Recommendation: The Division Director for Risk Management Supervision (RMS) should require case managers to document how high-risk areas in the scoping plan were considered by the examination team if they were not addressed in the examination report. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Division Director for RMS should implement policies to require that higher-level managers review case managers' documentation that describes whether banks have fully addressed MRBAs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Division Director for RMS should revise examination documentation retention policies to increase the retention period beyond one examination cycle for banks with satisfactory or better composite ratings. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The FDIC Chairman should direct RMS and the Legal Division Ethics Unit to develop a process for systematically requesting and collecting information on where departing examiners, including examiners-in-charge, enter into employment after leaving FDIC. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators, and with input from BSA/AML examiners and other relevant stakeholders, take steps to improve examiners' ability to evaluate the effectiveness of banks' BSA/AML compliance controls with respect to money transmitter accounts. Steps may include providing updates to examination procedures, examiner training, or a combination of methods. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Comptroller of the Currency should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators, and with input from BSA/AML examiners and other relevant stakeholders, take steps to improve examiners' ability to evaluate the effectiveness of banks' BSA/AML compliance controls with respect to money transmitter accounts. Steps may include providing updates to examination procedures, examiner training, or a combination of methods. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators, and with input from BSA/AML examiners and other relevant stakeholders, take steps to improve examiners' ability to evaluate the effectiveness of banks' BSA/AML compliance controls with respect to money transmitter accounts. Steps may include providing updates to examination procedures, examiner training, or a combination of methods. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators, and with input from BSA/AML examiners and other relevant stakeholders, take steps to improve examiners' ability to evaluate the effectiveness of banks' BSA/AML compliance controls with respect to money transmitter accounts. Steps may include providing updates to examination procedures, examiner training, or a combination of methods. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection should, in coordination with the federal banking regulators and with input from relevant stakeholders, communicate in writing to fintech lenders on the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) issued an interagency statement on the use of alternative data in credit underwriting. The statement broadly highlights some potential benefits and risks of using alternative data and encourages firms to responsibly use alternative data, but does not provide firms or banks with specific direction on the appropriate use of alternative data, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. We will continue to monitor the agencies' actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and with input from relevant stakeholders, communicate in writing to banks that engage in third-party relationships with fintech lenders on the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In December 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) issued an interagency statement on the use of alternative data in credit underwriting. The statement broadly highlights some potential benefits and risks of using alternative data and encourages firms to responsibly use alternative data, but does not provide firms or banks with specific direction on the appropriate use of alternative data, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. We will continue to monitor the agencies' actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and with input from relevant stakeholders, communicate in writing to banks that engage in third-party relationships with fintech lenders on the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In December 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) issued an interagency statement on the use of alternative data in credit underwriting. The statement broadly highlights some potential benefits and risks of using alternative data and encourages firms to responsibly use alternative data, but does not provide firms or banks with specific direction on the appropriate use of alternative data, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. We will continue to monitor the agencies' actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Comptroller of the Currency should, in coordination with the other federal banking regulators and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and with input from relevant stakeholders, communicate in writing to banks that engage in third-party relationships with fintech lenders on the appropriate use of alternative data in the underwriting process, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In December 2019, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the agencies) issued an interagency statement on the use of alternative data in credit underwriting. The statement broadly highlights some potential benefits and risks of using alternative data and encourages firms to responsibly use alternative data, but does not provide firms or banks with specific direction on the appropriate use of alternative data, including issues to consider when selecting types of alternative data to use. We will continue to monitor the agencies' actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Federal Reserve should develop and implement specific policies and procedures for how it will consistently comply with RFA requirements and key aspects of Office of Advocacy and OMB guidance that include the following three elements: (1) processes for creating and maintaining documentation sufficient to support analysis of economic impact and alternatives; (2) processes for disclosing the methodology--including criteria for assessing significant economic impact and a substantial number of small entities--and data sources of economic analysis supporting certification determinations and regulatory flexibility analyses; and (3) processes for considering to the extent practicable a rule's potential economic impacts on small entities, including for evaluating broad economic impacts of regulations in certification determinations and assessing alternatives that could minimize impact on small entities. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2019, Federal Reserve staff told us that they continue to review their policies and procedures to ensure compliance with RFA requirements. While Federal Reserve staff said that they use an RFA handbook developed by the SBA Office of Advocacy to support their analyses, the Federal Reserve has not made changes to its policies and procedures based on our recommendations. Until the Federal Reserve develops and implements RFA policies and procedures consistent with the recommendation, it remains open.

Recommendation: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission should develop and implement specific policies and procedures for how it will consistently comply with RFA requirements and key aspects of Office of Advocacy and OMB guidance that include the following four elements: (1) processes for creating and maintaining documentation sufficient to support analysis of economic impact and alternatives; (2) processes for disclosing the methodology--including criteria for assessing significant economic impact and a substantial number of small entities--and data sources of economic analysis supporting certification determinations and regulatory flexibility analyses; (3) processes for considering to the extent practicable a rule's potential economic impacts on small entities, including for evaluating broad economic impacts of regulations in certification determinations and assessing alternatives that could minimize impact on small entities; and (4) in developing policies and procedures for section 610 reviews, include processes for determining which rules require review, posting notices of upcoming reviews in the Federal Register, maintaining documentation supporting the analysis and conclusions of RFA-required considerations, and establishing procedures for publicly disclosing the review or summaries (such as in the Federal Register or on the agency's website). (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2019, CFTC staff told us that they formed a working group to enhance its implementation of RFA requirements. While this working group has begun drafting compliance procedures for RFA reviews, the procedures are incomplete and CFTC staff said it will have to finish updating the "small entity" definition before it can complete these procedures. CFTC staff told us that the working group has focused much of its work on updating the agency's definition of "small entity" because the definition was outdated. The identification of "small entity" is an important preliminary step for RFA analysis. CFTC staff does not expect to publish a proposal to amend the "small entity" definition until the summer 2020. Until CFTC finalizes and implements the new procedures for RFA reviews, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: SEC should publicly disclose its section 610 reviews, or summaries of the reviews, with the basis for any conclusions. Such disclosure could include publishing results in the Federal Register or on the agency's website. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In March 2019, SEC provided us with supplemental policies and procedures it developed for compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), including section 610 reviews. The procedures require staff to publish on SEC's website a notice that section 610 reviews have been completed and, if the agency plans any further actions, a published RFA agenda would so indicate. Although these notices communicate with interested entities about the status of ongoing as well as completed section 610 reviews, they will not include any details about the basis for SEC's conclusions during the review. Therefore, they do not full implement GAO's recommendation, which remains open.

Recommendation: To help state credit union supervisors and privately insured credit unions better interpret Regulation I and inform consumers when an institution is not federally insured, CFPB should issue guidance to clarify whether drive-through windows require disclosures.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: CFPB agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, CFPB said it had explored options for addressing the recommendation and determined it would require notice-and-comment rulemaking. CFPB said that because the agency had other, higher regulatory priorities, it did not currently have plans to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help state credit union supervisors and privately insured credit unions better interpret Regulation I and inform consumers when an institution is not federally insured, CFPB should issue guidance to describe what constitutes clear and conspicuous disclosure, including minimum signage dimensions and font size for disclosures.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: CFPB agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, CFPB said it had explored options that would most effectively and efficiently provide guidance regarding Regulation I and said that notice-and-comment rulemaking would be necessary to address GAO's recommendation with regard to "clear and conspicuous" disclosures. CFPB said that because the agency had other, higher regulatory priorities, it did not currently have plans to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To help state credit union supervisors and privately insured credit unions better interpret Regulation I and inform consumers when an institution is not federally insured, CFPB should issue guidance to explain and provide examples of which communications are advertising.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: CFPB agreed with this recommendation. As of January 2020, CFPB said it had explored options that would most effectively and efficiently provide guidance regarding Regulation I and said that notice-and-comment rulemaking would be necessary to address GAO's recommendation. CFPB said that because the agency had other, higher regulatory priorities, it did not currently have plans to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: Congress should consider whether additional changes to the financial regulatory structure are needed to reduce or better manage fragmentation and overlap in the oversight of financial institutions and activities to improve (1) the efficiency and effectiveness of oversight; (2) the consistency of consumer and investor protections; and (3) the consistency of financial oversight for similar institutions, products, risks, and services. For example, Congress could consider consolidating the number of federal agencies involved in overseeing the safety and soundness of depository institutions, combining the entities involved in overseeing the securities and derivatives markets, transferring the remaining prudential regulators' consumer protection authorities over large depository institutions to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the optimal role for the federal government in insurance regulation, among other considerations.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: At least two bills have been introduced in the 115th Congress that would change the financial regulatory structure, to some degree, to address fragmented and overlapping regulatory authorities among agencies, as GAO suggested in February 2016. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) was introduced on April 26, 2017, passed the House in June 2017 and the Senate held hearings in July 2017. Among other things, the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 calls for the federal financial regulatory agencies to implement policies and procedures to minimize the duplication of effort with respect to enforcement actions. For example, it eliminates the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to supervise and examine financial institutions and also eliminates the regulatory and enforcement authority of the agency with respect to unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices by depository institutions. Such actions could help reduce fragmentation and overlap in the financial regulatory structure. In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155) was introduced on November 16, 2017 and passed in the Senate in March 2018. The bill, to some extent, may help address fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the financial regulatory structure. For example, the bill helps to address fragmentation in insurance oversight by finding that the federal agencies and office involved in insurance regulation should achieve consensus with state insurance regulators when they participate in negotiations on insurance issues before any international forum of financial regulators or supervisors, and create an advisory committee to discuss and report on insurance policy issues including international issues. GAO will continue to monitor the reform efforts to determine the extent to which they could help to address fragmentation and overlap between the federal financial regulatory agencies and reduce opportunities for inefficiencies in the regulatory process and inconsistencies in how regulators conduct oversight activities over similar types of institutions, products, and risks.

Recommendation: Congress should consider whether legislative changes are necessary to align FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks. Congress could do so by making changes to FSOC's mission, its authorities, or both, or to the missions and authorities of one or more of the FSOC member agencies to support a stronger link between the responsibility and capacity to respond to systemic risks. In doing so, Congress could solicit information from FSOC on the effective scope of its collective designation authorities, including any gaps.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: While some legislative action has been taken that may alter FSOC's authorities, it is not clear that the legislation would address GAO's February 2016 suggestion. The Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 (H.R. 10) was introduced on April 26, 2017, passed the House in June 2017, and the Senate held hearings in July 2017. The bill would change FSOC's authorities by repealing its authorities to designate non-bank financial institutions and financial market utilities (i.e., payment, clearing, and settlement systems) as "systemically important." In addition, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155) was introduced on November 16, 2017 and passed in the Senate in March 2018. The bill may alter some of FSOC's authorities. However, it is unclear if these acts would alter FSOC's mission to better align it with its authorities to respond to systemic risk or addresses a gap in systemic risk mitigation mechanisms. Without legislative changes that would align FSOC's authorities with its mission, FSOC may lack the tools it needs to comprehensively address systemic risks that may emerge and a gap will continue to exist in the mechanisms for mitigating systemic risks. GAO will continue to monitor the reform efforts to determine the extent to which they help to align FSOC's authorities with its mission to respond to systemic risks.