While I'm aware that the phrase "Beneficial Ownership" is considered somewhat of a "four letter word".... I'm going to ask anyway.

I came from a $95 billion dollar bank to a bank that was $8 billion and overnight, via an acquisition, became a $25 billion dollar bank. So, they're now considered (on the low end) a large bank. The final rule is expected some time this year so, I'm curious - Are other mid-large size banks doing anything proactive to assess the potential impact of the final rule on Beneficial Ownership?

The final rule is expected some time this year so, I'm curious.

Really - based on what? The last thing that came out was an ANPRM (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). The next step is the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), followed by a comment period, followed by a final rule, followed by significant lead time for implementation.

The NPRM is not on FinCEN's calendar until March 2014 so the chance of having a final rule in 2014 (if it ever gets that far) is slim to none.

That is not what I thought I'd heard at the 2013 MLEC?

I'll have to pull out my notes, but I thought the comment came from Shasky.....I'm aware of the steps. No need to be condescending.

I'm going to echo Randy's comments in that a Final Rule is far, far down the road. Depending on the type of customers you bank, it may make sense for you to require BO information.

At my FI we identify all BO's who own 10% or more, directly or indirectly, of a privately held company.

If the US is going to follow FATF the final rule should be sooner than later. Plus they have issued guidance in 2010

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/pdf/fin-2010-g001.pdf

Advanced notice of proposed rules

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-03-05/pdf/2012-5187.pdf


http://www.fincen.gov/international/fatf/

FATF rule are posted on website.


Just because it is not Final, Final, revised final, amended final and the really the final does not mean the regulators will not make comment


As we have seen (see exam thread) items are picked up and need to be defended by FI.

Beneficial ownership calculations will cause you to revisit high-school algebra, for sure. It's fun, you'll enjoy it.

Another wrinkle is whether your policy requires (like the EU's 3rd Directive) identification down to the level of a natural person.

As explained, FinCEN put out an ANPRM," not a proposed regulation. They are required to issue the proposed regulation first and then allow for a comment period.

I enjoy the discussions about what the proposal "might be," but they are wide ranging. I would not lift a finger right now. The next investment every bank should make would be in the form of a comment letter...

It was during the "Regulators Respond" session and my notes state: "It's not going to die. It's been made a priority." Others I spoke to at the conference at larger banks had already begun discussing how it would impact systems, staff, etc. I asked the question in order to try to be proactive and get ahead of it. If others from mid-large sized banks have comments/suggestions/experiences, I'm glad to hear them.

Thanks and Happy Friday!

You may be missing the point your respondents are trying to make; no one said "beneficial ownership" is going to go away. FinCEN will do it in order to save face with the FATF community, that's simply a given. Even though the information banks will be required to obtain is unverifiable and, therefor, totally unreliable, they will still do it.

On the other hand, all of those responding have correctly said that it is not "done" yet; no one could intelligently allocate time and resources to planning for this because there are dozens of possible variations in its final structure. The final CIP regulation was substantially different than the proposed version; anyone who set up their program based on the proposal had some dismantling to do.

In this case, there isn't even a proposal...