct the servicers' deficient foreclosure practices. OCC and Federal Reserve examiners continue to monitor the servicers' implementation of corrective actions required by the original consent orders to address unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.

Box 1. Independent Foreclosure Review: Developing the Program, Reaching Borrowers

In 2010, the federal banking agencies (the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)) launched a coordinated and targeted review of 14 of the nation's largest mortgage servicing organizations, which handled more than two-thirds of all mortgage servicing from November 2010 to January 2011. The reviews revealed a range of misconduct and negligence by certain banking organizations in their residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing operations. In April 2011, the Board issued consent orders against 10 parent bank holding companies, 1 including four servicing entities regulated by the Board, for deficient, unsafe, and unsound practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing.2

These enforcement actions required each of the organizations to correct deficient practices and provide remediation to borrowers who suffered financial injury. Over the course of several months, the federal banking agencies worked with the 14 organizations to develop a program to implement the actions mandated under the foreclosure review provision in the consent orders. The resulting program, known as the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR), required the organizations to retain independent consultants to review foreclosures that were initiated, pending, or completed during 2009 or 2010 to determine if borrowers suffered financial harm resulting from errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies that may have occurred during the foreclosure process. In addition, the Board issued monetary penalties of $766.5 million against five banking organizations, in conjunction with the Department of Justice and the State Attorneys General.

Outreach to more than four million borrowers that were eligible for the IFR program, to make them aware of the opportunity to submit a request for a review, presented challenges to the servicers and the agencies. The goal was to cast the widest net possible, so the Federal Reserve and the OCC directed mortgage servicers to conduct an extensive outreach campaign about the IFR. Print, radio, television, and online advertising campaigns targeted the communities hardest hit by mortgage foreclosures, with materials available in English, Spanish, Mandarin, Korean, Vietnamese, Hmong, Russian, Creole, and Tagalog. Additional outreach efforts included direct contact with eligible borrowers by mail, e-mail, and telephone, as well as coordinated efforts by community, housing, and faith-based groups. Over the course of the program, in order to provide adequate time for borrowers to submit a request for review, the agencies extended the deadline three times, ultimately to December 31, 2012. In the end, more than 500,000 borrowers submitted a request for review.

1. The 10 institutions are: Bank of America Corporation; Citigroup Inc.; Ally Financial Inc.; HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; MetLife, Inc.; The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; U.S. Bancorp; and Wells Fargo & Company.  Return to text

2. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2011), "Federal Reserve issues enforcement actions related to deficient practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing," press release, April 13, to text

Return to text

Supervisory Matters

In October 2012, the Board issued a formal enforcement action, including a $9 million civil money penalty, against American Express Company (Amex) and American Express Travel Related Services Company (TRS) to address deceptive marketing and debt collection practices and associated deficiencies in compliance risk management and internal audit programs. Amex and TRS are both bank holding companies located in New York.

TRS, which provides debt collection and marketing services to subsidiary banks (American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB), allegedly led customers to believe that their defaulted debt would be "waived" or "forgiven" by acting on settlement offers without disclosing the effect that settling for less than the full debt would have on the customers' future abilities to obtain credit. TRS also allegedly made deceptive representations in credit card solicitations concerning the benefits customers would receive by acting on the offer. Finally, the Federal Reserve found deficiencies in compliance risk management and internal audit, which are firm-wide functions at Amex. The Board's action was taken in coordination with formal actions taken by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Utah Department of Financial Institutions against the entities that they supervise.

Community Reinvestment Act

The CRA requires that the Federal Reserve and other federal banking and thrift agencies encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they do business, consistent with safe and sound operations. To carry out this mandate, the Federal Reserve

  • examines state member banks to assess their compliance with the CRA
  • analyzes applications for mergers and acquisitions by state member banks and bank holding companies in part within the context of CRA performance
  • disseminates information about community development techniques to bankers and the public through Community Development offices at the Reserve Banks

The Federal Reserve assesses and rates the CRA performance of state member banks in the course of examinations conducted by staff at the 12 Reserve Banks. During the 2012 reporting period, the Reserve Banks conducted 256 CRA examinations of state member banks. Of those banks examined, 28 were rated "Outstanding," 228 were rated "Satisfactory," none were rated "Needs to Improve," and none were rated "Substantial Non-Compliance."

Mergers and Acquisitions

During 2012, the Board considered and approved seven banking merger applications that were protested on CRA or fair lending grounds or that raised issues involving consumer compliance or the CRA.7

  • An application by Capital One Financial Corporation, McLean, Virginia, to acquire ING Bank, FSB, Wilmington, Delaware, was approved in February.
  • An application by Adam Bank Group, Inc., Tampa, Florida, to acquire Brazos Valley Bank, N.A., College Station, Texas, was approved in March.
  • Applications by Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited, China Investment Corporation, and Central Huijin Investment Ltd., all of Beijing, People's Republic of China, to become bank holding companies by acquiring up to 80 percent of the voting shares of The Bank of East Asia (U.S.A.) National Association, New York, New York, were approved in May.
  • An application by BB&T Corporation, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to acquire BankAtlantic, a subsidiary federal savings association of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., both of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, was approved in July.
  • An application by Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, both of Tokyo, Japan, to increase their ownership interest to up to 9.9 percent of the outstanding shares of The Bank of East Asia, Limited, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China and thereby increase their interest in The Bank of East Asia (U.S.A.) National Association, New York, New York, was approved in October.
  • An application by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., both of Tokyo, Japan, and UnionBanCal Corporation, San Francisco, California, to acquire Pacific Capital Bancorp and, indirectly, its subsidiary, Santa Barbara Bank Trust, N.A., both of Santa Barbara, California, was approved in November.

Members of the public submitted comments on each of the above applications. Public comments raised various issues for staff to consider in their analyses of the supervisory and lending records of the applicants. Several commenters alleged that various institutions failed to make credit available to certain minority groups and to low- and moderate-income (LMI) individuals and in LMI geographies or inadequate marketing through minority outlets. Commenters also alleged predatory and discriminatory lending practices with respect to tax refund anticipation loans, residential mortgages, checking accounts, and small business loans. Several commenters raised CRA-related concerns about applicants with weak CRA records following recent acquisitions or inadequate plans to meet communities' credit needs, potential branch closures that would disproportionately exclude LMI consumers, inadequate branches in predominantly minority tracts, and inaccuracies in a CRA public disclosure.

In evaluating the merits of these comments, the Board considered information provided by applicants and analyzed relevant lending data in markets of interest to the commenters. The Board also incorporated other information, including examination reports with on-site evaluations of compliance with fair lending and other consumer protection laws and regulations and conferred with other regulators for their supervisory views.

The application by Capital One Financial Corporation (Capital One), to acquire ING Bank, FSB (ING) was one of the first of its kind to be subject to the financial stability factor mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. The application was filed in July 2011, and more than 900 comments were submitted by individuals and community groups, almost two-thirds of which opposed the merger. In addition, the Board held three public meetings--in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and San Francisco--related to this case.8 Commenters expressed concerns about Capital One's lending activities, including its concentration in credit card lending, and urged the Board to delay or deny the proposal until the CRA regulation has been reformed to accommodate such nationwide lenders. Commenters also contended that any public benefits would be inadequate to offset the increase in risk posed to the financial system given projected increases in Capital One's size and complexity.

In its February 14, 2012, order approving the proposal, the Board referenced various consumer complaints and legal actions against Capital One which suggested that Capital One's processes and procedures for enterprise-wide compliance transaction testing could be improved.9 The Board conditioned its approval on Capital One adopting, within 90 days of the date of approval, a plan acceptable to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, to augment its enterprise-wide compliance transaction testing. The plan was to specify areas in which transaction testing would be conducted, address the scope and frequency of testing, provide for periodic reporting, provide for improved employee training, and include a requirement for an annual review of internal audit of the testing implementation for at least the next three years. Compliance with this condition was to be monitored as part of the supervisory process.

The application by Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., both of Tokyo, Japan, and UnionBanCal Corporation, San Francisco, California, to acquire Pacific Capital Bancorp, Santa Barbara, California, was of particular interest because it represented the first application of the financial stability statutory factor to a proposal by a globally systemically important banking organization to acquire a bank in the United States.

The Board also considered 90 applications with outstanding issues involving compliance with consumer protection statutes and regulations, including fair lending laws and the CRA. Some of those issues involved the existence of a consent order due to weaknesses in foreclosure processes, as well as concerns about unfair and deceptive practices. Eighty-one of those applications were approved and 10 were withdrawn.

Fair Lending Enforcement

The Federal Reserve supervises 836 state member banks. Pursuant to provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, effective on July 21, 2011, the CFPB supervises state member banks with assets of more than $10 billion for compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the Board has supervisory authority for compliance with the Fair Housing Act. For the approximately 815 state member banks with assets of $10 billion or less, the Board retains the authority to enforce both the ECOA and the Fair Housing Act.

Fair lending reviews are conducted regularly within the supervisory cycle. Additionally, examiners may conduct fair lending reviews outside of the usual supervisory cycle, if warranted by fair lending risk. When examiners find evidence of potential discrimination, they work closely with DCCA's Fair Lending Enforcement Section, which provides additional legal and statistical expertise and ensures that fair lending laws are enforced consistently and rigorously throughout the Federal Reserve System.

Pursuant to the ECOA, if the Board has reason to believe that a creditor has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the ECOA, the matter will be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ reviews the referral and determines whether further investigation is warranted. A DOJ investigation may result in a public civil enforcement action or settlement. Alternatively, the DOJ may decide to return the matter to the Board for administrative enforcement. When a matter is returned to the Board, staff ensures that the institution takes all appropriate corrective action.

During 2012, the Board referred the following two matters to the DOJ:

  • One referral involved discrimination on the basis of national origin, in violation of the ECOA. The lender charged Hispanic borrowers higher interest rates than non-Hispanic borrowers for unsecured consumer loans. Legitimate pricing factors failed to explain the pricing disparities.
  • One referral involved discrimination on the basis of marital status, in violation of the ECOA. The bank improperly required spousal signatures on home equity loans, in violation of Regulation B.

If a fair lending violation does not constitute a pattern or practice, the Federal Reserve acts on its own to ensure that the violation is remedied by the bank. Most lenders readily agree to correct fair lending violations. In fact, lenders often take corrective action as soon as they become aware of a problem. Thus, the Federal Reserve generally uses informal supervisory tools (such as memoranda of understanding between banks' boards of directors and the Reserve Banks, or board resolutions) to ensure that violations are corrected. If necessary to protect consumers, however, the Board can bring public enforcement actions.

Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and Other Outreach

As an active member of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF), the Board coordinates with other agencies to facilitate consistent and effective enforcement of the fair lending laws.10 The Director of the Board's Division of Consumer and Community Affairs co-chairs the FFETF's Non-Discrimination Working Group with the Assistant Attorney General for DOJ's Civil Rights Division, the Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Assistant Director of the CFPB's Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity, and the National Association of Attorneys General, represented by the Attorney General for the State of Illinois. In 2012, the Board and the Non-Discrimination Working Group sponsored a free interagency webinar that had more than 5,000 registrants, most of which were community banks.

In addition, the Federal Reserve participates in numerous meetings, conferences, and trainings sponsored by consumer advocates, industry representatives, and interagency groups. Fair Lending Enforcement staff meets regularly with consumer advocates, supervised institutions, and industry representatives to discuss fair lending matters and receive feedback. Through this outreach, the Board is able to address emerging fair lending issues and promote sound fair lending compliance.

Flood Insurance

The National Flood Insurance Act imposes certain requirements on loans secured by buildings or mobile homes located in, or to be located in, areas determined to have special flood hazards. Under the Federal Reserve's Regulation H, which implements the act, state member banks are generally prohibited from making, extending, increasing, or renewing any such loan unless the building or mobile home, as well as any personal property securing the loan, are covered by flood insurance for the term of the loan. The law requires the Board and other federal financial institution regulatory agencies to impose civil money penalties when they find a pattern or practice of violations of the regulation. The civil money penalties are payable to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for deposit into the National Flood Mitigation Fund.

On July 6, 2012, the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 was signed into law. Among other things, the act raised the civil money penalty cap when a pattern or practice of flood violations exists. Specifically, the cap was raised from $385 per violation to $2,000 per violation. In addition, the overall calendar year cap on penalties was removed.

Coordination with Other Federal Banking Agencies

The member agencies of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) develop uniform examination principles, standards, procedures, and report formats.11 In 2012, the FFIEC member organizations issued examination procedures for three regulations.12

Interagency Examination Procedures for Regulation Z

Procedures were revised to reflect an interim final rule published by the CFPB on December 22, 2011, which restated Regulation Z to reflect the transfer of authority and certain other changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act on July 21, 2011. The interim final rule did not impose any new substantive obligations on persons subject to the existing Regulation Z previously published by the Board.

Interagency Examination Procedures for the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)

Procedures were revised to reflect amendments to the FCRA pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act and related amendments to Regulation V, which implements portions of the FCRA. The Dodd-Frank Act amended sections 615(a) and 615(h) of the FCRA to require the disclosure of credit scores and information relating to credit scores in (1) adverse action notices if a consumer's credit score is used in taking adverse action and (2) risk-based pricing notices if a consumer's credit score is used in setting the material terms of credit. These new credit score disclosure requirements became effective on August 15, 2011.

Interagency Guidance on Mortgage Servicing for Military Homeowners

In June, the FFIEC member agencies jointly announced guidance concerning mortgage servicing practices that might pose risks to homeowners serving in the military.13 The guidance addresses risks related to military homeowners who have informed their loan servicer that they have received Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders to relocate to a new duty station and who might need assistance with their mortgage loans if they are unable to sell their homes to pay off the mortgage debt.

The guidance reminds mortgage loan servicers that their employees should be adequately trained about the options available for assisting military homeowners with PCS orders. It also directs servicers to provide accurate, clear, and readily understandable information about available options for which homeowners may qualify based on the information known when the homeowners notify their servicers that they have received PCS orders. The guidance also reminds servicers to communicate decisions on assistance requests in a timely manner.

Examiner Training

Ensuring that financial institutions comply with laws that protect consumers and encourage community reinvestment is an important part of the bank examination and supervision process. As the number and complexity of consumer financial transactions grow, training examiners becomes even more important. The examiner staff development function is responsible for the ongoing development of the professional consumer compliance supervisory staff, and ensuring that these staff members have the skills necessary to meet their supervisory responsibilities now and in the future.

Consumer Compliance Examiner Training Curriculum

The consumer compliance examiner training curriculum consists of five courses focused on various consumer protection laws, regulations, and examining concepts. In 2012, these courses were offered in 13 sessions, and training was delivered to a total of 277 System consumer compliance examiners and staff members and five state banking agency examiners.

When appropriate, courses are delivered via alternative methods, such as the Internet or other distance-learning technologies. For instance, several courses use a combination of instructional methods: (1) classroom instruction focused on case studies and (2) specially developed computer-based instruction that includes interactive self-check exercises.

Board and Reserve Bank staff regularly review the core curriculum for examiner training, updating subject matter and adding new elements as appropriate. During 2012, staff initiated one interim curriculum review. The Fair Lending Examination Techniques course was reviewed in order to incorporate lessons learned from previous courses. This course is designed to equip assistant level examiners with the skills and knowledge to plan and conduct a risk-focused fair lending examination, and incorporates the FFIEC fair lending examination procedures.

Life-long Learning

In addition to providing core examiner training, the examiner staff development function emphasizes the importance of continuing life-long learning. Opportunities for continuing learning include special projects and assignments, self-study programs, rotational assignments, the opportunity to instruct at System schools, mentoring programs, and an annual consumer compliance examiner forum, where senior consumer compliance examiners receive information on emerging compliance issues and are able to share best practices from across the System.

In 2012, the System continued to offer "Rapid Response" sessions, which provide a powerful delivery method for just-in-time training. Debuted in 2008, Rapid Response sessions offer examiners one-hour teleconference presentations on emerging issues or urgent training needs that result from the implementation of new laws, regulations, or supervisory guidance. A total of nine consumer compliance Rapid Response sessions were designed, developed, and presented to System staff during 2012.

Responding to Consumer Complaints and Inquiries

The Federal Reserve investigates complaints against state member banks and selected nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies (Federal Reserve-regulated entities), and forwards complaints against other creditors and businesses to the appropriate enforcement agency. Each Reserve Bank investigates complaints against state member banks and selected nonbank subsidiaries in its District. The Federal Reserve also responds to consumer inquiries on a broad range of banking topics, including consumer protection questions.

In late 2007, the Federal Reserve established Federal Reserve Consumer Help (FRCH) to centralize the processing of consumer complaints and inquiries. In 2012, FRCH processed 39,246 cases. Of these cases, more than half (25,841) were inquiries and the remainder (13,405) were complaints, with most cases received directly from consumers. Approximately 6 percent of cases were referred to the Federal Reserve from other agencies.

While consumers can contact FRCH by telephone, fax, mail, e-mail, or online (at, most FRCH consumer contacts occurred by telephone (56 percent). Forty-one percent (15,947) of complaint and inquiry submissions were made electronically (via e-mail, online submissions, and fax), and the online form page received 333,281 visits during the year.

Table 1. Complaints against state member banks and selected nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies about regulated practices, by Regulation/Act, 2012

Regulation/Act Number
Regulation AA (Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices) 7
Regulation B (Equal Credit Opportunity) 26
Regulation BB (Community Reinvestment) 2
Regulation C (Home Mortgage Disclosure) 0
Regulation CC (Expedited Funds Availability) 65
Regulation D (Reserve Requirements) 3
Regulation DD (Truth in Savings) 55
Regulation E (Electronic Funds Transfers) 67
Regulation G (Disclosure/Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements) 0
Regulation H (National Flood Insurance Act/Insurance Sales) 20
Regulation M (Consumer Lending) 0
Regulation P (Privacy of Consumer Financial Information) 17
Regulation Q (Payment of Interest) 1
Regulation V (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions) 14
Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) 51
Fair Credit Reporting Act 49
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15
Fair Housing Act 14
Home Ownership Counseling 0
HOPA (Homeowners Protection Act) 2
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 31
Right to Financial Privacy Act 3
Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 3
Total 447

Consumer Complaints

Complaints against Federal Reserve-regulated entities totaled 2,194 in 2012. Approximately 43 percent of these complaints were closed without investigation pending the receipt of additional information from consumers. Nearly 7 percent of the total complaints are still under investigation. Of the remaining complaints (1,109), 60 percent (662) involved unregulated practices and 40 percent (447) involved regulated practices.

Table 2. Complaints against state member banks and selected nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies about regulated practices, by product type, 2012

Subject of complaint/product type All complaints Complaints involving violations
Number Percent Number Percent
Total 447 100 6 1.3
Discrimination alleged
Real estate loans 15 3.4 0 0
Credit cards 4 0.8 0 0
Other loans 6 1.3 0 0
Nondiscrimination complaints
Checking accounts 119 27.0 3 0.07
Real estate loans 87 19.5 1 0.02
Credit cards 77 17.0 0 0
Other 139 31.0 2 0.04

Complaints about Regulated Practices

The majority of regulated practices complaints concerned checking accounts (27 percent), real estate 14 (23 percent), and credit cards (18 percent). The most common checking account complaints related to funds availability not as expected (37 percent), insufficient funds or overdraft charges and procedures (18 percent), forgery/fraud/embezzlement (9 percent), and disputed rates, terms, or fees (8 percent). The most common real estate complaints by problem code related to flood insurance (18 percent), debt collection/foreclosure concerns (15 percent), disputed rates, terms, and fees (14 percent), and payment errors or delays (5 percent). The most common credit card complaints related to inaccurate credit reporting (32 percent), payment errors and delays (10 percent), bank debt collection tactics (9 percent), billing error resolutions (9 percent), and interest rates, terms, and fees (8 percent).

Twenty-five regulated practices complaints alleging discrimination were received. Of these, 12 complaints (3 percent of total regulated complaints) alleged discrimination on the basis of prohibited borrower traits or rights.15 Twenty-eight percent of discrimination complaints was related to the race, color, national origin, or ethnicity of the applicant or borrower. Eight percent of discrimination complaints was related to either the age or handicap of the applicant or borrower. Of the complaints alleging discrimination based on a prohibited basis, there were no violations.

In 96 percent of investigated complaints against Federal Reserve-regulated entities, evidence revealed that institutions correctly handled the situation. Of the remaining 4 percent of investigated complaints, 1 percent was deemed violations of law, 3 percent was identified errors which were corrected by the bank, and the remainder included matters involving litigation or factual disputes, withdrawn complaints, internally referred complaints, or information was provided to the consumer.

Complaints about Unregulated Practices

The Board continued to monitor complaints about banking practices not subject to existing regulations. In 2012, the Board received 662 complaints against Federal Reserve-regulated entities that involved these unregulated practices. The complaints were related to credit cards (24 percent), checking account activity (24 percent), and real estate concerns (18 percent).

Complaint Referrals

In 2012, the Federal Reserve forwarded 11,230 complaints against other banks and creditors to the appropriate regulatory agencies and government offices for investigation. To minimize the time required to re-route complaints to these agencies, referrals were transmitted electronically.

The Federal Reserve forwarded 11 complaints to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act.16 The Federal Reserve's investigation of these complaints revealed no instances of illegal credit discrimination.

Consumer Inquiries

The Federal Reserve received 25,841 consumer inquiries in 2012, covering a wide range of topics. Consumers were typically directed to other resources, including other federal agencies or written materials, to address their inquiries.

Back to section top

Consumer Research and Emerging-Issues and Policy Analysis

Throughout 2012, DCCA analyzed emerging issues in consumer financial services policies and practices in order to understand their implications for the economic and supervisory policies that are core to the Federal Reserve's functions, as well as to gain insight into consumer decisionmaking.

Consumer Financial Services Research

Consumers' Use of Mobile Financial Services

The evolution of technologies that enable consumers to conduct financial transactions using mobile devices has dramatically affected how consumers conduct their financial lives; however, little research has explored this topic. The division has been monitoring trends and developments in mobile financial services for several years and undertook efforts to delve more formally into the topic in 2012. (See box 2.)

To further understand consumers' use of, and opinions about, mobile financial services, the division commissioned an online survey, polling nearly 2,300 respondents to learn whether and how they use mobile devices for banking and payments. This survey was among the first to integrate questions about using mobile devices for shopping and comparing products along with questions about using mobile devices for banking and payments. The findings of the survey were published and released in the report, Consumers and Mobile Financial Services, and was the topic of Congressional testimony.17 A second survey was conducted in November to update the first survey, with the findings compiled and published in early 2013.

Box 2. Consumers' Evolving Use of Mobile Financial Services

In recent years, an increasing array of financial services--including banking services, shopping tools, and payment options--have become available for consumers using cell phones and other mobile devices. Collectively, these developments may ultimately have significant effects on the ways in which consumers conduct their financial lives. Several functions of the Federal Reserve Board--including the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (DCCA)--have been monitoring these new developments in recent years. As mobile financial services are becoming increasingly common, DCCA set out to conduct a survey to assess: the extent of consumers' adoption of these services, how these services are being used, how they could help consumers in their financial decisionmaking, how they could expand access to financial services for underserved populations, and where there may be areas of concern.

Through a nationally representative survey conducted by DCCA in early 2012, the Board learned that 21 percent of all mobile phone users, and 42 percent of smartphone users, had used mobile banking services in the preceding 12 months.1 Fewer consumers reported that they had used their mobile devices to make some form of payment in the prior 12 months--just 12 percent of all mobile phone users and 23 percent of smartphone users. For both mobile banking and mobile payments, the two primary reasons why people chose not to adopt the service were: (1) concerns about the security of the technology and (2) the belief that these new services did not provide sufficient benefits over existing services to justify their usage.

The survey further showed that the increasing availability of just-in-time financial information may change the way that consumers make financial decisions. For example, among the respondents who indicated that they receive text message alerts telling them that they have a low balance, 86 percent reported taking action--such as transferring funds into the account, making a deposit, or reducing their spending--in response to those messages. Consumers are also making use of their mobile phones to inform their decisions when shopping. For instance, among smartphone users, 41 percent reported using their phones to comparison shop over the Internet while at a store. Of these people, 68 percent indicated that the price comparison resulted in them purchasing the product somewhere other than the store they were in.

As the mobile financial services market is quickly evolving, DCCA plans to conduct a follow-up survey to track trends and recent developments in consumers' use of mobile services. It will report the resulting information in 2013.

1. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2012), Consumers and Mobile Financial Services, (Washington: Board of Governors, March), See also Matthew B. Gross, Jeanne M. Hogarth, and Maximilian D. Schmeiser (2012), "Use of Financial Services by the Unbanked and Underbanked and the Potential for Mobile Financial Services Adoption," Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 94, no. 4, to text

Return to text

Emerging-Issues Analysis

The Policy Analysis function of DCCA provides key insights, information, and analysis on emerging financial services issues that affect the well-being of consumers and communities. To this end, Policy Analysis staff follow and analyze trends, lead Division-wide working groups, and organize expert roundtables to identify emerging risks and inform policy recommendations.

In 2012, the Policy Analysis team was actively engaged in a broad set of issues and activities to promote household financial security and sustainable recovery from the financial crisis. Staff contributed to broad analysis of policy considerations for housing market recovery. In conjunction with other divisions of the Board, the team was involved in proposals for re-use strategies for bank-owned foreclosure properties (also referred to as "real estate owned," or REO) and developing guidance to address some banks' practice of abandoning a foreclosure process without notification to borrowers or local authorities.18

Policy Analysis continued its work on residential mortgage foreclosure issues by assisting with the implementation of the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR). As part of the 2011 enforcement actions against 14 mortgage servicers for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing, the IFR process was created to remediate borrowers financially harmed from improper foreclosure actions in 2009 and 2010.19 Policy staff led the effort to make public data that could be used to inform a more targeted approach to reaching borrowers potentially eligible for an IFR review, and also developed web-based communication materials to broaden IFR outreach efforts.

As part of an ongoing effort to understand various aspects of consumers' financial lives, Policy Analysis conducted inquiries into specific issues. For example, together with the Consumer Research group, Policy Analysis hosted expert roundtables to discuss changes in post-secondary education financing and the possible implications of the trends in student indebtedness for individuals, households, and for the broader economy. The group also facilitated expert dialogues and initiated research into the financial lives and needs of older adults, a growing demographic in the U.S. population with potentially distinct patterns of use of financial services.

Back to section top

Community Economic Development

The Federal Reserve System's Community Development function promotes economic growth and financial stability for low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities and individuals through a range of activities: convening stakeholders, conducting and sharing research, and identifying emerging issues. As a decentralized function, the Community Affairs Officers (CAOs) at each of the 12 Reserve Banks design activities to respond to the specific needs of the communities they serve, with oversight from Board staff. The Board's Community Development staff promote and coordinate Systemwide priorities; in particular, Community Development has five strategic goals:

  1. support programs and promote policies that improve the financial stability of LMI households
  2. strengthen LMI communities by advancing comprehensive neighborhood revitalization and stabilization strategies
  3. foster innovative strategies that assist LMI communities and individuals in launching, growing, and sustaining small businesses
  4. advance innovation and efficiency in community development programs, funding, and infrastructure to promote scale, sustainability, and impact
  5. strategically communicate key findings of the Community Development function and share emerging community development issues and trends that have national implications

Growing Economies in Indian Country

Even as the national economy shows signs of improvement, communities in rural areas of the United States--particularly on tribal lands--still face considerable obstacles in attracting investment, accessing financial services, and supporting entrepreneurship. The Growing Economies in Indian Country (GEIC) initiative was an innovative interagency and Systemwide endeavor focused on a singular cause: Indian Country. The 2011 GEIC workshop series was an interagency effort to address economic development issues, raise awareness of federal assistance programs, and highlight best practices of economic development strategies for Indian Country. The most important objective of GEIC was to hear from members of the community about the barriers to economic development in Native American communities and strategies being employed to overcome those barriers. Nine federal agencies and four Federal Reserve Banks participated in this effort to host workshops at six locations across the country.

In May 2012, the working group released a report and hosted a national summit in Washington, D.C., to share the wide range of views and ideas that surfaced in the GEIC series.20 The summit provided a venue for tribal leaders, policymakers, financial industry professionals, and community development service providers to discuss challenges to economic development in Indian country, opportunities to strengthen Tribal enterprise development, opportunities to expand Native American entrepreneurship and access to small business capital, and opportunities to strengthen governance and legal structures.

The working group continues to meet and share resources as it looks to increase its collaborative efforts and form new partnerships. The hope is that the GEIC series will serve as a model and launching pad for future interagency efforts in Indian Country.

Stabilizing Communities through Strategic Use of Resources

Fallout from the economic crisis has included large inventories of foreclosed properties that stand vacant and abandoned and can have significant destabilizing effects on communities, including increased crime and decreased property values. The challenge of disposing of these real estate owned (REO) properties often outstrips resources, particularly in low-income communities. Throughout 2012, the Federal Reserve's Community Development function and its national partner organizations supported efforts to transform how community investments are made to stabilize communities. Many communities have a mismatch between development needs and available resources to meet these needs. Strategic use of data and other available tools to target limited resources is one method increasingly used to more effectively stabilize distressed neighborhoods. The Federal Reserve is providing information on innovative practices in communities across the nation and on tools available to practitioners and policymakers to aid local efforts.

Labor Markets and Human Capital

Given the attenuating effects of long-term unemployment on the broader economic recovery and the particular issues facing LMI communities, in the fall of 2011, the Community Development function designed an initiative to explore regional perspectives on this issue through a series of forums held throughout the country. Some of these regional forums consisted of small focus groups or listening sessions; others were larger in scope, with more formal agendas focusing on a particular demographic or employment sector. In most cases, forum participants represented either intermediary organizations that are involved in the delivery of workforce development services, local employers, or both. The objective of this initiative was to better understand the complex factors creating long-term unemployment conditions particularly in LMI communities and to identify promising workforce development strategies. In December 2012, the Board released "A Perspective from Main Street: Long-Term Unemployment and Workforce Development,"21 a paper that provides a summary of the key topics that emerged from the forums and examples of how those issues were reflected in different parts of the country and for different populations.

Community Data Initiative

In 2011, the Community Data Initiative (CDI) was launched with the goal of leveraging information-sharing and partnership roles with a rigorous analytical capacity to provide reliable market intelligence that helps identify and close data gaps for LMI communities. The Board and each of the Reserve Banks participate in this collaborative research project to provide systematic and relevant community conditions and trend information on a consistent basis.

Through the use of quarterly or biannual e-polling of selected district community stakeholders, the CDI captures current and emerging community development issues. In 2012, all 12 of the Reserve Banks were administering web-based polls and surveys. To provide a national context for the regional results of Reserve Bank polls, the Board continued to survey NeighborWorks® America affiliates and grantees. Board staff manage this System initiative, working with Reserve Banks, to aggregate the data with the mission of:

  • implementing a more systematic approach to gathering and disseminating market intelligence on current and emerging challenges facing LMI communities
  • enabling staff to differentiate between anecdotes and trends over time
  • capturing regional dispersion of issues and variability of conditions over Reserve Bank districts
  • providing specialized data of interest to a particular district and Board leadership, such as community indicators on affordable housing, workforce development, and small businesses credit

In 2012, Board staff began to utilize text analytics software to analyze open-ended text from some community stakeholder respondents, including the Board survey administered by NeighborWorks. Current and emerging trends from such analysis will inform survey question design and language used in Board communications, including speeches and press releases.

The CDI staff also continues to explore various graphical and trend analysis, as well as visual capture, of LMI community conditions' variability across Reserve Bank districts. The Board team is collaborating with Reserve Bank CDI working groups on the following topics: new statistical methodologies, reporting comparative and aggregate information, and deep-dive/drill-down sector-specific surveys on issues that continue to display fragile or no recovery capacity.

NeighborWorks-Board National Survey for 2012:Q4 closed on January 11, 2013, with 396 respondents across all 12 Reserve Bank districts. The survey provides national information on housing counselors experience with Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program, workforce development issues, affordable rental housing issues, and a national ranking of the top three current issues impacting LMI communities currently, as well as the top three emerging issues (expected within the next six months). The survey findings serve as a baseline comparison for the Reserve Bank district web-based survey findings.

As the CDI data set continues to build over time, it has the potential to serve as a robust source of information to augment other Federal Reserve data collection efforts and to bring insight into the economic and financial issues of LMI communities.

Back to section top

Consumer Laws and Regulations

Throughout 2012, DCCA continued to administer the Board's regulatory responsibilities with respect to certain entities and specific statutory provisions of the consumer financial services and fair lending laws. DCCA also drafts regulations and official interpretations and issues regulatory interpretations and compliance guidance for the industry, the Reserve Banks, other federal agencies, and congressional staff.

Appraisal Requirements for "Higher-Risk Mortgage Loans"

In August, the Board and five other federal financial regulatory agencies jointly announced proposed rules to implement amendments to the Truth in Lending Act that would establish new appraisal requirements for "higher-risk mortgage loans." 22 The proposal would implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, and would apply to loans secured by a consumer's home that have interest rates above a certain threshold. For such loans, the proposed rule would require creditors to use a licensed or certified appraiser to prepare a written report based on a physical inspection of the interior of the property. The proposed rule also would require creditors to disclose to applicants information about the purpose of the appraisal and provide consumers with a free copy of any appraisal report. Under the proposal, creditors also would have to obtain an additional appraisal at no cost to the consumer if the consumer is buying a home that the seller acquired for a lower price during the prior six months.

The public comment period closed in October. Consistent with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, final regulations to implement these provisions were issued on January 18, 2013.23

Back to section top


1. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation and Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (2012), "Consolidated Supervision Framework for Large Financial Institutions," Supervision and Regulation Letter SR 12-17 and CA 12-14 (December 17), to text

2. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation and Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (2012), "Guidance on a Lender's Decision to Discontinue Foreclosure Proceedings," Supervision and Regulation Letter SR 12-11 and CA 12-10 (July 11), to text

3. For more information on the Independent Foreclosure Review, go to and  Leaving the Board .   Return to text

4. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2012), "Agencies release financial remediation guidance, extend deadline for requesting a free independent foreclosure review to September 30, 2012," press release, June 21, to text

5. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2013), "Independent foreclosure review to provide $3.3 billion in payments, $5.2 billion in mortgage assistance," press release, January 7, to text

6. Although not part of the Independent Foreclosure Review, on January 16, 2013, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley reached similar agreements in principle with the Federal Reserve related to enforcement actions for deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2013), "Federal Reserve Board reaches agreements in principle with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to provide $557 million in payments and other mortgage assistance to borrowers," press release, January 16, and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (2013), "OCC and Federal Reserve reach agreement with HSBC to provide $249 million in payments and assistance," press release, January 18, to text

7. Another protested application was withdrawn by the applicant. For more information on Orders on Banking Applications in 2012, go to to text

8. Minutes for the Washington, D.C., meeting are available at; for Chicago at; and for San Francisco at to text

9. Federal Reserve System (2012), "Capital One Financial Corporation, McLean, Virginia: Order Approving the Acquisition of a Savings Association and Nonbanking Subsidiaries," FRB Order No. 2012-2 (February 14), to text

10. For more information about the FFETF, go to www.stopfraud.govReturn to text

11. FFIEC member agencies include the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the FDIC, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the OCC, the State Liaison Committee (SLC), and the CFPB.   Return to text

12. In prior years, the Board included in this section the findings and rate of compliance with the consumer protection rules for which it had rulemaking authority as reported by the various federal agencies with supervisory authority for those regulations. This reporting responsibility transferred to the CFPB in July 2011. For more information see to text

13. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2012), "Agencies issue guidance concerning mortgage servicing practices that impact servicemembers," press release, June 21, to text

14. Real estate loans include adjustable-rate mortgages, residential construction loans, open-end home equity lines of credit, home improvement loans, home purchase loans, home refinance/closed-end loans, and reverse mortgages.  Return to text

15. This includes alleged discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, applicant income derived from public assistance programs, or applicant reliance on provisions of the Consumer Credit Protection Act.  Return to text

16. A memorandum of understanding between HUD and the federal bank regulatory agencies requires that complaints alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act be forwarded to HUD.  Return to text

17. See Sandra F. Braunstein, Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (2012), "Mobile payments," Before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, March 29, to text

18. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation and Division of Consumer and Community Affairs (2012), "Guidance on a Lender's Decision to Discontinue Foreclosure Proceedings," Supervision and Regulation Letter SR 12-11 and CA 12-10 (July 11) to text

19. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2011), "Federal Reserve issues enforcement actions related to deficient practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing," press release, April 13, to text

20. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2012), "Growing Economies in Indian Country: Taking Stock of Progress and Partnerships," (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: Washington, D.C., April), to text

21. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2012), "A Perspective from Main Street: Long-Term Unemployment and Workforce Development (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: Washington, D.C., December),   Return to text

22. The proposal was issued jointly with the CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, CFPB, FDIC, FHFA, NCUA, and OCC (2012), "Agencies issue proposed rule on appraisals for higher-risk mortgages," joint press release, August 15, to text

23. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, CFPB, FDIC, FHFA, NCUA, and OCC (2013), "Agencies issue final rule on appraisals for higher-priced mortgage loans," joint press release, January 18, to text

Last update: June 25, 2013

Back to Top