Changes in Community Reinvestment Act Questions and Answers May bring Some Welcome News  

One of the more difficult tasks that our clients must accomplish is to try to meet the community development and community service tests in the Community reinvestment Act (“CRA”).  For many community banks the opportunities to do community service that qualifies under the requirements of the CRA are very limited.  The same is true with opportunities to conduct community development activities while staying within ones assessment area.    In many cases, the service opportunities have been limited to teaching classes at organizations that serve community needs.  Lending and investment opportunities are often “gobbled up” by the large banks in the assessment area, leaving the community banks to scramble to try and comply with the requirements of the regulation.     

In November of 2013, the FFIEC announced changes to the Community Reinvestment Act  Q & A that have the potential to greatly expand a bank’s ability to meet the tests of CRA while doing CRA activities outside of the assessment area.  [1] In addition, the ability to perform community service has also been expanded.  Just remember along with new powers come additional responsibilities and therefore additional risks!  

The Changes

There are actually several changes that were adopted in November, 2013.  We are only discussing a few that we believe directly impact compliance with the community development tests for small and intermediate banks.  Large Banks are encouraged to read the full text of the changes. 

In the past there was wording that suggested that banks could do community development activities outside of the assessment area, the caveat for how these activities might qualify for credit to the bank performing them was unclear.     The original Q & A stated the following:

 Q&A §     .12(h) – 6 stated that examiners would consider such activities if an institution, considering its performance context, had adequately addressed the community development needs of its assessment area(s).

In particular, the language created doubt that activities outside of a defined assessment area would be given credit at all.  The agencies first proposed new language that indicated that as long as these activities were performed in a safe and sound manner and weren’t done in lieu of activities within the assessment area, they would be okay.  However, because many comments were received [2] the language was changed.  The adopted new language says:

§    .12(h) – 6 states, with respect to community development activities that are conducted in the broader statewide or regional area that includes the institution’s assessment area(s), that “examiners will consider these activities even if they will not benefit the institution’s assessment area(s), as long as the institution has been responsive to community development needs and opportunities in its assessment area(s).”

The definition of what a broader statewide or regional area was left fairly open to a common sense application.  There are not specific guidelines for defining these.   It is safe to say that a definition that includes contiguous counties or economic zones that cross state lines (Lake Tahoe in California and Nevada for example) would be an acceptable definition.  

 Another significant change is the service that can qualify as community service on the part of bank employees.   The current Q & A stated that service to a community group was defined as

  §     .12(i) – 3 stated that providing technical assistance to organizations that engage in community development activities (as defined by the regulation) is considered a community development service

 

For many of our clients this language has been taken to limit the things that bank employees may do to get credit for the community service.  The FFIEC clearly wanted to expand that definition and in particular wanted to add that serving on the Board of community service organization can indeed count as community service 

§     .12(i) – 3 to clarify that service on the board of directors of a community development organization is an explicit example of a technical assistance activity that could be provided to community development organizations that would receive consideration as a community development service

The idea here is that the service on the Board of these organizations must be active and not symbolic.  In what looked almost like a throw away, the FFIEC also added the following: 

In addition, in response to commenters’ suggestions, the Agencies are adding the following example of a technical assistance activity that might be provided to community development organizations: providing services reflecting financial institution employees’ areas of expertise at the institution, such as human resources, information technology, and legal services.

 

Of course this language greatly expands the sort of services that a bank may provide to community development organizations while meeting the service requirements of the CRA. 

Broader Implications

Simply put, the more work you do upfront, the more leeway you get!   For example, being able to prove that there is broader region that you serve outside of your assessment area and that this region is legitimately economically connected is an important step in being able to perform community development activities out of the assessment area.   

The second step is being able to show that the plan for activities allows the bank to serve the needs of the immediate assessment area while expanding.   

We believe that for a plan to expand to activities beyond the assessment must be well thought out, and there must be documentation to show that the plan does not ignore low to moderate income groups within the assessment area.  However, for banks that do not have these populations directly within the established assessment area, this is a significant opportunity to expand and reach new levels of community development that had heretofore been unattainable.  

The key to a successful expansion is being able to document the idea that the Bank understands the credit needs of the people within the established assessment area.   In conjunction with understanding those needs the bank must be able to show how their activities meet those needs.   

---

[1] For the full text of the changes see http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20130318a.htm

[2] We continue to remind our clients that the agencies do read and consider comments they receive!

What Your Declines and Withdrawals Say About You-2015 

The regular review of the declines and withdrawals is a common practice at financial institutions.  In fact a secondary review of decline notices and withdrawals is a standard part of a strong compliance management program.   The typical review includes making sure that notices are given on a timely basis, to the appropriate parties and that the notices include the proper reasons for the declination.  

We believe that with a little imagination and innovation, the information from reviewing declines and withdrawals can actually unlock a treasure trove of information about your financial institution and how it is relating to the community that it serves.   In fact, your declines and withdrawals say just as much about your lending program as does the performance of the portfolio.  

Basic Requirements of all Banks

The Community Reinvestment Act, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair Lending laws, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and the Unfair Deceptive Abusive Acts or Practices Act all come together in a pantheon of laws aimed at  shaping the way banks relate to the communities they serve.  On separate occasions, we have discussed the origin of a number of these laws.  We have always maintained that all of these laws were enacted as a result of bad behavior by certain institutions.  And while there is plenty of disagreement about the overall efficiency of these laws, they are in fact here to stay. 

 

There are several common themes from each of these regulations; 

 

·         Customers are to be treated fairly at all points of contact with the bank

 

·         Loan applicants are to be judged on a basis that is objective

 

·         Customers are to be kept informed of the basis for credit decisions

 

·         Banks products should reflect the needs of the communities in which they are located

 

·         The experience of customers who apply for mortgage products must be transparent

 

·         All members of the community should be encouraged to become customers

 

Trying to meet all of these goals while still running a profitable operation can be a daunting task indeed.  However, for institutions that are proactive and that have a strong commitment to compliance, meeting the goals of these regulations is a part of the overall strategic plan.   Further, we believe that there are steps that banks can take to enhance the overall monitoring of the progress towards meeting these goals.   The declines and withdrawals are a prime example.

 

Granted that some of the information that is required for banks to collect by HMDA is otherwise prohibited.  For example, you cannot ask an applicant for a small business loan his race or ethnicity.  That is unless, you are conducting a self-assessment of your overall compliance.    To be precise Regulation B says at 202.5 (b) (1)

 

Self-test. A creditor may inquire about the race, color, religion, national origin, or sex of an applicant or any other person in connection with a credit transaction for the purpose of conducting a self-test that meets the requirements of §202.15. A creditor that makes such an inquiry shall disclose orally or in writing, at the time the information is requested, that:

 

(i) The applicant will not be required to provide the information;

 

(ii) The creditor is requesting the information to monitor its compliance with the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act;

 

(iii) Federal law prohibits the creditor from discriminating on the basis of this information, or on the basis of an applicant's decision not to furnish the information; and

 

(iv) If applicable, certain information will be collected based on visual observation or surname if not provided by the applicant or other person

 

In case you are wondering, section 202.15 is designed to encourage self-testing and it states, that the results of self-testing are privileged.  The basic requirement here is that when you do find problems they must be appropriately address.  You should also know that the fact that you did a self-test is NOT privileged.  Therefore, if you perform a self-test and do not want to share the results with the regulator, that is your right.  However, it is also a red flag to the regulator. 

We believe that this provision of the regulation coupled with the fact that you already have a structure in place to collect the necessary information presents an outstanding opportunity. 

 

Withdrawals

Currently banks that are HMDA reporters are required to keep information on mortgage borrowers that withdraw their applicants before the process is completed.  In addition information is required to be kept for loans that were approved and offered to the applicant, but rejected.  This information can be used for a number of purposes.  For example, a high level of withdrawals can be an indication that the loan process is taking too long to reach a decision.  High withdrawals rates could also indicate that the pricing at your bank is not competitive.   

We suggest that with a little extra analysis, this same information could tell you about the experience of minorities and women.  Are women withdrawing at a higher rate than men?   The same question could be asked about minority applicants.    You could determine if applicants from low to moderate income tracts have the same experience as those form medium income and high income tracts.  It is important to point at that the lack of minority or women applicants also tells a story!

Declines

Both HMDA and the ECOA require lenders to keep information about declines.  However, only HMDA requires that information about the borrower’s race, ethnicity and gender should be kept.   This information is generally used for a few purposes such as determining whether applications are being notified in a timely manner as required by the regulations.  In addition, the decline files are generally used for the purpose of determining that the proper reasons for the declination have been given to the customer. 

We note that with a minimal adjustment to the information that is collected, you could glean valuable data about the experiences of women and minorities.  In addition, you could get important information about the experiences of people within low to moderate income tracts.  This information would also help the bank to determine whether certain loan parameters are disproportionately impacting a certain segment of the community. 

Using information from declines and withdrawals, your bank can also get a much better idea of where in the assessment area, your customers are coming from.  If certain areas are being missed, the conversation about why and what can be done can begin.  

 

Of course we are not suggesting that by doing an empirical comparison between the withdrawals and denials of women versus men or minorities versus nonminority will tell a complete story.  It will help you to start asking the right questions and in so doing, get you to the point of better compliance.  By addressing the questions raised by this analysis you direct resources to the highest areas of risk in compliance while improving your overall standing in your community.    This information could lead to surveys questionnaires, focus groups or whatever innovations are appropriate.

Your First TRID Examination-What the Regulators Expect.    

There has been a great deal of attention paid to the idea that the TILA / RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rules (“TRID”) will soon be implemented.   These rules combine the Good Faith Estimate from RESPA and Truth in Lending disclosures from Regulation Z which are both currently required for a mortgage loan.   Information that fully describes the requirements of these rules is readily available.     

As new regulations are implemented, regulators develop expectations for financial institution responses.  In many cases, regulatory agencies make their expectations known.  The FDIC is a good example.  On October 2, 2015 the FDIC released Financial Institution Letter (“FIL”) 43-2015, which describes the current expectations for the banks that they supervise.  The expectations from other regulators will be similar.   Here are the highlights of the FIL. 

Examination Procedures:   The examiners will use the examination procedures that have been published.

If mortgage loans are part of the scope of an FDIC consumer compliance examination, examiners will use interagency examination procedures to evaluate financial institutions for compliance with the TRID Rule. These procedures are available in the FDIC’s Compliance Examination Manual.[1]

To prepare for an upcoming examination, make sure that loan staff has read through the procedures.  The TRID provisions can be found in the FDIC compliance Examination Manual in the Truth in Lending section.  In the FDIC version, the parts of the procedures that cover TRID are actually highlighted in yellow.    The procedures focus on the accuracy and the timing of disclosures.  

Compliance Management Program.  One of the key components that are mentioned under TRID rules will be the evaluation of the compliance program.  

During initial examinations for compliance with the TRID Rule, FDIC examiners will evaluate an institution’s compliance management system and overall efforts to come into compliance, recognizing the scope and scale of changes necessary for each supervised institution to achieve effective compliance. [2]

This is the area that will receive the greatest scrutiny during the first examination.  Examiners will focus on the overall policies, procedures, training and internal controls that have been established to mitigate risk and reduce the possibility of regulatory violations.  Remember under the TRID rules, there are very strict limitations on disclosures.  In fact, deviations from the initial disclosures given to a potential borrower are a strong consideration for whether or not the disclosures are in good faith.   The compliance program should have components that are robust enough to address these requirements. 

Timely Compliance.  Examiners will consider the fact that since the TRID rules were initially announced, there have been several delays.  This gives financial institutions ample time to comply.  

Examiners will expect supervised entities to make good faith efforts to comply with the TRID Rule’s requirements in a timely manner. Specifically, examiners will consider the institution’s implementation plan, including actions taken to update policies, procedures, and processes, its training of appropriate staff, and its handling of early technical problems or other implementation challenges. [3]

This part of the FIL is designed to put institutions on notice that institutions are expected to have put forward a significant effort at compliance to be in compliance by the time the rule is actually implemented.  The assertion that “we are still working on compliance” will be very much frowned upon.   

FDIC Approach.   On the other hand, if a plan is in place and is in the process of being implemented with clear steps, there may be some leeway.  The FIL notes that: 

The FDIC’s supervisory approach regarding the TRID Rule will be similar to the approach the FDIC took in initial examinations for compliance with the Ability-to- Repay/Qualified Mortgage rules that became effective in January, 2014. [4]

This means that in the event that your institution has put together a clear plan with benchmarks and has the systems to monitor progress that may be enough.   The approach to early compliance with regulations that was mentioned is noted below:   

 

During initial examinations for compliance with the new regulations, FDIC examiners will expect institutions to be familiar with the mortgage rules’ requirements and have a plan for implementing the requirements. Implementation plans should contain clear timeframes and benchmarks for making necessary changes to compliance management systems and relevant programs. FDIC examiners will consider the overall compliance efforts of an institution and take into account progress the institution has made in implementing its plan.[5]

 

Preparing for a TRID Examination

Ultimately, there won’t be a TRID examination.  Examiners and auditors will review TRID compliance as part of an overall lending compliance examination.  When a compliance review is scheduled these are steps that we recommend you take: 

1.       Determine whether or not TRID applies.  If you have made any closed end loans that are secured by real estate, it is likely that TRID applies.  

2.       Make sure that policies and procedures have been updated to include TRID  

3.       Develop a compliance plan that is documented in writing

4.       Implement a quality control program to check originations to which TRID applies  

5.     Make sure to communicate with your regulators.

---

[1] FIL 43-2015

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] FIL-9-2014

Why don’t the Regulators Just Understand? 

 

To paraphrase the great Will Smith, actor and rapper extraordinaire- sometimes it just seems like “regulators just don’t understand”! Have you ever felt like you were being singled out during an examination?   You are most certainly not alone!  Despite the fact that it seems like the examiners often don’t understand the fact that banks are for-profit organizations, there is hope.  You would be amazed by how much a few conversation with your regulator might change things.    As with many things, a journey towards self- knowledge and self-discovery can lead to enlightenment! 

 

“They just don’t like us-(or the Examiner had his own agenda)”

 

It can often seem like from the very moment the examiners come in the door they have very specific things they are looking for and this in fact is the case!   Examiners use a specific set of metrics and rules as they put together the scope for the examination of your bank.  The really good news here is that these metrics are not a company secret.  In fact, regardless of who your regulator might be, the examination manual, which directs the development of the scope of the examination is public information.  All regulators use a form of risk based examination these days.   The scope of the examination will be based upon several factors including:

·         past performance

·         type of products offered

·         changes in management

·         changes in the banking environment

·         changes in regulations

 

This, of course, is not a complete list, but it covers the basics.  The point is that the examiners will develop a scope for the examination based upon a known set of variables.  There is no secret to this and it is simply not the case that they just don’t like your bank.   

 

They don’t understand that banks have to make money to live

 

Again, it can seem that every year brings more and more regulation.  In fact, there were more than 80 regulations that were implemented in 2014 alone!  The idea that a bank has to make a profit to keep its doors open can sometime seem overwhelmed by the need to comply with regulations.  However, there is an inconvenient truth in the life of a regulatory agency; without institutions to regulate, the need to exist ceases.  The Office of Thrift Supervision serves as a poignant example.  Regulators are interested in keeping strong banks that have a good compliance record alive and thriving.  

 

The fact of the matter is that there are no consumer banking regulations that have not been well earned.  A review of the history of some of the seminal consumer banking regulations provides us with a history of bad behavior that cried out for regulation. 

 For example:

(1)  The truth in lending act was passed in response to the growing number of Americans who were getting credit, but not being properly informed of the cost[1]

 

(2) Regulation B was passed as a direct result of discriminatory lending behavior on the part of banks.  (3)The SAFE ACT which requires loan officers to register and be part of a national data base, is the direct result of the financial meltdown of 2009.  

 

Notably, consumer regulations are a part of the history of banking in the United State and are woven into the fabric of the business of banking.   

 

The regulators are just out to get us!

 

There are many reasons why a community bank, in particular, might feel this way.  Quite often the bad behavior discussed above was actually conducted by the much larger brethren of community banks.  Despite this fact, the community banks are painted with the same broad brush and held to the same standard as the giant miscreants.  There have been many commentaries questioning whether regulatory agencies simply want to do away with community banks.  We believe that this is far from the case.  There is and will always be a significant market in which community banks can grow and prosper.  Regulators have recognized the need for a different set of standards and regulations for community banks for some time.  Political considerations and logistics have stymied the effort to date, but the drive continues for a separate set of regulatory standards for community banks. 

 

How can I get them to understand us? 

 

Far too often the only communication between banks and their regulators is through the examination process.  As many banks have discovered, this is not the optimal time to discuss hot topics in regulation!   Examiners are on a tight time schedule and generally must answer to supervisors at their regional office.  The job is to gather the information pertinent to the scope, analysis the information and communicate areas of concern.   In this environment, the examiners rarely have the time or the resources to discuss ideas about how to enhance the overall compliance program.  

 

One way to greatly improve the overall examination experience is to develop an ongoing relationship with the regulatory office that is assigned to your bank.   It may seem unnatural to talk with the very organization that “torments” you, but ongoing communication can easily become a two way street.  Examiners who feel that they have good communication with a bank will be forthcoming with information about changes in regulations.  More importantly, information about changes in regulatory approach can be communicated.   This can invaluable information.  

 

A long standing, but not very well understood axiom is “self-detected/self-corrected”.  Banks that make a point of finding a compliance issue, correcting the problem and then reporting it to the regulators, get way more than a mere “gold star”.  Again, even though it may seem counter-intuitive, but making a practice of reporting issues that you have found and corrected goes a long way toward building credibility and understanding with your regulator. 

 

So in the end, it is not so much that regulators just don’t understand. It is more the case that you have help them understand. 

---

[1]See Preamble to 15 U.S.C. 1601 (1970)

 

Some lessons from the CFP’s enforcement action against Hudson City Savings Bank 

Introduction

In late September of 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a significant settlement against Hudson City Savings Bank of New Jersey.  The case involved red-lining and discouraging potential Black and Hispanic borrowers from applying for mortgage loans.  As a smaller institution that concentrates on commercial lending it is easy to dismiss this case as irrelevant to your operations.  However, if you think that something like this can’t happen to you, let’s look at some lessons learned in this case. 

Description of the findings  

In filing its complaint, the CFPB and the DOJ made the following findings;

• In carrying out a program to expand the bank’s branches outside of New Jersey from 2004 through 2010, the bank’s management focused on markets in areas of New York and Connecticut that “form a semi-circle around the four counties in New York with the highest proportions of majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods.”  It also alleged that during the relevant time period, the bank did not accept first lien mortgage loan applications at all of its branches and referred applicants to one of seven retail loan officers working at branches outside of and not in proximity to majority-Black-and-Hispanic areas.
• The bank generated approximately 80 percent of its mortgage applications through mortgage brokers who were heavily concentrated outside of majority-Black-and-Hispanic areas.
• The bank engaged in limited marketing outside of its branch network that focused on neighborhoods with relatively few Black and Hispanic residents and therefore “failed to advertise meaningfully in majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods.”
• In delineating its assessment area under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), the bank excluded most of the majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods in the NY/NJ and Camden MSAs.
• During the relevant period, the bank failed to exercise adequate oversight or hire sufficient staff to ensure fair lending compliance and had no written policies or procedures to monitor for compliance.

Again, each of these practices could possibly be dismissed as fairly obvious tactics that “our institution would never employ!”, but we believe that there are several important lessons for all institutions to take away from these findings.  

The results of these findings were very expensive to Hudson City Savings.  Among the things that the institution agreed to do were the following:  

• Pay $25 million to a loan subsidy program: To increase access to affordable credit, the loan subsidy program will offer residents in majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania mortgage loans on a more affordable basis than otherwise available from Hudson City. The loan subsidies can include interest rate reductions, closing cost assistance, and down payment assistance.[1] 
• Spend $1,000,000 on targeted advertising and outreach: During the five-year term of the order, Hudson City Savings will spend $200,000 annually on a targeted advertising and outreach campaign to generate applications for mortgage loans from qualified residents in the affected majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods. The bank will be required to display promotional materials in branch offices and advertise via print media, radio, and bilingually in English and Spanish.

• Spend $750,000 on local partnerships: Hudson City will spend $750,000 to partner with community-based or governmental organizations that provide assistance to residents in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

• Spend $500,000 on consumer education: During the five-year term of the order, Hudson City will spend $100,000 annually to provide 12 financial education events covering credit counseling, financial literacy, and other topics to help identify and develop qualified loan applicants from the affected Black and Hispanic communities.

• Offer full-service banking in majority-Black-and-Hispanic communities: Hudson City will open two new branches within majority-Black-and-Hispanic neighborhoods. These branches will provide the complete range of services typically offered at Hudson City’s full-service branches.

• Expand assessment areas to include majority-Black-and-Hispanic communities: Hudson City is required to expand its Community Reinvestment Act assessment areas to include all of Bronx, Kings, Queens, and New York counties in New York; the city of Camden; and the city of Philadelphia.

• Assess the credit needs of majority-Black-and-Hispanic communities: Hudson City will also complete an assessment of the credit needs of the majority-Black-and-Hispanic communities within the affected metropolitan areas. The credit-needs assessment will include consideration of how the bank’s lending operations can be expanded to meet the needs of majority-Black-and-Hispanic communities. The bank will meet regularly with representatives of community organizations involved in promoting fair lending, home ownership, or residential development in these communities.

• Develop a fair lending compliance and training plan: The bank will submit a compliance plan that includes a review of its mortgage lending policies and practices, and steps for reducing redlining risk, including an oversight policy to reduce redlining risks among its brokers and a formal ongoing process to monitor for redlining. The bank will also be required to train all of its employees involved in mortgage lending to ensure their activities are nondiscriminatory. Hudson City will also hire a full-time Director of Community Development to oversee the continued development of the bank’s lending in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

• Pay a $5.5 million penalty: Hudson City will pay a $5.5 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund.

Larger Implications  

Your financial institution would be mistaken to dismiss these findings and the punishment as far-fetched or irrelevant. There are several implications that we believe should be taken from this case. 

Access to credit is an important consideration for your lending portfolio.  The emphasis should be on the access that all parties in your local community have to credit.  This doesn’t mean that you have to make a loan to every person who is a member of a protected class.  It does mean that your credit program should be available to all who qualify.   As the Deputy Attorney General stated

“A lending institution must treat all potential borrowers equally, regardless of their race or the racial composition of their neighborhood, when deciding to offer its loan services. We encourage all lenders to proactively identify responsible lending opportunities that exist in predominantly minority neighborhoods within their lending areas.”[2]

Service Area: the manner in which you determine your service area will be reviewed annually.  You can’t simply say that we won’t conduct activity in a certain area, there has to be a logical business reason for excluding the area.  Today people are more mobile than ever and through technology, banks have the ability to reach customers well beyond political boundaries such as counties.  As a result, it is important to consider your natural constituency when drawing your service area.  

Knowing the Credit needs of Your Community is a key compliance consideration.  Why does your institutions offer the products that it does?  Is there really a need for the products and are you serving a specific need.  This is especially true of the minimum underwriting standards that have been set.  Do they reflect the needs of the community?  For example, if the institution has set a minimum income level of $150k in an area that has a median income of $90k, there may some fair lending considerations.    

Using loan brokers to generate loans carries risks.  The Bank must actively monitor the activities of the brokers and ask questions about the broker’s practices.  The loan applications received should reflect the make-up of your institutions community.  If they don’t, then it is important to ask why.  

Marketing should be inclusive.  There is absolutely no reason to leave out entire communities that are logical potential customers.  It is also important to consider how advertising might impact communities that are traditionally unbanked or under banked.   Advertisement that do not feature people from these communities are often perceived as discouraging. 

Being an exclusively Commercial Lender will not necessarily shield you form similar claims.   Regulation B the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, applies to all loans including commercial loans.  If an institution is perceived as discouraging borrowers from applying for commercial loans a similar claim may follow.  The Community Reinvestment Act also requires institutions to track the number of loans that they have made within their designated communities.  Failure to make significant commercial loans within communities can lead to similar suits.      

Now is a good time to consider the credit needs of your natural community and make sure that you are inclusive.  

---

[1] Authors note:  this in no way implies that the Bank is being asked to lower its credit underwriting standards.  The issue is that credit worthy applicants were not given the opportunity to apply.

[2] Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division, CFPB announcement