Recommendation: The Director of FinCEN should develop and implement written policies and procedures to help promote the greater use of BSA reports by law enforcement agencies that do not have direct access to the BSA database. Such policies and procedures could include outreach strategies and educational or training materials. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: Regarding financial sector cyber risk mitigation efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal and nonfederal sector partners, track the content and progress of sectorwide cyber risk mitigation efforts, and prioritize their completion according to sector goals and priorities in the sector-specific plan. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: Regarding the financial sector-specific plan, we recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal and nonfederal sector partners, update the financial services sector-specific plan to include specific metrics for measuring the progress of risk mitigation efforts and information on how the sector's ongoing and planned risk mitigation efforts will meet sector goals and requirements, such as requirements for the financial services sector in the National Cyber Strategy Implementation Plan. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
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 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 Associate Director of FinCEN's Global Investigations Division should provide additional direction for self-initiated GTOs, including how the agency will plan to (1) oversee covered businesses, (2) inform and obtain feedback from appropriate law enforcement agencies, and (3) evaluate the GTOs to determine the appropriate course of action. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
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 Federal Insurance Office should publicly communicate information about when it is considering certifying an event as an act of terrorism under TRIA. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions: Office of Financial Institutions Policy: Federal Insurance Office
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 Federal Insurance Office should document an agreement with DHS about DHS's role, and how the agencies share information, during the process of certifying an event as an act of terrorism under TRIA. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions: Office of Financial Institutions Policy: Federal Insurance Office
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 Federal Insurance Office should document an agreement with DOJ about DOJ's role, and how the agencies share information, during the process of certifying an event as an act of terrorism under TRIA. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions: Office of Financial Institutions Policy: Federal Insurance Office
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 Federal Insurance Office should communicate to insurers in writing how it would utilize policyholder retention amounts in calculating "insurance losses" and "insured losses" in determining the program certification threshold, trigger, and cap, as applicable. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Under Secretary for Domestic Finance: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions: Office of Financial Institutions Policy: Federal Insurance Office
Status: Open

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

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should update the FAQs issued in 2019 to include a statement that the FAQs may serve as a source of general information but cannot be relied upon by taxpayers as authoritative since they are not binding on IRS. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS disagreed with this recommendation. In an August 2020 letter, IRS stated that the 2019 currency FAQs are illustrative of how longstanding tax principles apply to property transaction and IRS does not take positions contrary to public FAQs. However, if IRS intends the public FAQs on virtual currency to be binding on IRS it could address our recommendation by publishing the FAQs in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Doing so would render a disclaimer statement unnecessary and would satisfy the intent of the recommendation. We will continue to follow up with IRS on this recommendation and will provide an update if IRS takes action.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should take steps to increase third-party reporting on taxable transactions involving virtual currency, which could include clarifying IRS's interpretation of existing third-party reporting requirements under the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations, or pursuing statutory or regulatory changes. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS agreed with this recommendation. In August 2020, IRS informed us that IRS's Office of Chief Counsel and the Department of the Treasury are developing guidance that will address third-party reporting on certain taxable transactions involving virtual currency. IRS expects that this guidance will also propose rules to avoid duplicate reporting under other information reporting regimes that may apply to transactions involving virtual currency. We will continue to monitor IRS's efforts to increase third-party reporting on taxable transactions involving virtual currency.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should clarify the application of reporting requirements under FATCA to virtual currency. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: IRS disagreed with this recommendation. In an August 2020 letter, IRS said it intends to focus on developing guidance regarding information reporting on certain virtual currency transactions involving U.S. businesses instead of clarifying the application of reporting requirements under FATCA to virtual currency. IRS stated that additional guidance on FATCA requirements may be appropriate in the future as the workings of foreign virtual currency exchanges become more transparent over time. We found that many virtual currency stakeholders were uncertain about how, if at all, FATCA requirements apply to virtual currency and would benefit from clarifications to the guidance. We will continue to follow up with IRS on this recommendation and will provide an update if IRS takes action.

Recommendation: The Director of FinCEN, in coordination with IRS as appropriate, should make a statement about the application of foreign account reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act to virtual currency readily available to the public. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Status: Open

Comments: FinCEN agreed with this recommendation. When we can confirm that FinCEN has taken action we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The SEC Chair should direct the Directors of the Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Enforcement, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, and Office of Credit Ratings to develop written policies and processes to systematically assess the effectiveness of staff procedures (procedures applicable to staff who perform examinations of registered entities, enforcement investigations, and reviews of corporate financial securities filings). Examples of elements SEC could include in the policies and processes are the steps necessary to conduct such assessments, including time frames in which the assessments should be performed and reviewed; assignment of responsibilities related to the assessments; requirements for documenting assessments; and steps for staff to take to mitigate and report deficiencies identified as a result of the assessments. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, SEC updated its Reference Guide for Compliance with Section 961 of the Dodd-Frank Act to require the Division of Corporation Finance, Division of Enforcement, Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, and Office of Credit Ratings to develop and maintain written policies and processes for conducting systematic assessments of the effectiveness of procedures applicable to the staff who perform examinations of registered entities, enforcement investigations, and reviews of corporate financial securities filings. The added requirement for each division and office to develop policies and processes is a positive step toward addressing this recommendation. However, until the divisions and offices establish such policies and processes, this recommendation remains open. SEC staff stated that the divisions and offices are currently working on developing their individual frameworks for assessing staff procedures and will likely be done by the end of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor these efforts.

Recommendation: The Director of the Division of Corporation Finance should ensure that all internal supervisory controls include documentation requirements, detailed procedures, identified follow-up actions, implementation time frames, and assignment of control execution responsibility, in accordance with SEC guidance and federal internal control standards for implementing control activities through documented policies. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Division of Corporation Finance
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, SEC staff said that the Division of Corporation Finance is working to address this recommendation through its normal Risk and Control Matrix review process. Staff said that SEC would have an update for GAO in the Fall 2020. We will update the status of the recommendation when the Division of Corporation Finance provides documentation showing the implementation of responsive actions.

Recommendation: The Director of the Division of Enforcement should ensure that all internal supervisory controls include documentation requirements, detailed procedures, identified follow-up actions, implementation time frames, and assignment of control execution responsibility, in accordance with SEC guidance and federal internal control standards for implementing control activities through documented policies. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Division of Enforcement
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, SEC staff said that the Division of Enforcement is working to address this recommendation through its normal Risk and Control Matrix review process. Staff said that SEC would have an update for GAO in the Fall 2020. We will update the status of the recommendation when the Division of Enforcement provides documentation showing the implementation of responsive actions.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations should ensure that all internal supervisory controls include documentation requirements, detailed procedures, identified follow-up actions, implementation time frames, and assignment of control execution responsibility, in accordance with SEC guidance and federal internal control standards for implementing control activities through documented policies. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, SEC staff said that the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations is working to address this recommendation through its normal Risk and Control Matrix review process. Staff said that SEC would have an update for GAO in the Fall 2020. We will update the status of the recommendation when the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations provides documentation showing the implementation of responsive actions.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Credit Ratings should ensure that all internal supervisory controls include documentation requirements, detailed procedures, identified follow-up actions, implementation time frames, and assignment of control execution responsibility, in accordance with SEC guidance and federal internal control standards for implementing control activities through documented policies. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Office of Credit Ratings
Status: Open

Comments: As of May 2020, SEC staff said that the Office of Credit Ratings is working to address this recommendation through its normal Risk and Control Matrix review process. Staff said that SEC would have an update for GAO in the Fall 2020. We will update the status of the recommendation when the Office of Credit Ratings provides documentation showing the implementation of responsive actions.

Recommendation: The Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission should direct the Chief Operating Officer to develop and implement safeguards to better ensure transparency and fairness in SEC's new performance incentive bonus program. Such safeguards could include multiple levels of review of performance ratings and pay decisions and publishing aggregate data on the results of the performance cycle that allow employees to compare results across various groups within the agency while protecting the confidentiality of individual ratings and pay decisions. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: SEC stated that it concurred with, and plans to implement, our recommendation. In August 2020, SEC officials stated that they were continuing to design the performance incentive bonus program's framework and in the process of acquiring consultative services to assist in validating that its design, communication strategy, and operating practices reflect leading practice and support achieving desired outcomes. We will continue to monitor SEC's progress in ensuring transparency and fairness in its performance incentive bonus program.

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 Securities and Exchange Commission's Co-Directors of Enforcement should develop written procedures for generating Enforcement's public reports, including procedures for compiling and verifying statistics used in the reports and documenting their implementation. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission: Division of Enforcement
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 FinCEN, after consulting with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), should consider prioritizing the inclusion of the primary SRO conducting BSA examinations in the futures industry in the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group (BSAAG) on a more consistent basis and also making the primary futures industry association a concurrent member. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
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 FinCEN, after consulting with CFTC, should take steps to explore providing direct BSA data access to the National Futures Association. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
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 FinCEN should review options for FinCEN to more consistently and publicly provide summary data on the usefulness of BSA reporting. This review could either be concurrent with FinCEN's BSA value study or through another method. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, FinCEN officials told us that they began to implement a strategy to communicate the results of its BSA Value Study (completed in April 2020) and more generally publicize statistics on the value that BSA reporting provides to industry and the public. According to FinCEN officials, they have made some progress in implementing the communication strategy, including briefing key public and private sector stakeholders and developing fact sheets, videos and other materials for eventual public release, and expect to complete the initial phase of the communication plan by the end of 2020.

Recommendation: The Director of FinCEN should review options for establishing a mechanism through which law enforcement agencies may provide regular and institution-specific feedback on BSA reporting. Options should take into consideration providing such feedback to cover different types of financial institutions and those with significant financial activity. This review could either be part of FinCEN's BSA value study or through another method. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Status: Open

Comments: According to FinCEN officials, it will use measures outlined in response to Recommendation 3 and information gathered from the BSA Value Study to develop a specific action plan to better collect data for FinCEN and its law enforcement and other partners in a way that allows them to communicate more consistent feedback to reporting entities, and address the gaps and recommendations from the study. FinCEN anticipates the development and approval of the action plan by the end of 2020.

Recommendation: EXIM's chief operating officer should direct EXIM's Credit Review and Compliance Division to assess and document the practicality of incorporating into its preauthorization Character, Reputational, and Transaction Integrity (CRTI) reviews searches of data elements in SAM that indicate delinquent federal debts owed by applicants, and, if practical, implement relevant approaches—such as manual searches or batch matching. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, we met with EXIM to discuss its efforts to assess the practicality of incorporating into its preauthorization CRTI reviews searches of data elements in SAM that indicate delinquent federal debts owed by applicants. Prior to the discussion, EXIM provided some information on its efforts. As part of the June 2020 discussion, we requested that EXIM provide additional information on its assessment. EXIM agreed to do so. We will provide an update on the status of this recommendation when we confirm what actions EXIM has taken in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: EXIM's chief operating officer should direct EXIM's Credit Review and Compliance Division to assess and document the practicality of incorporating into its postauthorization CRTI reviews searches of data elements in SAM that indicate delinquent federal debts owed by applicants and participants, and, if practical, implement relevant approaches—such as manual searches or batch matching. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, we met with EXIM to discuss its efforts to assess the practicality of incorporating into its postauthorization CRTI reviews searches of data elements in SAM that indicate delinquent federal debts owed by applicants and participants. Prior to the discussion, EXIM provided some information on its efforts. As part of the June 2020 discussion, we requested that EXIM provide additional information on its assessment. EXIM agreed to do so. We will provide an update on the status of this recommendation when we confirm what actions EXIM has taken in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Director of the Division of Risk Management Supervision of FDIC should take steps to improve the completeness of matters requiring board attention (MRBA) data in its tracking system, in particular, by developing a structure that allows examiners to record MRBAs at progressively more granular levels (from a broad level such as examination area to more specific levels, including risk or concern type). (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open

Comments: FDIC agreed that a structure should be enhanced to allow staff to further categories MRBAs at the point of entry into the system. As of March 2020, no action has been taken on this recommendation. GAO will continue to monitor for any updates to FDIC procedures.

Recommendation: The Chief Operating Officer of EXIM should consider establishing documented policies and procedures for (1) determining medium-term delegated authority lenders' eligibility for continued participation in EXIM's programs and (2) decertifying or taking other appropriate actions for such lenders that do not meet compliance or eligibility standards. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: EXIM concurred with our recommendation and stated that it will consider establishing documented policies and procedures for determining medium-term delegated authority lenders' eligibility for continued participation in EXIM's programs and decertifying or taking other appropriate actions for such lenders that do not meet compliance or eligibility standards. If implemented effectively, EXIM's planned actions should address the intent of our recommendation. An EXIM official indicated that actions to address this recommendation would be completed during 2020.

Recommendation: The Chief Operating Officer of EXIM should establish documented policies and procedures for periodically reviewing credit programs in which the government bears more than 80 percent of any loss to determine whether private sector lenders should bear a greater share of the risk. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: EXIM concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will establish documented policies and procedures for periodically reviewing credit programs in which the government bears more than 80 percent of any loss to determine whether private sector lenders should bear a greater share of the risk. If implemented effectively, EXIM's planned actions should address the intent of our recommendation. An EXIM official indicated that actions to address this recommendation would be completed during 2020.

Recommendation: Congress should consider requiring Ginnie Mae to evaluate the adequacy of its current guaranty fee for single-family mortgage-backed securities and report to Congress with recommendations, if any, on revising the fee, such as by adopting standards under which the fee should be determined. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, Congress had not enacted legislation to require Ginnie Mae to evaluate the adequacy of its current guaranty fee for single-family mortgage-backed securities and report to Congress with recommendations.

Recommendation: Congress should consider requiring Ginnie Mae to evaluate its reliance on contractors and report to Congress on how it would use fee revenue available to hire contractors to also hire in-house staff. (Matter for Consideration 2)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, Congress had not enacted legislation to require Ginnie Mae to evaluate its reliance on contractors and report to Congress on its findings.

Recommendation: Congress should consider requiring Ginnie Mae to provide a report on how it would use greater flexibility or broader authority to set the compensation of its in-house staff. (Matter for Consideration 3)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, Congress has not enacted legislation to require Ginnie Mae to report on how it would use greater flexibility or broader authority to set the compensation of its in-house staff.

Recommendation: Congress should consider reforms to Ginnie Mae's oversight structure that can help address its increasing risks. (Matter for Consideration 4)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, Congress has not enacted legislation that considers reforms to Ginnie Mae's oversight structure that can help address its increasing risks.

Recommendation: The Chief Risk Officer of Ginnie Mae should periodically conduct an actuarial or similar analysis that includes a stress test to evaluate the extent to which the current level of the guaranty fee for single-family MBS provides Ginnie Mae with sufficient reserves to cover potential losses under different economic scenarios. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Ginnie Mae (HUD) agreed with this recommendation. As of September 2020, Ginnie Mae took steps to address this recommendation. First, according to its 2020 budget justification, Ginnie Mae has concluded that it would be advantageous to have the authority to administratively adjust its guarantee fee and requested that the permissible guarantee fee be established within a range. Upon receipt of this authority, Ginnie Mae would then establish an administrative process through which an adjustment could be made. Second, Ginnie Mae has developed a stress test framework and solicited public comment. According to officials, by early 2021, Ginnie Mae plans to have its contractor develop an economic model to explore the current level of the guaranty fee under different economic scenarios including variations in issuer types and across Ginnie Mae programs. To fully implement this recommendation, Ginnie Mae needs to follow through on this effort and provide additional detail on changes to the existing models and its plan to periodically conduct this analysis. We will continue to monitor Ginnie Mae's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Senior Vice President of Ginnie Mae's Office of Management Operations should analyze the costs of using contractors for its operations and develop a plan to determine the optimal mix of contractor or in-house staff for operations. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Ginnie Mae (HUD) agreed with this recommendation. As of September 2020, Ginnie Mae said it procured a contractor to do this analysis on their behalf at the end of fiscal year 2020. Officials expected the cost analysis to commence in early 2021. To fully implement this recommendation, Ginnie Mae should ensure the analysis and plan are completed. We will continue to monitor Ginnie Mae's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Senior Vice President of Ginnie Mae's Office of Management Operations should assess its contract administration options to determine the most efficient and effective use of funds. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Ginnie Mae (HUD) agreed with this recommendation. As of October 2020, Ginnie Mae stated it assesses procurement approaches on a per contract basis on whether to administer a contract within HUD or outsource the contract administration. However, GAO recommends Ginnie Mae comprehensively evaluate whether the outsourcing of its contract administration has met its intended purposes and is the most efficient and effective use of funds. In order to implement this recommendation, Ginnie Mae should reevaluate its decision to use an external provider.

Recommendation: The Chief Financial Officer of Ginnie Mae and Senior Vice President of Ginnie Mae's Office of Management Operations should finalize efforts to assess the costs and benefits of options to revise its compensation structure within current authority and submit proposals, if warranted, to HUD for review and consideration. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: Ginnie Mae (HUD) agreed with this recommendation. As of September 2020, Ginnie Mae has taken steps to assess options to revise its compensation structure. More specifically, according to Ginnie Mae, in the development of its fiscal year 2020 budget request, Ginnie requested authority to develop alternative pay options, such as premium pay, pay bands and critical pay. In August 2020, Ginnie Mae was given authority to proceed with implementing critical pay by the Office of Personnel Management. Critical Pay authority permits an agency to set a higher rate of basic pay than would otherwise be payable for a position that requires expertise of an extremely high level in a scientific, technical, professional, or administrative field and is critical to the successful accomplishment of an important mission. As of September 2020, Ginnie Mae is working with HUD on developing an implementation plan to implement critical pay within its Office of Enterprise Risk. In addition, Ginne Mae is working with OMB to ensure program execution and outcomes are aligned between the agencies. We will continue to monitor Ginnie Mae's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: Congress should consider amending the Internal Revenue Code, Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and other statutes, as needed, to address overlap in foreign financial asset reporting requirements for the purposes of tax compliance and detection, and prevention of financial crimes, such as by aligning the types of assets to be reported and asset reporting thresholds, and ensuring appropriate access to the reported information.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action enacted as of January 2020. Congress has not amended the Internal Revenue Code, Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 and other statutes as needed to address overlap in foreign financial asset reporting requirements, as GAO suggested in April 2019. GAO continues to believe that if Congress were to modify these various statutes, the reporting burden created by navigating multiple reporting requirements will be reduced. Modifying these statutes will also allow for the use foreign financial asset information collected under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act to prevent and detect financial crimes.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should develop a plan to mitigate risks with compliance activities due to the lack of accurate and complete Taxpayer Identification Numbers of U.S. account holders collected from FFIs. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has taken several steps to improve collection of accurate and complete taxpayer identification numbers (TINs) from foreign financial institutions (FFIs). For example, in December 2019, IRS officials said they began identifying 2017 records submitted by FFIs without valid TIN fields or corresponding dates of birth for account holders. IRS also launched a campaign to identify FFIs that did not file a Form 8966 with IRS. While these steps can improve the quality of account data submitted by FFIs, IRS still faces ongoing risks that receiving inaccurate or incomplete TINs pose to efforts to identify and combat taxpayer and FFI noncompliance. Additionally, IRS has not yet developed a plan that elaborates on these risks and identifies steps to mitigate them, as we recommended in April 2019. Without such a strategy, IRS may fail to identify opportunities to adjust compliance programs to better enforce FFI reporting of valid TINs and identify U.S. persons who are not complying with FATCA reporting requirements.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should ensure that appropriate business units conducting compliance enforcement and research have access to consistent and complete data collected from individuals' electronic and paper filings of Form 8938 and elements of parent individual tax returns. As part of this effort, the Commissioner should ensure that IRS provides clear guidance to the business units for accessing such data in IRS's Compliance Data Warehouse. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has taken several steps to address this recommendation. According to IRS Information Technology division officials, as of December 2019, they deliver paper and electronically filed Form 8938 data to IRS's Research, Applied Analytics, and Statistics organization on a monthly basis, and makes such data available in the Compliance Data Warehouse (CDW) for use by agency officials. According to Large Business and International (LB&I) Division officials, IRS's enforcement functions also have access to this data. One outcome of this access, according to LB&I officials, is the use of FATCA data in the development of compliance examination leads. However, IRS has not yet developed clear guidance for business units to access relevant data from Forms 8938 and elements of parent individual tax returns in CDW, as we recommended. Without such guidance, CDW users may be less likely to effectively leverage CDW data for examination purposes.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should employ a comprehensive plan for managing efforts to leverage FATCA data in agency compliance efforts. The plan should document and track activities over time to
• ensure individuals and FFIs comply with FATCA reporting requirements;
• assess and mitigate data quality risks from FFIs;
• improve the quality, management, and accessibility of FATCA data for compliance, research, and other purposes; and
• establish, monitor, and evaluate compliance efforts involving FATCA data intended to improve voluntary compliance and address noncompliance with FATCA reporting requirements. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2019, IRS's Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement said that IRS disagreed with our April 2019 recommendation. The Deputy Commissioner said that resources that would be dedicated to update a comprehensive plan unique to FATCA-such as the FATCA Compliance Roadmap-are better spent on enforcement activities. The Deputy Commissioner also said that IRS's strategy for FATCA compliance will instead be part of IRS's Large Business & International (LB&I) Division's overall portfolio management strategy. Implementing enforcement activities could increase taxpayers' and foreign financial institutions' (FFIs) compliance with FATCA reporting requirements. While IRS does not have to revise and reemploy its FATCA Compliance Roadmap, it can employ a comprehensive plan as part of LB&I's portfolio management strategy to evaluate FATCA enforcement activities already in place, and determine the extent to which these activities improve voluntary compliance and address noncompliance with FATCA reporting requirements. Without such a plan, IRS risks not maximizing efforts to manage and address the myriad of challenges it faces in effectively ensuring taxpayer compliance.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Internal Revenue should assess factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting and take steps, as appropriate, to address the issue. Depending on the results of the assessment, potential options may include:
• identifying and implementing steps to further clarify IRS Form 8938 instructions and related guidance on IRS's website on determining what foreign financial assets to report, and how to calculate and report asset values subject to reporting thresholds; and
• conducting additional outreach to educate taxpayers on required reporting thresholds, including notifying taxpayers that may have unnecessarily filed an IRS Form 8938 to reduce such filings. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Internal Revenue Service
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, IRS officials said the agency is in the process of obtaining 2017 and 2018 tax data to analyze the number of unnecessary filings of Form 8938. Completing this data analysis and identifying the full range of factors contributing to unnecessary Form 8938 reporting will allow IRS to better address such factors. These efforts, in turn, will reduce the risk that taxpayers file-and IRS processes-forms that taxpayers were not required to submit to IRS.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Treasury should lead efforts, in coordination with the Secretary of State and Commissioner of Social Security, to establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U.S. persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) has taken some steps to implement GAO's April 2019 recommendation. Specifically, Treasury proposed changes to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) relief procedures to abate assessments for certain expatriating taxpayers and is working with IRS and the Department of State (State) to publicize the procedures. In addition, Treasury led efforts with IRS, State, and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to develop frequently asked questions that combine relevant guidance for individuals to obtain a Social Security number, renounce U.S. citizenship, and comply with U.S. tax obligations. However, as of December 2019, Treasury lacked a collaborative interagency mechanism to address ongoing issues U.S. persons living abroad continue to encounter from implementation of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) reporting requirements. In November 2019, Treasury said it was not the appropriate agency to lead these coordination efforts. However, GAO continues to believe that because Treasury is ultimately responsible for effectively administering FATCA, it is in a better position than State or SSA to establish an effective collaborative mechanism. Doing so will help agencies address the ongoing issues Americans living abroad experience from FATCA.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury and Commissioner of Social Security, should establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U.S. persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) has taken several steps to implement GAO's April 2019 recommendation. In September 2019, State worked with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Social Security Administration (SSA) to develop and post online frequently asked questions on how to obtain a Social Security number, renounce U.S. citizenship, and comply with U.S. tax obligations. Additionally, State officials participated in an October 2019 webinar hosted by IRS regarding newly approved tax relief procedures for certain former citizens who have renounced U.S. citizenship and seek to be federal tax compliant. State also established procedures with SSA for its embassies and consulates abroad to help U.S. citizens apply for a Social Security number during the passport application process without SSA permission, thus removing a significant barrier in serving U.S. citizens abroad. However, as of December 2019, State lacked a collaborative interagency mechanism with Treasury to address ongoing FATCA implementation issues related to access to foreign financial services and denial of employment and promotion opportunities overseas. Treasury is responsible for leading efforts to establish such a mechanism; however, State's participation in such a mechanism on a continuing basis will help agencies address remaining issues Americans living abroad experience from FATCA.

Recommendation: The Commissioner of Social Security, in coordination with the Secretaries of State and Treasury, should establish a formal means to collaboratively address ongoing issues—including issues accessing financial services and employment and obtaining SSNs—that U.S. persons living abroad encounter from implementation of FATCA reporting requirements. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Social Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The Social Security Administration (SSA) has taken or plans to take steps to implement GAO's April 2019 recommendation. SSA worked with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of State (State) to develop and post online frequently asked questions on how to obtain a Social Security number, renounce U.S. citizenship, and comply with U.S. tax obligations. Additionally, in October 2019, SSA said it plans to conduct outreach events for U.S persons living abroad who need Social Security numbers. However, as of December 2019, SSA lacked a collaborative interagency mechanism with Treasury and State to address ongoing FATCA implementation issues, such as recurring issues U.S. persons may have obtaining Social Security numbers. Treasury is responsible for leading efforts to establish such a mechanism; however, SSA's participation in such a mechanism on a continuing basis will help agencies address remaining issues Americans living abroad experience from FATCA.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require documentation of examination teams internal deliberations that lead to consequential decisions for the bank, such as the decision whether to issue a Matter Requiring Attention, among others. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that consistently documenting internal deliberations that lead to consequential decisions for the bank could increase the transparency and accountability of examination teams' findings and decisions.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require that bank examination teams retain drafts of key documents, including the conclusion memorandum and supervisory letter, that record the supervisory review process. (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that revising the policy to ensure that drafts of key documents are not deleted will help OCC increase the transparency and accountability of the supervisory review process.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should revise Large Bank Supervisions policy to require documentation of communications with banks, including those between executive and senior management and banks, that inform supervisory decisions. (Recommendation 3)

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

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that having meeting minutes and other documentation of key communications would provide OCC with a more complete and transparent record of the information banks provide to examiners and how that information impacts supervisory decisions.

Recommendation: The Senior Deputy Comptroller for Large Bank Supervision should systematically track and monitor Large Bank Supervisions use of informal recommendations. (Recommendation 4)

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

Comments: As of July 2020, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and stated that it neither has taken nor plans to take any actions to address it. We maintain that tracking and monitoring the use of informal recommendations could increase transparency of the supervisory process, which could help Large Bank Supervision mitigate the risk of regulatory capture.

Recommendation: The Chief Counsel should develop a policy for Large Bank Supervision (1) to check employees active conflicts of interests during the staffing process for examinations and other supervisory activities and (2) to document the results of this check. (Recommendation 6)

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

Comments: As of July 2020,, OCC continued to disagree with GAO's recommendation and does not plan to develop a policy to check if employees have active conflicts of interest during the staffing process for examinations and other supervisory activities. OCC noted in its December 2018 response letter to the report that they believed such a policy would shift the responsibility for ensuring compliance with recusal requirements from employees to those responsible for staffing. We maintain that this recommendation does not aim to alleviate the personal responsibility all employees have to comply with recusal requirements. Rather, our recommendation aims to strengthen the due diligence of those responsible for staffing by requiring an independent, preliminary check of active conflicts of interest.

Recommendation: Congress should consider legislation for the future federal role in housing finance that addresses the structure of the enterprises, establishes clear, specific, and prioritized goals and considers all relevant federal entities, such as FHA and Ginnie Mae. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 16, 2020, Congress has not considered any legislation for housing finance system reform.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should implement a systematic process for prioritizing risks to consumers and considering how to use the bureau's available policy tools—such as rulemaking, supervision, enforcement, and consumer education—to address these risks. Such a process could incorporate principles from the prior One Bureau process, such as an assessment of the extent of potential harm to consumers in financial markets, to prioritize the most significant risks. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, CFPB staff told us that the CFPB Director approved a proposal to implement a short-term policy prioritization exercise. According to a memorandum describing this exercise, CFPB anticipates that it will involve CFPB's Strategy Office engaging members of cross-bureau working groups to review and update priorities related to addressing risks to consumers. According to CFPB staff, the working groups will need up to a few months to complete this work, and the results should be available in the second quarter of 2020. To fully address this recommendation, CFPB needs to make further progress in implementing this planned prioritization exercise, including by demonstrating steps taken to prioritize risks to consumers and considering how to use CFPB's various policy tools to address these risks.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions should annually collect and evaluate HFAs' risk assessments, which include HFAs' risk levels. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: According to Treasury, as of March 2019, the agency had requested that each Housing Finance Agency evaluate its controls and update its Risk and Control Matrix to ensure that it reflects the risk assessment level of each control that has been assessed and to provide this information to Treasury. Treasury stated that it would evaluate the risk assessments to verify that the appropriate risk level had been assessed and that proper segregation of duties exists. As of August 2020, Treasury had not demonstrated that it had annually collected or evaluated HFA's risk assessments.

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 acting Bank president and Board chairman should ensure that the Bank evaluates and implements methods to further promote and sustain an antifraud tone that permeates the Bank's organizational culture, as described in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. This should include consideration of requiring training on fraud risks relevant to Bank programs, for new employees and all employees on an ongoing basis, with the training to include identifying roles and responsibilities in fraud risk management activities across the Bank. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, EXIM told us it continues work in this area and will provide us information on this work as it is completed. We will continue to monitor EXIM's progress in this area.

Recommendation: The acting Bank president and Board chairman should ensure that the Bank develops and implements an antifraud strategy with specific control activities, based upon the results of fraud risk assessments and a corresponding fraud risk profile, as provided in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, EXIM told us it was in the final stages of its process for completing its antifraud strategy. We will continue to monitor EXIM's efforts in this area.

Recommendation: The acting Bank president and Board chairman should ensure that the Bank identifies, and then implements, the best options for sharing more fraud-related information--including details of fraud case referrals and outcomes--among Bank staff, to help build fraud awareness, as described in GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, EXIM stated that it is continuing to work with its Inspector General to implement this recommendation. We will continue to monitor EXIM's progress in this area.

Recommendation: The acting Bank president and Board chairman should lead efforts to collaborate with the Bank's OIG to identify a feasible, cost-effective means to systematically track outcomes of fraud referrals from the Bank to the OIG, including creating a means to link the OIG's proven cases of fraud to the specific Bank transactions from which the OIG actions arose. If any such means are found to be feasible and cost-effective, the acting Bank president and Board chairman should direct appropriate staff to implement them, with such information to be used for purposes consistent with GAO's Fraud Risk Framework, such as data analytics. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, EXIM stated that it is continuing to work with its Inspector General to implement this recommendation. We will continue to monitor EXIM's progress in this area.

Recommendation: The acting Bank president and Board chairman should ensure that the Bank monitors and evaluates outcomes of fraud risk management activities, using a risk-based approach and outcome-oriented metrics, and that it subsequently adapts antifraud activities or implements new ones, as determined to be appropriate and consistent with GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Export-Import Bank of the United States
Status: Open

Comments: In November 2019, EXIM stated that it is continuing work to implement this recommendation. We will continue to monitor EXIM's progress in this area.

Recommendation: The Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: In a May 2018 letter, the Acting Director of the Bureau stated that the Bureau has previously issued principles that include reasonable and practical means for consumers to dispute and resolve instances of unauthorized payments conducted in connection with or as a result of authorized or unauthorized data sharing access. The letter notes that the Bureau is committed to monitoring developments in data aggregation markets and will continue to assess how the Bureau's consumer protection principles may be best realized, including engaging in discussions with other relevant federal and state financial regulators. In October 2018, Bureau staff advised us that they made a presentation on existing consumer protections that would appear to be applicable to consumers using data aggregators at the June 28, 2018 meeting of the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group, which includes OCC, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration. They noted they are monitoring private sector efforts related to resolving data aggregation issues and that additional discussions among the regulators about these issues will be held in the future. We will recontact the agency in the future to obtain information on additional actions it has taken. In January 2020, GAO met with CFPB to discuss the recommendation and potential outcomes that could close the recommendation. CFPB officials stated that they will be hosting a public forum on data aggregation in February 2020. They noted that results from the public forum could include action related to the data aggregation recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In a May 2018 letter, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board noted that the Federal Reserve recognizes the importance of working together to determine how best to encourage socially beneficial innovation in the marketplace, while ensuring that consumers' interests are protected. The letter noted that the Federal Reserve staff have been meeting with other regulators and industry participants. The Chair states that the Federal Reserve will continue to facilitate and engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in these and other settings to help market participants address the important issues surrounding reimbursement for consumers who use financial account aggregators and experience unauthorized transactions. In October 2018, Federal Reserve staff advised us that issues related to data aggregation were discussed at a June 28, 2018 meeting of the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group, which includes OCC, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They noted that they are monitoring private sector efforts related to resolving data aggregation issues and expect to hold additional discussions among the regulators about these issues in the future. In March 2019, the agency noted that it continues to collaborate on this issue. As of February 2020, the agency had no further updates on this recommendation. We plan to follow up with Federal Reserve staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In November 2018, FDIC staff confirmed that they have engaged in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators regarding issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services and associated liability issues. We followed up in April 2019 and they confirmed that their collaboration had yet to produce outcomes that would satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2018, NCUA staff indicated that staff from their agency had recently participated in a discussion forum with other federal regulators and other stakeholders on fintech, and, in particular, account aggregation challenges. They stated that they intend to continue to engage other regulators and related industry stakeholders on fintech topics and emerging technology that can have an impact on credit unions and their consumers. In October 2018, NCUA staff advised us that they have been discussing issues related to data aggregation at meetings of the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group, which includes OCC, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. In November 2019, NCUA staff said that the agency continues to participate in meetings through the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group and had taken part in a Data Symposium held by the San Francisco Federal Reserve. We plan to follow up with NCUA staff to obtain updates on these efforts and resulting outcomes in the future.

Recommendation: The Comptroller of the Currency should engage in collaborative discussions with other relevant financial regulators in a group that includes all relevant stakeholders and has defined agency roles and outcomes to address issues related to consumers' use of account aggregation services. (Recommendation 9)

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

Comments: In a May 2018 letter, OCC noted that its staff have met with the other banking regulators and with market participants about account aggregation issues in the past. In October 2018, OCC staff advised us that issues related to data aggregation were discussed at a June 28, 2018 meeting of the Fintech Interagency Discussion Group, which includes OCC, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. We followed up in January 2020 and they confirmed that their collaboration had yet to produce outcomes that would satisfy the recommendation. We plan to follow up with OCC staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration should formally evaluate the feasibility and benefit of establishing an office of innovation or clear contact point, including at least a website with a dedicated email address. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NCUA officials told us that in August 2018 the agency established a working group to formally evaluate the feasibility of establishing a dedicated work unit to oversee and lead fintech and innovation efforts, including creating a website and monitoring a dedicated e-mail account. NCUA officials indicated that as of November 2019 the working group was deliberating key considerations related to establishing a dedicated work unit. We plan to follow up with NCUA staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should formally evaluate the feasibility and benefits to their regulatory capacities of adopting certain knowledge-building initiatives related to financial innovation. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In a May 2018 letter, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board noted that the Federal Reserve recognizes the importance of formally increasing its knowledge base related to financial innovation. The letter noted that the Federal Reserve has recently organized two nationwide teams of experts tasked with monitoring fintech and related emerging technology trends as they relate to its supervisory and payment system mandates, respectively. These new teams include representation from all of the Federal Reserve System's Reserve Banks and have leadership from Board staff. These teams' critical objectives include ensuring that fintech-related information is shared across the Federal Reserve System and is used to inform relevant supervisory, policy, and outreach strategies. As of February 2020, the agency had no updates on this recommendation. We plan to follow up with Federal Reserve staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should formally evaluate the feasibility and benefits to their regulatory capacities of adopting certain knowledge-building initiatives related to financial innovation. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Status: Open

Comments: We followed up in January 2020 and CFTC described its efforts to address this recommendation, which were encouraging. We are awaiting documentation of these efforts and when we confirm the agency's actions, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration should formally evaluate the feasibility and benefits to their regulatory capacities of adopting certain knowledge-building initiatives related to financial innovation. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: National Credit Union Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NCUA officials told us that, as of November 2019, the internal working group that the agency established in August 2018 was evaluating the feasibility and benefits of adopting certain knowledge-building initiatives related to financial innovation. Specifically, the working group was assessing initiatives such as stakeholder outreach, research and collaboration opportunities, grants and other technical assistance, and existing supervisory tools. We plan to follow up with NCUA staff to obtain updates on these efforts in the future.

Recommendation: The Director of CFPB should issue public information on its plans for reviewing regulations applicable to banks and credit unions, including information describing the scope of regulations the timing and frequency of the reviews, and the extent to which the reviews will be coordinated with the federal depository institution regulators as part of their periodic EGRPRA reviews. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: CFPB staff noted in a letter in April 2018 that CFPB had issued requests for information (RFI) on the regulations their agency had adopted and inherited from other agencies. These requests seek public comment on the need to amend these regulations. They noted that they included in their spring and fall 2017 Semiannual Regulatory Agenda descriptions of two initiatives intended to review their regulations to identify opportunities to modernize and streamline provisions. In addition, they noted they had created an internal task force to coordinate and bolster continuing efforts to identify and relieve regulatory burdens. They stated that they would continue to publish information on their plans for reviewing regulations as appropriate. We plan to continue following up with CFPB to determine the extent to which they have published information on their plans to review the burden of their agency's regulations.

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: As the Board of Governors implements plans to develop an ERM framework, it should include a component to identify and assess risks of regulatory capture across the LISCC program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors reported to us that it was developing its ERM framework. The Board added that it was establishing a Board Risk Committee (comprised of senior leaders) to oversee its ERM program and serve as the central forum for addressing Board-wide risk issues. The Board also said that it has begun to implement a number of strategic components of the ERM framework. In August 2019, the Board stated that in their view, the ERM framework they are developing would not significantly alter the management processes that the Board and System have in place under the LISCC program that continue to work effectively. The Board reported to us that it has continued to develop the ERM program with guidance of the Board Risk Committee, which meets quarterly, and continues to serve as the central forum for Board-wide risk issues and oversight of the ERM program. In August 2020, the Board added that it would take several years to develop the ERM program. The Board also will continue to implement strategic components of the ERM framework throughout the Board.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should finalize and implement program-wide guidance for the LISCC Reserve Banks on implementing LISCC policies. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2019 update. In August 2019, the Board of Governors told us that the LISCC supervisory program had taken several steps to "finalize and implement program-wide guidance for the LISCC Reserve Banks on implementing LISCC policies." The Board reported that in 2017 it had issued a near-final LISCC program manual, which they said will memorialize all aspects of the LISCC supervisory program. The Board added the updated manual will reflect the results of a self-assessment of the LISCC Program's first full year of operations under the LISCC core program model, and the initial implementation of the new Large Financial Institution Ratings Framework. The Board also said that, since the last update, the LISCC supervisory program's operating policies, procedures, and templates for the conduct of supervisory activities have been completed and implemented.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should streamline its conflict-of-interest disclosure review process for participants in the LISCC program, such as by storing disclosure information in compatible electronic systems. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that they were assessing the feasibility of integrating existing electronic systems. They added that they have drafted guidance that develops a LISCC-specific conflicts of interest and examiner credential program that will seek to ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of conflicts of interest rules for all staff, both at the Board and the Reserve Banks, that participate in the LISCC supervisory program. They said that the Board plans to issue this guidance and begin implementation of a more consistent and centralized disclosure review approach in 2018. In addition, they said that they have begun collecting and storing conflicts of interest disclosure information for all LISCC participants, including Board LISCC staff, in one electronic system. They added that they have provided initial training to Board LISCC staff on the disclosure review process and the electronic system to ensure consistent collection of conflicts of interest data for all LISCC participants.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should systematically collect and maintain information on the institutions supervisory employees work for before they are hired by the Federal Reserve and their employment destination when they leave. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that they had implemented policies intended to mitigate the risk that an employee may be influenced by prior employment or the prospect of future employment and place their private interests ahead of the organization's supervisory mission. As an example, they said that recently the Federal Reserve broadened the scope of post-employment restrictions applicable to senior examiners. They added that the Board has begun to develop a more systematic approach to collect and monitor pre- and post-employment data through the use of an electronic system. They said that this updated electronic system is scheduled to be released, for both Board and Reserve Banks use, in 2019.

Recommendation: The Board of Governors should conduct a periodic self-assessment of ethics programs, policies, and procedures that apply to LISCC program participants. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, the Federal Reserve told us the status of their response to this recommendation had remained unchanged since their August 2018 update. In August 2018, the Board of Governors told us that their Ethics program staff and Supervision & Regulation staff are jointly assessing the current ethics programs, policies, and procedures applicable to LISCC program participants. The Federal Reserve expects to finalize and implement new conflicts of interest policies and procedures applicable to LISCC participants in 2019.

Recommendation: Congress should consider establishing an independent commission to comprehensively examine the U.S. retirement system and make recommendations to clarify key policy goals for the system and improve how the nation can promote more stable retirement security. We suggest that such a commission include representatives from government agencies, employers, the financial services industry, unions, participant advocates, and researchers, among others, to help inform policymakers on changes needed to improve the current U.S. retirement system.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: On April 25, 2018, the Senate introduced the "Commission on Retirement Security Act of 2018" (S.2753). On May 14, 2019, the Senate re-introduced this legislation (S.1435). This bipartisan legislation would establish a comprehensive retirement Commission that would be responsible for developing findings, conclusions, and recommendations for how to improve or replace existing private retirement programs. Commission members would be appointed using a bipartisan process and would include representatives from government agencies; current or former members of Congress; economic experts; and practitioners with expertise or experience engaging with employers, labor unions, and consumers designing and administering retirement plans. As of July 2020, no additional action has been taken.

Recommendation: The Chief Investment Officer of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board should use key practices as appropriate to increase opportunities for MWO asset managers if and when implementing its mutual fund window platform. Specifically, the Chief Investment Officer should take actions to demonstrate top leadership commitment, remove potential barriers, conduct outreach to MWO firms, and communicate its priorities and expectations for an inclusive selection process to its staff and consultants if and when it begins to search for a mutual fund window platform. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Status: Open

Comments: The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) did not concur with this recommendation. In July 2020, FRTIB officials told us they expect to award the mutual fund window contract in the last quarter of 2020 and that one of the goals in offering the mutual fund window is to ensure that Thrift Savings Plan participants have a variety of funds from which to choose. However, FRTIB has not changed its position on the recommendation. We continue to believe that the recommendation is valid and will monitor FRTIB's efforts to address it.

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: To reduce uncertainty and provide FHFA sufficient direction for carrying out its responsibilities as conservator of the enterprises, Congress should consider legislation that establishes objectives for the future federal role in housing finance, including the structure of the enterprises, and a transition plan to a reformed housing finance system that enables the enterprises to exit conservatorship.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 16, 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.

Recommendation: To strengthen the scenario design process, the Federal Reserve should assess--and adjust as necessary--the overall level of severity of its severely adverse scenario by expanding consideration of the trade-offs associated with different degrees of severity.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had initiated two projects that would allow a more efficient evaluation of multiple scenarios, including assessing trade-offs associated with different levels of scenario severity. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on these projects, which remain in progress. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and any additional actions it takes that may be responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve understanding of the range of potential crises against which the banking system would be resilient and the outcomes that might result from different scenarios, the Federal Reserve should assess whether a single severe supervisory scenario is sufficient to inform CCAR decisions and promote the resilience of the banking system. Such an assessment could include conducting sensitivity analysis involving multiple severe supervisory scenarios--potentially using CCAR data for a cycle that is already complete, to avoid concerns about tailoring the scenario to achieve a particular outcome.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had initiated two projects that would allow a more efficient evaluation of multiple scenarios. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on these projects, which remain in progress. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and any additional actions it takes that may be responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the Federal Reserve's ability to manage model risk and ensure that decisions based on supervisory stress test results are informed by an understanding of model risk, the Federal Reserve should design and implement a process to test and document the sensitivity and uncertainty of the model system's output--the post-stress capital ratios used to make CCAR quantitative assessment determinations--including, at a minimum, the cumulative uncertainty surrounding the capital ratios and their sensitivity to key model parameters, specifications, and assumptions from across the system of models.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated multiple projects to fully respond to our recommendation, several of which were now complete. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the remaining projects, which remain in various stages of completion. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of these projects and, once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve the Federal Reserve's ability to manage model risk and ensure that decisions based on supervisory stress test results are informed by an understanding of model risk, the Federal Reserve should design and implement a process to communicate information about the range and sources of uncertainty surrounding the post-stress capital ratio estimates to the Board during CCAR deliberations.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated a project to fully respond to our recommendation. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the project, but as of February 2020, had not provided documentation fully supporting implementation of a process consistent with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of this project, and we will update the status of this recommendation once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions.

Recommendation: To improve the Federal Reserve's ability to manage model risk and ensure that decisions based on supervisory stress test results are informed by an understanding of model risk, the Federal Reserve should design and implement a process for the Board and senior staff to articulate tolerance levels for key risks identified through sensitivity testing and for the degree of uncertainty in the projected capital ratios.

Agency: Federal Reserve System
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In January 2019, the Federal Reserve said it had previously initiated a project to fully respond to our recommendation. In December 2019, Federal Reserve staff provided updates on the project, but as of February 2020, had not provided documentation fully supporting implementation of a process consistent with our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the Federal Reserve's completion and implementation of this project, and we will update the status of this recommendation once we receive documentation demonstrating the completion of responsive actions.

Recommendation: To help ensure quality information is conveyed to servicemembers about how the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) interest rate cap applies to student loans, the Secretary of Defense should direct the secretaries of each service branch, and work with other secretaries as appropriate, to ensure that all information about the SCRA interest rate cap for student loans is accurate when provided to servicemembers and to those who work with servicemembers to help them obtain SCRA benefits, including information contained in outreach materials.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) disagreed with this recommendation believing it to be unnecessary because it is already providing accurate information. Specifically, DOD noted that the information provided in several documents GAO reviewed is accurately based on statute whereas Education's updated requirement to automatically apply the cap is based on policy that could change in the future. Moreover, the automated process applies only to federal and commercial FFEL student loans in contrast to other types of debt. DOD said that providing information based on statute rather than policy would cause less confusion and was a better approach than what we recommend. However, our report noted that Education formalized the automated process through federal regulations, effective July 2016, which legally require servicers to use this process for all federal and commercial FFEL loans. In addition, DOD said it was unable to verify whether DOD's Military OneSource website inaccurately states that the SCRA rate cap does not apply to commercial FFEL loans. However, our searches of the website still turned up this inaccuracy. DOD said it would look into a means of verifying website information but that in the meantime, it is satisfied that its training provides correct information. Given that Military OneSource is a key source of information for servicemembers and that some documents DOD provided state that the SCRA rate cap does not apply to student loans, we continue to believe that servicemembers are not always receiving accurate and up-to-date information. In August 2018, DOD reiterated that it continues to disagree with this recommendation based on the rationale above. DOD did not provide an update for 2020.

Recommendation: To ensure that all eligible servicemembers with student loans receive the SCRA interest rate cap, the Attorney General should direct the Department of Justice to consider modifying its proposed changes to SCRA to require use of the automatic eligibility check for private student loans.

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) stated that its current package of proposed legislative changes provides benefits to servicemembers with all kinds of loans, including private student loans. Rather than requiring servicemembers to submit written notice and a copy of military orders, they need only give oral or written notice of eligibility for the cap to their creditors. Creditors would then have to search the Department of Defense's records to verify the servicemembers' military service and apply the SCRA interest rate cap, when applicable. DOJ believes that these changes would significantly benefit all servicemembers with loans while providing a uniform standard for all types of creditors. The department added that it will consider its proposed changes to SCRA in future legislative proposals and plans to obtain feedback from stakeholders on how to improve SCRA's protections for servicemembers. However, as stated in our report, servicemembers with private student loans would still need to be aware of the rate cap in order to give notice, whether written or oral. Therefore, we encourage DOJ to consider updating its current proposal to require use of the automatic eligibility check by all student loan lenders and servicers. Not only would this ensure that servicemembers with private student loans receive a benefit for which they are eligible, but also that the interest rate cap is applied consistently across all types of student loans. DOJ did not provide an update for 2020.

Recommendation: To better ensure that servicemembers with private student loans benefit from the SCRA interest rate cap, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Attorney General of the Department of Justice should coordinate with each other, and with the four federal financial regulators, as appropriate, to determine the best way to ensure routine oversight of SCRA compliance for all nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers. If CFPB and DOJ determine that additional statutory authority is needed to facilitate such oversight, CFPB and DOJ should develop a legislative proposal for Congress.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) stated that it is committed to working with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and federal financial regulators, when possible, to facilitate oversight of SCRA compliance and that it will support all relevant federal agencies in using their respective authorities to identify and address SCRA violations as efficiently and effectively as possible. While CFPB coordinates with DOJ and other federal regulators in general, there is still no single agency authorized to enforce SCRA compliance among nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers, and no entity is conducting onsite supervisory reviews of these lenders and servicers. In addition, while CFPB may refer complaints from servicemembers about the SCRA rate cap for private student loans to DOJ and other financial regulators, we believe this does not constitute routine, proactive oversight and also presumes servicemembers are aware of the SCRA rate cap. GAO will consider closing this recommendation when the bureau has provided evidence of actions it has taken to facilitate routine oversight of SCRA compliance for all nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers. CFPB did not provide an update for 2020.

Recommendation: To better ensure that servicemembers with private student loans benefit from the SCRA interest rate cap, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Attorney General of the Department of Justice should coordinate with each other, and with the four federal financial regulators, as appropriate, to determine the best way to ensure routine oversight of SCRA compliance for all nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers. If CFPB and DOJ determine that additional statutory authority is needed to facilitate such oversight, CFPB and DOJ should develop a legislative proposal for Congress.

Agency: Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Justice (DOJ) believes that it is in full compliance with this recommendation and that the four federal financial regulators do not have statutory authority to examine nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers unaffiliated with a depository institution. DOJ stated that it already coordinates extensively with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the financial regulators concerning SCRA compliance through such mechanisms as referrals from CFPB for any SCRA-related violations and access to its consumer complaint database, and regular meetings with CFPB, and that it will continue to be built upon these efforts. While these mechanisms are commendable, GAO believes they do not constitute exercising routine oversight of nonbank private student loan lenders and servicers who are not affiliated with a depository institution. We believe that additional interagency coordination, including working with CFPB to seek additional statutory authority, as needed, is necessary to ensure routine SCRA compliance. DOJ did not provide an update for 2020.

Recommendation: To provide reasonable assurance that the property, equipment, and software transactions are properly tracked and capitalized or expensed as appropriate, the Director of CFPB should direct the program offices to require vendors to provide detailed invoices with costs broken out by project.

Agency: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Status: Open

Comments: During our fiscal year 2019 audit, we continued to find control deficiencies over CFPB's accounting for its property, equipment, and software. CFPB was still in the process of working with its Office of Procurement and program offices to require more detailed invoices with costs broken out by project. We will continue to evaluate CFPB's actions to address this recommendation during our fiscal year 2020 financial statement audit.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to enhance screening of loan guarantee applicants, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to complete steps to obtain access to Treasury's Do Not Pay portal and establish policies and procedures to deny loan guarantees to applicants who are subject to administrative offsets for delinquent child support payments.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said that implementing the recommendation would require a rule change and that it anticipated publishing a proposed rule by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to strengthen oversight of lenders and servicers, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to develop and publish in the Federal Register qualification requirements for the principal officers of lenders and servicers seeking initial or continued approval to participate in the guarantee program.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said it anticipated publishing a proposed rule to implement this recommendation by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to strengthen oversight of lenders and servicers, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to develop and publish in the Federal Register capital and financial requirements for guarantee program lenders that are not regulated by a federal financial institution regulatory agency.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said it anticipated publishing a proposed rule to implement this recommendation by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to strengthen risk assessment and reporting, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to improve performance measures comparing RHS and the Federal Housing Administration loan performance, potentially by making comparisons on a cohort basis and limiting comparisons to loans made in similar geographic areas.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said it was working with a contractor to establish more meaningful performance measures and estimated a completion date of December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to strengthen risk assessment and reporting, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to develop risk thresholds for the guarantee program, potentially in the form of maximum portfolio- or loan-level loss tolerances.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: Rural Development hired a contractor to help establish risk thresholds for the guarantee program. The contractor's October 2016 report developed and recommended portfolio-level and loan-level risk thresholds (values that trigger consideration of policy adjustments) and also recommended that program officials conduct stress tests to validate that each recommended risk threshold was appropriate for the program's overall risk appetite. As of August 2020, Rural Development said it was continuing to work with the contractor to stress test the risk thresholds and estimated a completion date of December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: To improve compliance with OMB Circular A-129 standards and strengthen management and oversight of the guarantee program, and to more effectively fulfill the requirements for conducting program reviews described in OMB Circular A-129, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Undersecretary for Rural Development to develop procedures for selecting RD credit programs for review based on risk and establish a prioritized schedule for conducting the reviews.

Agency: Department of Agriculture
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, Rural Development said that its Chief Risk Officer was working with the agency on establishing procedures for selecting Rural Development credit programs for review based on risk, including a prioritized schedule. Rural Development estimated a completion date of June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: To ensure that FHFA has adequate authority to ensure the safety and soundness of the enterprises and to clarify its supervisory role, Congress should consider granting FHFA explicit authority to examine third parties that do business with and play a critical role in the operations of the enterprises.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, Congress has not taken action on this matter.

Recommendation: To better ensure that taxpayer funds are being used effectively, Congress should consider permanently rescinding any Treasury-deobligated excess MHA balances that Treasury does not move into the Hardest Hit Fund.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: No legislative action identified, as of July 22, 2020. Congress has not yet taken any action to rescind excess MHA balances, as recommended in GAO's March 2016 report. According to Treasury, it took action on July 27, 2018, to deobligate $4.0 billion MHA program funds beyond the $2 billion that it had previously deobligated and transferred to the Troubled Asset Relief Program-funded Hardest Hit Fund in February 2016. As a result of Treasury's deobligated action, Congress now has the opportunity to rescind and use the funds for other priorities.

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.

Recommendation: To improve performance management of taxpayer services, the Secretary of the Treasury should update the Department's performance plan to include overage rates for handling taxpayer correspondence as a part of Treasury's performance goals.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2017, Treasury officials told us that they planned to include correspondence data as part of Treasury's fiscal year 2018 annual performance plan and fiscal year 2016 annual performance report. While the fiscal year 2016 performance report included data on correspondence overage rates, as of August 2019, Treasury has not included correspondence overage as part of its performance goals. We continue to believe this recommendation is valid.

Recommendation: To ensure that NCUA has adequate authority to determine the safety and soundness of credit unions, Congress should consider modifying the Federal Credit Union Act to grant NCUA authority to examine technology service providers of credit unions.

Agency: Congress
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2015, we suggested that Congress modify the Federal Credit Union Act to grant NCUA authority to examine technology service providers of credit unions. As of July 2020, Congress had not granted NCUA this authority.

Recommendation: To enhance the effectiveness of its preparations for conducting a retrospective review of its QM regulations, HUD should develop a plan that identifies the metrics, baselines, and analytical methods to be used. Furthermore, to account for and help mitigate the limitations of existing data and the uncertain availability of enhanced datasets, HUD should include in its plan alternate metrics, baselines, and analytical methods that could be used data were to remain unavailable.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development
Status: Open

Comments: In February 2017, HUD noted that it does not currently collect data on the annual percentage rate (APR) for each loan that would allow for a perfect comparison to the average prime offer rate. According to HUD, its Office of Housing has on its long-term list of systems priorities to collect specific information from the Uniform Closing Data that could be used to conduct such a comparison. However, HUD stated that it has not received adequate funding to meet these systems enhancements. According to HUD, it is considering the feasibility and potential utility of alternative data sources or the use of a proxy in an appropriate methodology. For instance, whether it may be possible to approximate the APR based upon the note rate and information on closing costs that is collected in the current data system, or alternatively, whether the APR could be obtained or approximated through matching Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data for FHA loans. In a September 2020 email, HUD officials stated that HUD has certain unique considerations for review of its own QM rule as compared to the other federal agencies covered in the GAO report. HUD officials explained that HUD's QM rule implemented certain changes intended to conform with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) rule and constituted only a small subset of FHA's overall requirements related to underwriting and loan characteristics. According to HUD officials, HUD's QM rule was intended to make conforming changes to FHA's requirements, as statutorily required, in order to bring them into greater alignment with the new CFPB-promulgated QM rule requirements. They stated that HUD assesses FHA loan performance on an ongoing basis through a variety of mechanisms including the annual audit requirement and monitoring of the overall market and mortgage portfolio. According to the HUD officials, these mechanisms are used to assess the need for adjustments in underwriting criteria and mortgage insurance premiums as well as to assess the health and risks to safety and soundness of the MMIF Fund. HUD officials said that given these considerations, there is no specific stand-alone full evaluation of the HUD QM rule planned at this time.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FSOC is comprehensively identifying and considering companies, the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with FSOC members, should establish procedures to evaluate companies in Stage 2 and Stage 3 under both statutory determination standards when an evaluation in either stage concludes that a company does not meet one of the standards, or document--on a company-specific or more general basis--why the second determination standard is not relevant for determination evaluations.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance prioritizes an activities-based approach to identifying and addressing potential risks to financial stability and states that FSOC will pursue company-specific determinations only if the activities-based approach is not sufficient. The guidance further states that if FSOC does consider a company-specific determination, its evaluation will focus primarily on the first determination standard. The guidance does not indicate the establishment of procedures to evaluate companies under both determination standards for the purpose of comprehensively identifying and considering companies or to document why the other standard is not relevant. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that FSOC is comprehensively identifying and considering companies, the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with FSOC members, should develop a process to collect information necessary for Stage 1 analysis, as appropriate, from certain nonbank financial companies for which public or regulatory information is otherwise unavailable. For example, FSOC could have companies for which such information is unavailable and that meet certain characteristics (such as quantitative thresholds similar to those used in Stage 1) report necessary information to the Office of Financial Research.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open

Comments: In December 2019, FSOC adopted final interpretive guidance that revises its approach to evaluating and determining whether to designate nonbank financial companies. The final revised guidance introduces a new stage 1 of the designation process in which FSOC would notify a nonbank financial company under review and consider available public and regulatory information. While the guidance states that a company under review in stage 1 may submit information it deems relevant to the evaluation, FSOC would not require the company to submit information during stage 1. We will continue to monitor FSOC's implementation of the revised guidance and any additional actions that may be responsive to our recommendation.

Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019, Treasury staff said that steps continue to be taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. In June 2019, the Senate confirmed a new OFR Director. Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We will continue to monitor progress in implementing these steps.

Recommendation: FSOC and OFR should clarify responsibility for implementing requirements to monitor threats to financial stability across FSOC and OFR, including FSOC members and member agencies, to better ensure that the monitoring and analysis of the financial system are comprehensive and not unnecessarily duplicative.

Agency: Department of the Treasury: Financial Stability Oversight Council: Office of Financial Research
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2019 Treasury staff said that steps are being taken to clarify roles and responsibilities across FSOC and OFR for monitoring threats to financial stability. Treasury staff said that they are working with OFR to reorganize and restructure the organization to better fulfill its mission and support FSOC. That work is still underway as staff from both entities meet on a weekly basis and will include additional clarification of roles and responsibilities. The Senate confirmed a new OFR director in June 2019. In June 2017, Treasury published a report in response to the President's executive order (13772) on Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System that recommended the structure and mission of the Office of Financial Research should be reformed to improve its effectiveness and to ensure greater accountability. We continue to monitor FSOC and OFR actions that would be responsive to clarifying responsibilities for monitoring threats to financial stability.

Recommendation: To better ensure that economically similar outcomes are taxed similarly and minimize opportunities for abuse, the Secretary of the Treasury should undertake a study that compares the current approach to alternative approaches for the taxation of financial derivatives. To determine if changes would be beneficial, such a study should weigh the tradeoffs to IRS and taxpayers that each alternative presents, including simplicity, administrability, and economic efficiency.

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Status: Open

Comments: Treasury disagreed with this recommendation based on the fact that many outside studies already exist and IRS did not comment. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in December 2017 did not include any requirements that Treasury study alternative approaches for the taxation of financial derivatives. However members of Congress have released proposals for a mark-to-market tax system, which would include financial derivatives. GAO continues to maintain that further study is needed in coordination with IRS and will continue to monitor the climate for such a study.

Recommendation: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to strengthen procedures in place to guide Reserve Banks' efforts to manage emergency program access for higher-risk borrowers by providing more specific guidance on how Reserve Bank staff should exercise discretion and document decisions to restrict or deny program access for depository institutions and primary dealers that would otherwise be eligible for emergency assistance.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to document a plan for estimating and tracking losses that could occur under more adverse economic conditions within and across all emergency lending activities and for using this information to inform policy decisions, such as decisions to limit risk exposures through program design or restrictions applied to eligible borrowing institutions.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: While creating control systems at the same time that the emergency programs were being designed and implemented posed unique challenges, the recent crisis provided invaluable experience that the Federal Reserve System can apply in the future should the use of these authorities again become warranted. Going forward, to further strengthen policies for selecting vendors, ensuring the transparency and consistency of decision making involving the implementation of any future emergency programs, and managing risks related to these programs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board should direct Federal Reserve Board and Reserve Bank staff to document the Federal Reserve Board's guidance to Reserve Banks on types of emergency program decisions and risk events that require approval by or consultation with the Board of Governors, the Federal Open Market Committee, or other designated groups or officials at the Federal Reserve Board.

Agency: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors
Status: Open

Comments: We most recently sought information from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in July 2018 regarding the status of the recommendation but did not receive any new information. Therefore, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To help ensure that CFTC and SEC are strategically positioned to implement the joint report's recommendations and address remaining harmonization opportunities, as CFTC and SEC continue to develop the charter for the Joint Advisory Committee, the Chairmen of CFTC and SEC should take steps to establish, with associated time frames, clearer goals for future harmonization efforts and requirements for reporting and evaluating progress toward these goals. Specifically, the agencies could benefit from formalizing a plan to assess implementation of the joint report's recommendations and harmonization opportunities that may not have been fully addressed by the joint report, such as differences in market structure and investor definitions. Such a plan could include goals for future harmonization efforts, such as time frames for implementing the recommendations; assessment of whether remaining differences in statutes and regulations result in inconsistent regulation of similar products and entities that could lead to opportunities for regulatory arbitrage; and periodic reports to Congress on their progress, including the implementation and impact of the recommendations.

Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2018, the CFTC and SEC Chairmen signed an updated version of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) originally signed in 2008. The new MOU created an updated framework for information sharing to make it easier for the two agencies to share information. A CFTC official noted that the MOU underscored two agencies' commitment to addressing harmonization efforts. In addition, CFTC officials identified examples of harmonization areas where CFTC and SEC have made some additional progress. This recommendation remains open until CFTC identifies steps taken to create a plan for assessing progress on working with SEC on remaining harmonization opportunities.

Recommendation: To address the current information gap in Regulation SHO for prime brokerage arrangements and mitigate the impact of any unintended consequences caused by SEC rules, as well as ensure consistent implementation of SEC rules by the industry, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission should finalize, in an expedited manner upon finalization of the temporary rule, the revised 1994 Prime Broker Letter.

Agency: United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 4, 2019, the revised Prime Broker letter has not been finalized. Staff from the Reg SHO team in SEC's Trading and Markets division stated that they have regularly and continuously asked the industry for comments on the Prime Broker Letter without receiving any real progress. Their most recent request for comments was emailed to industry counsel on May 22, 2019. Industry counsel acknowledged the request but have yet to provide comments.