Click to return to BOL home page
 


MAIN CONTENT 
Compliance

    Agency Road Maps

    Alphabet Soup

    Compliance Tools

    FACTA/FCRA

    OFAC

Lending

    Article 9

    FACTA/FCRA

    HMDA Heaven

    Lending Tools

    SCRA

Marketing

Operations

    Check 21

    Disaster Updates

    Disaster Recovery

    HR Corner

    IRA Season

    Money Matters

    Operations Tools

    SARResearchGuide

Security

    AML/BSA

    Bank Robbery

    Counterfeits

    ID Fraud/Phishing

    Security Tools

Technology/eBanking

    Disaster Updates

    Disaster Recovery

    Info Security


SPECIAL AREAS 
BOL Archives

BOL Blogs

Briefing Archive

Calendar

Court Watch

Disaster Issuances

Em@il Education

Examiner's Corner

Executive Briefing

Infovault

Launch Pad

Lessons Learned

Monthly Roundup

Risk Management

Site Map

Site Orientation

Top Stories


~ ~ ~
SERVICES 
Background Check
BOL Conferencing

CrimeDex

Em@il Education

ID Verification

Record Retention


~ ~ ~
SHOP 

Banker Store

Bankers Info Ntwk
Books
Vendor Connect

CONNECT 

Career Connect

Learning Connect

Vendor Connect

Guru Central

INTERACT 

Ask a Guru
Bankers Threads

Contact Us

Give Us Feedback


TOOLS 

60 Second Solutions

Alphabet Soup

Banker Tools

BOL Forms

FUN 

Banker Humor

Banker Memories

BOL Recipes

eCard Exchange

LEARN MORE 

About Advertising
About Our Sponsors
About Us

Print Friendly! Email This Article! Discuss NOW!



CAC Discussions

The Consumer Advisory Council discussed a variety of current topics at its fall 2004 meeting. The meeting is always an early alert for the year's compliance issues.

The first topic on the agenda was CRA - always a CAC classic. The Council discussed the current divergence in the agencies' CRA rules, with bank representatives expressing concerns that different rules could have uneven effects, even including an impact on safety and soundness. Consumer advocates generally supported uniformity but not at any price. The consumer advocates believe that the $1 billion distinction for small or large banks is not appropriate. Banks can expect opposition to any such proposal from the other agencies.

Both banks and consumer activists agreed that the community development test needs work. Examiners have narrowed the meaning of the test and made it difficult for many smaller banks to meet the test. Consumer groups do not want to see this problem solved simply by raising the threshold.

It should be no surprise that bounce protection was hotly discussed. The primary concerns here were the concerns that the programs were not properly disclosed and many actually promoted with some deception in the marketing. Consumer advocates want the programs to be covered by Truth in Lending, which would be accomplished by making an adjustment to the definition of credit in Regulation Z. Clearly the industry would be wise to provide clear information about any bounce protection program.

Copyright © 2004 Compliance Action. Originally appeared in Compliance Action, Vol. 9, No. 12, 11/04




Print Friendly! Email This Article! Discuss NOW!



Privacy Policy    Disclaimer   Recommend This Site !   Contact Us


BankersOnline is a free service made possible by the generous support of our advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers and sponsors are not responsible for site content. Please help us keep BankersOnline FREE to all banking professionals. Support our advertisers and sponsors by clicking through to learn more about their products and services.