Dodd-Frank compliance is a burden for small banks, experts say
Experts from small financial institutions testified during a House Small Business subcommittee on investigations about the burden of Dodd-Frank compliance on small banks and credit unions.
December 05, 2013 at 05:55 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
On Dec. 3, experts from small financial institutions testified during a House Small Business subcommittee on investigations about the burden of Dodd-Frank compliance on small banks and credit unions.
Small businesses have too much to worry about already. When words like compliance are uttered, small business owners may cringe with uncertainty or see their costs soaring. Others may ignore the word, pretending it doesn't exist, and hope not to get caught.
Small business compliance involves doing a lot of administrative work to please various government agencies. Sure, these rules and regulations provide necessary societal safeguards, but they also distract banks from important tasks, like finding new customers and getting ahead of the competition. However, if not dealt with properly, compliance issues affect the bottom line.
Unfortunately, small financial institutions do not have teams of attorneys and consultants to work on compliance and tend to drain resources that could have gone toward working with customers. It may be some time before the impact of post-recession bank reform reaches small financial institutions in the U.S., but compliance with the Dodd-Frank law demands resources — time and money — to navigate the new regulatory landscape.
On December 3, light was shed on this situation in the form of testimony from experts appearing at a hearing of the House Small Business subcommittee on investigations, oversight and regulations.
“Assuring compliance takes an inordinate amount of time away from what we should be doing,” said B. Doyle Mitchell Jr., president and CEO of Washington-based Industrial Bank, at the hearing. “Community banks should be exempt from Dodd-Frank overall.”
He estimated that his employees devote 10 percent of their workdays to regulatory issues, like ensuring mortgage applications meet the requirements of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In addition, Linda Sweet, president and CEO of Big Valley Federal Credit Union, said her organization spends about $50,000 on legal advice— money that could have gone to customers. She said, “Our legal staff has a complete segment of their practice devoted to dealing with compliance.”
According to Paul Merski, ICBA executive vice president and chief economist, the majority of compliance costs cut into the bottom line. “The net interest margin for banks is very thin,” he explained. “Each additional cost of compliance really cuts into their ability to remain profitable. There's not much slack to pick up those extra costs.”
Meanwhile, Georgetown University Law Center Professor Adam Levitin said many portions of Dodd-Frank have not gone into effect yet and it is too early to assess the damage the law causes to small banks. According to Levitin, there is insufficient evidence to make the case for a compliance burden. “There is no hard data about extent of the impact of compliance costs,” he said.
Mitchell has urged policymakers to pass the Community Lending Enhancement and Regulatory Relief Act, in order to loosen the grip of Dodd-Frank reforms on small banks.
For more news on compliance, check out the following:
On Dec. 3, experts from small financial institutions testified during a House Small Business subcommittee on investigations about the burden of Dodd-Frank compliance on small banks and credit unions.
Small businesses have too much to worry about already. When words like compliance are uttered, small business owners may cringe with uncertainty or see their costs soaring. Others may ignore the word, pretending it doesn't exist, and hope not to get caught.
Small business compliance involves doing a lot of administrative work to please various government agencies. Sure, these rules and regulations provide necessary societal safeguards, but they also distract banks from important tasks, like finding new customers and getting ahead of the competition. However, if not dealt with properly, compliance issues affect the bottom line.
Unfortunately, small financial institutions do not have teams of attorneys and consultants to work on compliance and tend to drain resources that could have gone toward working with customers. It may be some time before the impact of post-recession bank reform reaches small financial institutions in the U.S., but compliance with the Dodd-Frank law demands resources — time and money — to navigate the new regulatory landscape.
On December 3, light was shed on this situation in the form of testimony from experts appearing at a hearing of the House Small Business subcommittee on investigations, oversight and regulations.
“Assuring compliance takes an inordinate amount of time away from what we should be doing,” said B. Doyle Mitchell Jr., president and CEO of Washington-based Industrial Bank, at the hearing. “Community banks should be exempt from Dodd-Frank overall.”
He estimated that his employees devote 10 percent of their workdays to regulatory issues, like ensuring mortgage applications meet the requirements of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In addition, Linda Sweet, president and CEO of Big Valley Federal Credit Union, said her organization spends about $50,000 on legal advice— money that could have gone to customers. She said, “Our legal staff has a complete segment of their practice devoted to dealing with compliance.”
According to Paul Merski, ICBA executive vice president and chief economist, the majority of compliance costs cut into the bottom line. “The net interest margin for banks is very thin,” he explained. “Each additional cost of compliance really cuts into their ability to remain profitable. There's not much slack to pick up those extra costs.”
Meanwhile,
Mitchell has urged policymakers to pass the Community Lending Enhancement and Regulatory Relief Act, in order to loosen the grip of Dodd-Frank reforms on small banks.
For more news on compliance, check out the following:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250