Skip to main content

Office of Banking

  • Yes. The Office of Banking has adjusted our internal operations for remote working. Calls continue to be answered, examinations performed, and applications processed. We will keep the industry informed should any changes occur. Please note receipt of information submitted to our Lansing office via postal mail or overnight delivery may be delayed up to three business days. Electronic submissions are preferred. Please contact us should you have questions regarding the best method for submitting information electronically.

  • Yes. Office of Banking staff members have the capability to perform off-site examination work and monitoring. While off-site examination is not ideal, we appreciate your continued patience and cooperation in providing as much information as possible securely via remote means. Additional on-site supplemental portions of the exam may need to be completed at a later date. If an institution is unable to accommodate an off-site examination, please discuss the situation with your bank’s Examiner-In-Charge (EIC) and/or Regional Supervisor during the pre-examination contact.

  • The Office of Banking will continue to coordinate examination and supervision activities with our federal regulatory partners at the FDIC Chicago Regional Office and the Federal Reserve Banks of Chicago and Minneapolis.

  • On June 23, 2020, state bank and credit union regulators, together with the FDIC, FRB, OCC, and NCUA, issued examiner guidance to promote consistency and flexibility in the supervision and examination of financial institutions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The interagency guidance acknowledges that stresses caused by COVID-19 can adversely impact an institution’s financial condition and operational capabilities, even when institution management has appropriate governance and risk management systems in place to identify, monitor, and control risk. Examiners will consider the unique, evolving, and potentially long-term nature of the issues confronting institutions and exercise appropriate flexibility in their supervisory response.

    The agencies will continue to assess institutions in accordance with existing policies and procedures, and may provide supervisory corrective actions and recommendations, or downgrade an institution’s composite or component ratings, when conditions have deteriorated. Examiners will consider whether bank management has managed risk appropriately, including taking appropriate actions in response to stresses caused by COVID-19. Examiners will assess an institution’s risk identification and reporting processes given the level of information available and the stage of the local economic recovery.

    Interagency Examiner Guidance for Assessing Safety and Soundness Considering the Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Financial Institutions

  • Yes. Banks must abide by all applicable conditions in Governor Whitmer’s Executive Orders, Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) Emergency Rules, and Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Epidemic Orders and take aggressive steps to minimize the spread of coronavirus through social distancing practices and other mitigation measures to protect workers and customers. Prudent steps include restricting lobby access, providing drive-thru services, and advocating the use of alternative service options. Banks may want to remind customers of the various ways they can access banking services, such as by managing their accounts online or with a mobile banking application, performing transactions at an automated teller machine (ATM), or using telephone banking, if available. Financial institutions may also provide information about bill pay and mobile remote deposit capture services. Where in- person services are necessary, such as to access a safe deposit box, social distancing practices should continue to be implemented to the greatest extent possible.

    State of Michigan Coronavirus Resources

    Michigan Coronavirus Resources – Executive Orders & Directives,9753,7-406-98178_98455---,00.html

    DIFS Bulletin 2020-42-BT/CF/CU – Financial Services Industries

  • Yes. Provide notification to the Office of Banking if you fully close, temporarily or permanently, one or more of your banking locations. Please include the address and the date(s) of the planned closure.

  • As your institution implements phases of its pandemic response plan, we ask that you notify us when aspects of the plan may disrupt customer access to financial services and steps your institution is taking to mitigate the impact. Please also notify us of possible disruptions to bank operations due to the health of employees.

  • No. The Michigan Banking Code of 1999 (Code) does not require bank shareholders to meet in person and permits shareholders to vote by proxy. The Code specifically permits boards of directors to meet “by means of electronic communication devices that enable all participants in a meeting to communicate with each other.”

  • No. The Individual Oath of Director forms required upon election or appointment of board members may be transmitted to the Office of Banking electronically.

  • Yes. On March 16, 2020, FinCEN issued a press release related to the COVID-19 and encourages financial institutions to communicate concerns and remain alert to related illicit financial activity, including the following:

    • Imposter Scams: This trend includes bad actors that impersonate government agencies (such as the Centers for Disease Control), international organizations (such as the World Health Organization), or healthcare organizations in order to solicit donations, steal personal information, or distribute malware.
    • Investment Scams: This trend includes promotions that falsely claim that the products or services of a publicly traded company can prevent, detect or cure the coronavirus or COVID-19.
    • Product Scams: This trend covers the sale of unapproved or misbranded products that make false health claims pertaining to COVID-19, including by companies that have received public warning letters or statements from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The guidance notes that FinCEN has also received reports relating to the fraudulent marketing of COVID-19 related supplies, including facemasks. 
    • Insider Trading: FinCEN has also received reports of suspected insider trading related to COVID-19.

    FinCEN Encourages Financial Institutions to Communicate Concerns Related to the COVID-19 financial-institutions

    See also FinCEN COVID-19 Related Advisories and Alerts at, which include topics such as unemployment insurance fraud, cybercrime and cyber-enabled crime, and imposter scams and money mule schemes.

  • Through identity theft and the use of money mules. Criminals are using stolen identities of U.S. citizens to open accounts and file fraudulent claims for unemployment insurance, and money laundering techniques to conceal the identity, source, and destination of illicitly obtained money. This fraud is often perpetrated via out-of-state ACH transactions. We strongly advise increased scrutiny of ACH transactions, especially those outside the norm for customer accounts. Criminals are also using various means to steal legitimate claimants’ passwords, account numbers, and/or Social Security numbers to gain access benefits and accounts.

    If your financial institution uncovers fraudulent ACH payments or schemes related to unemployment insurance benefits, please report the fraud to the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA). All fraud complaints should be filed using the Michigan UIA form, even those involving other states. The UIA will refer any necessary information to state and federal authorities. Banks are also encouraged to reach out the Michigan State Police directly to provide information related to suspected unemployment insurance fraud. Please also notify the DIFS Office of Banking with a summary of the suspected fraud.

    Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency Fraud Reporting Form

  • The Office of Banking encourages banks to work with affected consumers and communities in addressing the impact and challenges resulting from COVID-19. Strategies to consider may include the following:

    • Waiving certain fees, such as:
      • Automated teller machine (ATM) fees for customers and non-customers,
      • Overdraft fees,
      • Late payment fees on credit cards and other loans, and
      • Early withdrawal penalties on time deposits;
    • Increasing ATM daily cash withdrawal limits;
    • Easing restrictions on cashing out-of-state and non-customer checks;
    • Increasing credit card limits for creditworthy borrowers; and
    • Offering payment accommodations, such as allowing borrowers to defer or skip some payments or extending the payment due date, which would avoid delinquencies and negative credit bureau reporting caused by COVID-19-related disruptions.

    In evaluating strategies, banks should not assume undue risk and should be able to adequately monitor and track strategies in relation to the bank’s overall risk profile and capital position. Banks should also clearly communicate the terms of any such accommodations including when the deferred payments will be due.
    The Office of Banking views prudent loan modification programs offered to financial institution customers affected by COVID-19 as positive and proactive actions that can manage or mitigate adverse impacts on borrowers, and lead to improved loan performance and reduced credit risk.

  • Banks should maintain appropriate documentation that considers borrowers’ payment status prior to being affected by COVID-19, and borrowers’ payment performance according to the changes in terms provided by the accommodation. Documentation could also include the borrowers’ recovery plans, sources of repayment, additional advances on existing or new loans, and value of collateral. Loan modifications made due to the impact of COVID-19 should be identified as such in the institution’s loan reporting system(s).

  • On August 3, 2020, the FFIEC, on behalf of its members issued a joint statement to provide prudent risk management and consumer protection principles for financial institutions to consider while working with borrowers as loans near the end of the initial loan accommodation periods provided during the COVID-19 event.

    • FFIEC members encourage financial institutions to consider prudent accommodation options that can ease cash flow pressures on affected borrowers, improve their capacity to service debt, and facilitate institutions’ ability to collect loans, consistent with applicable laws and regulations. Such arrangements may mitigate the long-term impact of a financial challenge on borrowers by helping to avoid delinquencies or other adverse consequences.
    • Effective risk management includes providing clear, conspicuous, and accurate communications and disclosures to inform borrowers of affordable and sustainable accommodation options prior to the end of the accommodation period.

    Joint Statement on Additional Loan Accommodations Related to COVID-19, August 3, 2020

    Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (Revised), April 7, 2020 FDIC FIL-36-2020

  • Yes. On March 26, 2020, the FDIC, FRB, OCC, CFPB, and NCUA issued a joint statement encouraging financial institutions to offer responsible small-dollar loans to consumers and small businesses in response to COVID-19. The statement recognizes that such loans can play an important role in meeting customers' credit needs because of temporary cash-flow imbalances, unexpected expenses, or income disruptions during periods of economic stress or disaster recoveries. Loans should be offered in a manner that provides fair treatment of consumers, complies with applicable laws and regulations, and is consistent with safe and sound practices. The statement noted the agencies were working jointly on future guidance and lending

    Joint Statement Encouraging Responsible Small-Dollar Lending in Response to COVID-19

    On May 20, 2020, the agencies issued “Interagency Lending Principles for Offering Responsible Small-Dollar Loans” to encourage financial institutions to offer responsible small-dollar loans to customers for both consumer and small business purposes.

    Interagency Guidance for Responsible Small-Dollar Loans, May 20, 2020 FDIC FIL-58-2020 letters/2020/fil20058.html

    Interagency Lending Principles for Offering Responsible Small-Dollar Loans

  • No. The CARES Act temporarily permits the Comptroller of the Currency to, by order, exempt any transaction or series of transactions from the requirements of the national bank legal lending limits upon a finding by the Comptroller that such exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the purposes of the limits. The Michigan Banking Code of 1999 authorizes the DIFS Director to make exceptions to state bank legal lending limits via order or declaratory ruling.

  • Yes. The Michigan Banking Code of 1999 specifies the following loans and extensions of credit are not subject to the general legal lending limit for state banks:

    A loan or extension of credit to a customer, secured or covered by guarantees or by commitments or agreements to take over or to purchase the loan or extension of credit, made by a federal reserve bank or by the United States, or a department, bureau, board, commission, or establishment of the United States, including a corporation wholly owned directly or indirectly by the United States.

  • Yes. On April 6, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced a facility to bolster the effectiveness of the SBA's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) by supplying liquidity to participating financial institutions through term financing backed by PPP loans to small businesses. The Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) extends credit to eligible financial institutions that originate PPP loans, taking the loans as collateral at face value. The PPPLF became fully operational and available to provide liquidity to eligible financial institutions on April 16, 2020.

    Federal Reserve Paycheck Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF)

    Federal Reserve Paycheck Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) Term Sheet & Documentation

    Federal Reserve Paycheck Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF) FAQs

  • Yes, provided the applicant otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of the PPP, AND the director is not an officer or key employee of the bank and, in the case of a shareholder, the holder owns less than a 30 percent equity interest in the bank. On April 20, 2020, the SBA issued an interim final rule stating, among other things, that SBA lending restrictions shall not apply to prohibit an otherwise eligible business owned (in whole or part) by an outside director or holder of less than 30 percent equity interest in a PPP lender (e.g., a bank) from obtaining a PPP loan from the [bank] on whose board the director serves or in which the equity owner holders an interest, provided that the eligible business owned by the director or equity holder follows the same process as similarly situated customer or account holder of the [bank]. The rule also states that SBA lending restrictions would continue to apply to officers and key employees of a [bank], and that favoritism by a [bank] in processing time or prioritization of a director's or equity holder's PPP application is prohibited.

    Interim Final Rule – Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; PPP - Additional Eligibility Criteria and Requirements for Certain Pledges of Loans http

  • On April 17, 2020, the Federal Reserve issued an interim final rule that excepts certain loans that are guaranteed under the SBA PPP from the requirements of section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and the corresponding provisions of Regulation O. The change temporarily modifies the Federal Reserve's rules so that certain bank directors and shareholders can apply for PPP loans for their small businesses. However, section 22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act and section 215.5 of Regulation O still apply. The SBA explicitly has prohibited banks from favoring in processing time or prioritization of a PPP loan application from a director or equity holder.

    Federal Reserve Board announces rule change to bolster the effectiveness of the Small Business Administration's Paycheck Protection Program

  • Yes. On April 14, 2020, the FDIC, FRB and OCC issued an interim final rule that temporarily defers
    the requirement to obtain an appraisal or evaluation for up to 120 days following the closing of a
    transaction for certain residential and commercial real estate transactions, excluding transactions
    for acquisition, development, and construction of real estate. Regulated institutions should make
    best efforts to obtain a credible valuation of real property collateral before the loan closing, and
    otherwise underwrite loans consistent with the principles in the agencies' Standards for Safety and
    Soundness and Real Estate Lending Standards. This temporary change to the appraisal rules
    expires on December 31, 2020.


    Interim Final Rule - Facilitating Real Estate-Related Transactions Affected by COVID-19
    FDIC FIL-43-2020

    The final rule, issued September 29, 2020, makes one revision to the interim final rule by clarifying
    that transactions for the acquisition, development, and construction of real estate excluded from the
    120-day deferral period mean, for purposes of this rule, those loans described in the Call Report
    Instructions for Schedule RC-C, Part I, item 1.a.

    Final Rule – Real Estate Appraisal and Evaluation Deferral (Agencies Adopt Final Rule on Certain
    Real Estate Transactions for Financial Institutions and Consumers Affected by the Coronavirus)
    FDIC FIL-94-2020

    The FDIC, FRB, OCC, NCUA and CFPB, in consultation with the state financial regulators, also
    issued an Interagency Statement on Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Related Financial
    Transactions Affected by the Coronavirus. The Statement outlines existing flexibilities provided by
    industry appraisal standards and the agencies' appraisal regulations and highlights temporary
    changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appraisal standards to facilitate real estate transactions.

    Interagency Statement on Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Transactions Affected by the

  • Yes. Public Acts 246-249 of 2020 together allow for the remote signing, witnessing, notarization, and recording of certain documents from April 30, 2020, through December 31, 2020. The laws amend the Estates and Protected Individuals Code, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act, and the Michigan Law on Notarial Acts, respectively. To a large extent, the bills put into law the provisions of Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 2020-187, encouraging the use of electronic signatures and remote notarization, witnessing, and visitation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 2020-187 (COVID-19),9309,7-387-90499_90705-540835--,00.html

    Senate Fiscal Agency Bill Analysis H.B. 6294-6297: Summary of House-Passed Bill (Passed by the Senate without amendment and approved by the Governor)

  • The federal banking agencies’ appraisal regulations require that appraisals be conducted in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). While exterior and interior inspections are commonly conducted in preparing appraisals and evaluations and can facilitate high quality valuations, such inspections are not required by the agencies’ appraisal regulations. Rather, as allowed by USPAP, an appraiser can determine the characteristics of a property through, among other things, any combination of property inspection, asset records, photographs, property sketches, and recorded media.

    On March 17, 2020, the Appraisal Standards Board issued “2020-21 USPAP Q&A” which indicates that when an interior inspection would customarily be part of the scope of work, a health or other emergency condition may require an appraiser to make an extraordinary assumption about the interior of a property. USPAP permits this approach as long as the appraiser has a reasonable basis for the extraordinary assumption and as long as its use still results in a credible analysis. Both desktop appraisals and exterior-only appraisals can fulfill the requirements of USPAP as long as the analysis is credible. Interior inspections are still required, however, for certain higher-priced mortgage loans.

    Q&As from the Appraisal Standards Board

    Financial institutions should consult with appraisers and other persons performing real estate inspections about alternative arrangements if the inspector cannot access the interior of a property due to concerns related to COVID-19.

    Responses to COVID-19 related questions provided by The Appraisal Foundation note that the USPAP addresses situations where access to the interior of a property may not be feasible. USPAP permits an appraiser to make an extraordinary assumption about the interior of a property due to health concerns or other emergency conditions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Appraisers may have a variety of reasonable bases for an extraordinary assumption, including, but not limited to:

    • Determining an interior inspection is not needed because the appraiser has a reasonable basis for an extraordinary assumption and its use still results in a credible analysis.
    • Having conducted a prior inspection of the property in the recent past.
    • Obtaining an affidavit and/or pictures from the borrower regarding the interior.

    The Appraisal Foundation - Coronavirus and Appraisers: Your Questions Answered

  • Yes. Effective March 26, 2020, the Federal Reserve reduced reserve requirement ratios to zero percent. On April 24, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced an interim final rule to amend Regulation D to delete the six-per-month limit on convenient transfers from the “savings deposit” definition. The rule allows depository institutions immediately to suspend enforcement of the six transfer limit and to allow their customers to make an unlimited number of convenient transfers and withdrawals from their savings deposits at a time when financial events associated with the coronavirus pandemic have made such access more urgent. The regulatory limit in Regulation D was the basis for distinguishing between reservable "transaction accounts" and non-reservable "savings deposits." The recent action reducing all reserve requirement ratios to zero rendered this regulatory distinction unnecessary.

    FRB Services - Reserve Account Administration Application Frequently Asked Questions

    Interim Final Rule - Regulation D: Reserve Requirements for Depository Institutions

    Federal Reserve Savings Deposit Frequently Asked Questions

  • Yes. On April 16, 2020, the FFIEC, on behalf of its member agencies, announced the availability of FFIEC Federal Disclosure Computational Tools, including the Annual Percentage Rate (APR) Computational Tool and the Annual Percentage Yield (APY) Computational Tool. The FFIEC member agencies collaborated to develop the Federal Disclosure Computational Tools, which will assist financial institutions in their efforts to comply with the consumer protection laws and regulations.

    The APR Computational Tool is designed to streamline the process by which examiners and financial institutions can verify finance charges and annual percentage rates included on consumer loan disclosures subject to the Truth in Lending Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation Z. This web-based tool supports the verification of disclosed APR calculations related to unsecured and secured installment and construction loans, including real estate-secured loans. The APR Computational Tool also supports verification of compliance with the Military Annual Percentage Rate (MAPR) limits under the Military Lending Act.

    The APY Computational Tool supports verification of APYs on consumer deposit account disclosures subject to the Truth in Savings Act, including advertisements and periodic statements.

    FFIEC Federal Disclosure Computational Tools

  • Yes. A financial institution may account for an eligible loan modification either under section 4013 of the CARES Act or in accordance with U.S. GAAP (ASC Subtopic 310-40.5). If a loan modification is not eligible under section 4013, or if the institution elects not to account for the loan modification under section 4013, the financial institution should evaluate whether the modified loan is a TDR.

    To be an eligible loan under section 4013 of the CARES Act, a loan modification must be:

    1. related to COVID-19;
    2. executed on a loan that was not more than 30 days past due as of December 31, 2019; and
    3. executed between March 1, 2020, and the earlier of
      1. 60 days after the date of termination of the National Emergency or
      2. December 31, 2020 (applicable period).

    Financial institutions accounting for eligible loans under section 4013 are not required to apply U.S.
    GAAP to the section 4013 loans for the term of the loan modification. Financial institutions do not
    have to report section 4013 loans as TDRs in regulatory reports. Institutions do not need to
    determine impairment associated with certain loan concessions that would otherwise have been
    required for TDRs (e.g., interest rate concessions, payment deferrals, or loan extensions).
    However, consistent with section 4013, financial institutions should maintain records of the volume
    of section 4013 loans.

    Data about section 4013 loans is collected on a confidential basis for supervisory purposes.
    Effective with the June 30, 2020 Call Report, institutions began reporting the number and amount
    outstanding of Section 4013 loans on Schedule RC-C, Part I, Memorandum items 17.a and 17.b.

    Refer to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) instructions

  • There are circumstances in which a loan modification may not be eligible under Section 4013 or in which an institution elects not to apply Section 4013. For example, a loan that is modified after the end of the applicable period would not be eligible under Section 4013. For such loans, the guidance below applies.

    Modifications of loan terms do not automatically result in TDRs. According to U.S. GAAP (ASC Subtopic 310-40), a restructuring of a debt constitutes a TDR if the creditor, for economic or legal reasons related to the debtor’s financial difficulties, grants a concession to the debtor that it would not otherwise consider. Short-term modifications made on a good faith basis in response to COVID-19 to borrowers who were current (i.e., less than 30 days past due) prior to any relief are not TDRs. This includes short-term (e.g., six months) modifications such as payment deferrals, fee waivers, extensions of repayment terms, or other delays in payment that are insignificant. The agencies have confirmed with staff of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that short-term modifications made on a good faith basis in response to COVID-19 to borrowers who were current prior to any relief are not TDRs under ASC Subtopic 310-40.

    Accordingly, working with borrowers who are current on existing loans, either individually or as part of a program for creditworthy borrowers who are experiencing short-term financial or operational problems as a result of COVID-19 generally would not be considered TDRs. More specifically, financial institutions may presume that borrowers are not experiencing financial difficulties at the time of the modification for purposes of determining TDR status, and thus no further TDR analysis is required for each loan modification in the program, if:

    • The modification is in response to the National Emergency;
    • The borrower was current (i.e., less than 30 days past due) on payments at the time the modification program is implemented; and
    • The modification is short-term (e.g., six months).

    FASB Statement on Prudential Regulator Guidance Concerning Troubled Debt Restructurings

  • On August 3, 2020, the FFIEC, on behalf of its members issued a joint statement to provide prudent risk management principles for financial institutions to consider while working with borrowers as loans near the end of the initial loan accommodation periods provided during the COVID-19 event. The statement also addresses issues relative to accounting and regulatory reporting and internal control systems.

    • In accordance with U.S. GAAP and regulatory reporting instructions, management should consider the effects of external events, such as the COVID-19 event, in its allowance estimation processes.
    • Internal controls for initial and additional accommodation periods include quality assurance, credit risk review, operational risk management, compliance risk management, and internal audit functions that are commensurate with the size, complexity, and risk of a financial institution’s activities.

    FFIEC Joint Statement on Additional Loan Accommodations Related to COVID-19

  • Examiners will exercise judgment in reviewing loan modifications, and will not automatically adversely risk rate credits that are affected by COVID-19. All loan modifications should be consistent with safe and sound practices (including maintenance of appropriate allowances for loan and lease losses or allowances for credit losses, as applicable). Regardless of whether modifications are considered TDRs, section 4013 loans, or are adversely classified, Office of Banking, FDIC and FRB examiners will not criticize prudent efforts to modify terms on existing loans for affected customers.

  • The agencies note that efforts to work with borrowers of one-to-four family residential mortgages as described above, where the loans are prudently underwritten, and not 90 days or more past due or carried in nonaccrual status, will not result in the loans being considered restructured or modified for the purposes of risk-based capital rules.

  • Borrowers who were current prior to becoming affected by COVID-19 and then receive a payment deferral as a result of the effects of COVID-19 generally would not be reported as past due. Each financial institution should consider the specific facts and circumstances regarding its payment accommodations for borrowers affected by COVID-19 in determining the appropriate reporting treatment in accordance with U.S. GAAP and regulatory reporting instructions. Past due reporting status in regulatory reports should be determined in accordance with the contractual terms of a loan, as its terms have been revised under a payment accommodation or similar program provided to an individual customer or across-the-board to all affected customers. If all payments are current in accordance with the revised terms of the loan, the loan would not be reported as past due.

    For loans subject to a payment deferral program on which payments were past due prior to the borrower being affected by COVID-19, it is the Office of Banking’s and the FDIC’s position that the delinquency status of the loan may be adjusted back to the status that existed at the date of the borrower became affected, essentially being frozen for the duration of the payment deferral period. For example, if a consumer loan subject to a payment deferral program was 60 days past due on the date of the borrower became affected by COVID-19, an institution would continue to report the loan in its regulatory reports as 60 days past due during the deferral period (unless the loan is reported in nonaccrual status or charged off).

    FDIC FAQs for Financial Institutions Affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

  • Each financial institution should refer to the applicable regulatory reporting instructions, as well as its internal accounting policies, in determining whether to report loans with accommodations to customers affected by COVID-19 as nonaccrual assets in regulatory reports. Each institution should maintain an appropriate allowance allocation for these loans, considering all information available prior to filing its reports about their collectability. As information becomes available that indicates a specific loan will not be repaid, institutions should preserve the integrity of their internal loan grading methodology and maintain appropriate accrual status on affected credits. Financial institutions should appropriately recognize credit losses according to their charge-off policies as soon as a credit loss can be reasonably estimated.

  • Yes. On April 24, 2020, the federal regulatory agencies hosted an “Ask the Regulator” webinar on loan modifications and reporting for financial institutions working with customers affected by coronavirus. The goals of the session included raising awareness of the revised interagency statement, dated April 7, 2020, clarifying the interaction between current accounting rules and Section 4013 of the CARES Act, demonstrating the consistency of views across the agencies, and answering industry questions. A recording of the session may be accessed using the link provided for the webinar.

    Ask the Regulators: Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the Coronavirus

  • Institutions are encouraged to consult their accountants. The regulatory reporting requirements applicable to the Call Report should conform to U.S. GAAP. The following provides summary guidance for regulatory reporting purposes:

    • Institutions should report extensions of credit made within the SBA’s PPP as loans.
    • The accounting and reporting for fees received in connection with a PPP loan will depend on the institution’s intent and accounting for the loan (e.g., held for investment or intent to sell).
    • The SBA guarantee should be considered in estimating credit losses on the originated loan.
    • Payments received from the borrower or the SBA (including forgiveness) prior to the maturity of the loan, other than required payments of principal and interest, are considered prepayments.
    • FDIC FAQs on the SBA PPP, Accounting and Regulatory Reporting (pages 9-10)

    On June 30, 2020, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and its Depository Institutions Expert Panel released a Technical Questions and Answers that discussed the accounting for the fee received or receivable from the SBA for originating the loan and the SBA guarantee and its interaction in estimating credit losses on the associated loan.

    AICPA Technical Questions and Answers – Section 2130.42-.44, PPP tqa-section-2130-42-44.pdf

  • Yes. On April 9, 2020, the federal banking agencies issued an interim final rule that modifies the agencies' capital rules to neutralize the regulatory capital effects of participating in the Federal Reserve's PPP liquidity facility because there is no credit or market risk in association with PPP loans pledged to the facility. Consistent with the agencies' current capital rules and the CARES Act requirements, the interim final rule also clarifies that a zero percent risk weight applies to loans covered by the PPP for capital purposes. For PPP loans not pledged to the Federal Reserve’s PPPLF, a financial institution must include the on-balance-sheet carrying value of the PPP-covered loans in its average total consolidated assets and total leverage exposure. On April 21, 2020, a minor correction was issued to conform the rule text. On September 29, 2020, the agencies finalized a rule that adopted this interim final rule, along with two others, without changes.

    Interim Final Rule – Regulatory Capital: Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility and Paycheck Protection Program Loans

  • Yes. Section 4014 of the CARES Act provides banks the option to temporarily delay implementing CECL until the earlier of December 31, 2020 or the date on which the national emergency declaration related to coronavirus is terminated. On March 27, 2020, the federal banking agencies announced an interim final rule that allows banking organizations that implement CECL before the end of 2020 the option to delay an estimate of CECL’s effect on regulatory capital, relative to the incurred loss methodology’s effect on regulatory capital, for two years. This delay is then followed by a three-year transition period. On March 31, 2020, the agencies issued a joint statement that clarifies the interaction between the interim final rule that provides a five-year transition period for the impact of the current expected credit loss methodology (CECL) on regulatory capital and the temporary CECL relief provided by the CARES Act. On April 22, 2020, the agencies published a technical correction, final rule that corrects errors in and clarifies the March interim final rule.

    On August 26, 2020, the federal banking agencies adopted final changes to the capital rule that allow banking organizations that adopt the current expected credit losses (CECL) methodology of estimating allowances for credit losses during the 2020 calendar year to have the option to delay for up to two years an estimate of CECL’s effect on regulatory capital followed by a three-year transition period. The final rule is consistent with the interim final rule published in March 2020, with certain clarifications and minor adjustments related to the mechanics of the transition and the eligibility criteria for applying the transition. The final rule expands the pool of eligible institutions to include any institution adopting CECL in 2020, including those that early adopt.

    Revised Transition of the Current Expected Credit Losses Methodology for Allowances FDIC FIL-84-2020

    Final Rule - Regulatory Capital: Revised Transition of the Current Expected Credit Losses Methodology for Allowances

    Joint Statement on the Interaction of Regulatory Capital Rule: Revised Transition of the CECL Methodology for Allowances with Section 4014 of the CARES Act

  • Yes. Section 4012 of the CARES Act requires the federal banking agencies to temporarily lower the CBLR to 8 percent until the earlier of December 31, 2020 or the date on which the national emergency declaration related to coronavirus is terminated. It also required the agencies to provide for a reasonable grace period if a community bank’s CBLR falls below the prescribed level.

    On April 6, 2020, the agencies issued two interim final rules. The first rule provides that, as of the second quarter 2020, a banking organization with a leverage ratio of 8 percent or greater that meets the other existing qualifying criteria may elect to use the CBLR framework. It also establishes a two-quarter grace period for a qualifying community banking organization whose leverage ratio falls below the 8-percent CBLR requirement, so long as the banking organization maintains a leverage ratio of 7 percent or greater.

    Interim Final Rule – Regulatory Capital: Temporary Changes to the Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework

    The second rule provides a transition from the temporary 8-percent CBLR requirement to a 9-percent CBLR requirement. The requirements in this rule become applicable as of the earlier of December 31, 2020 or the date on which the national emergency declaration related to coronavirus is terminated. When this rule becomes applicable, the CBLR requirement will be greater than 8 percent for the second through fourth quarters of calendar year 2020, greater than 8.5 percent for calendar year 2021, and greater than 9 percent thereafter. It also maintains a two-quarter grace period for a qualifying community banking organization whose leverage ratio falls no more than 100 basis points below the applicable CBLR requirement.

    On August 26, 2020, the agencies adopted these interim final rules with no changes, effective
    October 1, 2020. Highlights of the final rule include:

    • The CBLR will remain 8 percent through calendar year 2020, will be 8.5 percent through calendar year 2021, and will be 9 percent thereafter.
    • The final rule maintains a two-quarter grace period for a qualifying community banking organization whose leverage ratio falls no more than 1 percentage point below the applicable CBLR requirement.
    • The 8 percent CBLR remains available under the interim final rule effective as of June 30, 2020.

    Modifications to the Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework
    FDIC FIL-82-2020

    Final Rule - Regulatory Capital: Temporary Changes to and Transition for the Community Bank
    Leverage Ratio Framework

  • Yes. On November 20, 2020, the FDIC Board of Directors adopted, with immediate effect, an interim final rule to provide temporary regulatory burden relief to certain insured depository institutions that exceeded, or may exceed, certain regulatory asset thresholds due, in large part, to their participation in government programs established in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), among others). The rule, issued with the FRB and OCC, amends certain rules to provide temporary relief to banks with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2019. Highlights of the interim final rule include:

    • Some insured banks have experienced large cash inflows resulting from participation in the PPP, the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility, the Money Market Mutual Liquidity Fund, or other factors, such as the effects of other government stimulus efforts.
    • The rule generally provides temporary relief to insured banks with under $10 billion in total assets as of December 31, 2019, by allowing them to calculate asset size for applicable thresholds during calendar years 2020 and 2021 based on the lower of either total assets as of December 31, 2019 or total assets as of the normal measurement date.
    • For FDIC-supervised institutions, the temporary relief applies to:
      • Eligibility for the community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) framework ($10 billion);
      • Thresholds in the FDIC’s rule regarding management official interlocks ($10 billion, $100 million, and $50 million);
      • Eligibility for reduced reporting on the FFIEC 051 Call Report ($5 billion); and
      • Thresholds concerning the frequency of examinations ($3 billion) for domestic banks and insured branches of foreign banks.
    • The temporary relief expires on December 31, 2021.
    • The agencies reserve the authority, with respect to the CBLR and management interlocks rules, to determine, in limited circumstances, that the regulatory relief would not be appropriate based on an institution’s risk profile.
    • The agencies will be making conforming changes to regulatory reports, in coordination with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, through a separate Federal Register notice.

    Interagency Interim Final Rule Provides Regulatory Relief to Institutions Experiencing Temporary Asset Growth in Connection with COVID-19-Related Programs FDIC FIL-108-2020

    Interim Final Rule: Temporary Asset Thresholds

  • Yes. On June 22, 2020, the FDIC Board of Directors authorized publication of a final rule that mitigates the deposit insurance assessment effects of participating in the SBA PPP, as well as the PPPLF and the MMLF established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The final rule: 1) removes the effect of participation in the PPP and borrowings under the PPPLF on various risk measures used to calculate an IDI’s assessment rate, 2) removes the effect of participation in the PPP and MMLF on certain adjustments to an IDI’s assessment rate, 3) provides an offset to an IDI’s assessment for the increase to its assessment base attributable to participation in the PPP and MMLF, and 4) removes the effect of participation in the PPP and MMLF when classifying IDIs as small, large, or highly complex for assessment purposes. The final rule became effective immediately upon publication with an application date of April 1, 2020.

    Final Rule Mitigating the Deposit Insurance Assessment Effect of Participation in the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP Liquidity Facility, and the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility FDIC FIL-63-2020

  • The agencies recognize that insured depository institutions subject to Part 363 of the FDIC's
    regulations may not be able to file Part 363 Annual Reports in a timely manner due to the effects of
    COVID-19. The agencies will not take supervisory action against any institution for submitting its
    Part 363 Annual Report or its written notification of late filing as long as the annual report or
    notification of late filing is submitted within 45 days of the 90- or 120-day report filing deadline.
    Institutions are encouraged to contact the FDIC in advance of the official filing date if they anticipate
    a delayed submission.

    FIL-30-2020 FDIC Statement on Part 363 Annual Reports in Response to the Coronavirus

  • On March 16, 2020, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a press release requesting that financial institutions affected by the COVID-19 pandemic contact FinCEN and their functional regulator as soon as practicable if such an institution has concerns about any potential delays in its ability to file required BSA reports. FinCEN’s Regulatory Support Section will continue to be available to support financial institutions for the duration of the COVID19 pandemic.

    FinCEN Encourages Financial Institutions to Communicate Concerns Related to the COVID-19