Okay, all you seasoned comment letter writers out there, this may sound silly but is it still the practice to have multiple officers in the bank sign multiple copies of the comment letters to increase the volume of letters going to the regulators, or do you just have one person sign one letter? I understand "back in the day" this was the practice to make the response greater by quantity, but is this really necessary? When viewing the letters online, of course there is always just one letter from each financial institution, so I was curious what the routine practice was out there.

We usually send one comment letter, signed by our General Counsel. If multiple areas of the bank are involved and have various issues, we combine all issues into one letter.
Leslie

I don't think you get anything by stuffing the ballot box.

I agree. Surely the intent is to see WHAT folks write in, not how many responses you get. Thanks for the input.

I will sign my letter. It represents my banks.

In the case of KYC some years ago, the media caused a quasi-vote when thousands upon thousands of folks sent identical postcards as opinions.

While that may have had some impact based on the source (the public) I don't believe it would be effective when they all came from one bank. Many entities to one is the difference.

My suggestion is that the letter be signed by the person who understands what it says. Generally, when someone purports to speak for the bank, I would say the CEO should sign. However, in comments on regulatory issues, they occasionally call and ask questions or seek clarifications. This is particularly true in this case - they are not asking for comments, they are asking how these programs work. While I am certain Andy's CEO would know the answers, I still think its best that the author/architect sign it.

These folks are no different than you and me, receiving two copies of the same letter is a bit of a nuisance.