Bankers seek state legislative seats

Several bankers in the Upper Midwest have their name on the ballet for Tuesday’s elections. I am aware of 13 bankers or former bankers who are running for state legislative seats. These three bankers are hoping to join their respective legislatures:

  • Roscoe Streyle (R), United Community Bank of North Dakota, Minot, is running for a seat in the N.D. House of Representatives.
  • Chip Baltimore (R), Boone Bank & Trust Co., Boone, Iowa, is running for a seat in the Iowa House of Representatives. 
  • Pat Mazorol (R), Securian Trust Company of Saint Paul, is running for a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives.

Incumbents seeking re-election are:

  • Minnesota State Sen. Jim Metzen (D) of Key Community Bank in Inver Grove Heights.
  • Iowa State Rep. Tom Sands (R) of Columbus Junction State Bank.
  • Iowa State Sen. Steve Kettering (R) of Farmers State Bank, Lake View.
  • Nebraska State Sen. David Pankonin, Home State Bank, Louisville.
  • South Dakota State Sen. Ryan Maher (D), Farmers State Bank, Faith

Eugene Christensen, president of the BankWest branch in Kadoka, S.D., is hoping to rejoin the South Dakota legislature. He is running as a Republican for a seat in the state senate. Christensen served in the South Dakota House of Representatives in the 1980s.

Two former bankers are also looking to hold onto their seats:

  • South Dakota State Sen. Michael Vehle (R), Mitchell, is retired from CorTrust Bank.
  • Minnesota State Sen. Dan Sparks (D), Blooming Prairie, used to work at F&M State Bank.

Wyoming State Rep. Gregg Blikre (R), of First National Bank, Gillette, is in his first campaign, as he is seeking re-election. He was appointed to a vacant seat in mid-2009.

Jeff Smith, formerly of the First Bank and Trust in Spirit Lake, Iowa, is seeking to win election to an open seat in the Iowa House of Representatives.

We wish them all well. Check back next week when we report the results of these state races.

Concern over new deposit insurance rules

As I wrote before, Minnesota Bankers Association President Joe Witt’s analysis of the Dodd-Frank Act is spot on. I really appreciate his remarks delivered at the MBA’s district meetings earlier this fall. Here is an edited transcript of some of his remarks regarding the changes in Dodd-Frank as they pertain to the deposit insurance fund:

The way that they paid for the stuff in this 2,300-page bill was horrible for the banking industry. For the first time in the history of the FDIC fund, FDIC insurance money – built with premiums that you paid for years — for the first time the FDIC money will be used for something other than to pay off depositors at failed institutions. For the first time they are taking money out of that account for something else. They’ve never done this before. They are taking money out of the insurance fund to pay for the costs associated with this bill.

One of the biggest costs associated with this bill is setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It takes a lot of money to establish a brand new agency. They’ve got operating money going forward, 20 percent of the Federal Reserve’s operating budget but they need upfront cash. So they are taking that upfront cash from all the banks’ insurance funds that all of you have paid for. I hate the precedent. 

The other thing I don’t like is only banks will be paying for this new agency because only banks pay FDIC insurance. They are not dipping into the credit union fund and having the credit unions pay for the new agency. Credit unions are subject to the new agency but they don’t have to pay for it. The mortgage brokers, the finance companies, the people who originated most of the garbage that caused this mess, they don’t have to pay for this new agency. They are subject to it but they don’t have to pay for it.

They kind of threw a bone on this one to small banks. They said that small banks wouldn’t have to pay any of the fee increase that they are talking about. Hopefully that works; I don’t know how it does work but, hopefully, it does.

So what is the actual funding that we are talking about? Right now the FDIC has a target balance of 1.15 percent of all insured deposits. If they have enough money in their FDIC fund to cover 1.15 percent of all insured deposits in the country, they think they have enough money. In this law, they moved this 1.15 percent up to 1.35 percent. And that 0.2 percent difference is what they are taking out of the fund to pay for this bill. Now if they leave it at 1.35 percent everybody pays for it. How will we know if your money is going to pay for that agency or not? Are they going to have separate funds? Are they going to have all small banks pay the 1.15 percent category and all large banks pay 1.35 percent category? I don’t know if they are going to set up separate insurance funds or what they are going to do, but how will you really know if your money is going to pay for that or not? 

Clearly within the industry there is some disagreement on the impact of Dodd-Frank on the FDIC. Read Cam Fine’s comments on this to a group of bankers in Iowa last July. I am hoping to get some clarity on this. Regardless, I think it is safe to say that things are a little tougher on bankers, no matter how you slice it.

A big year for Art Johnson

I really appreciated following Art Johnson over the past year; he’s the Michigan banker who was chairman of the American Bankers Association, concluding his term at the ABA convention earlier this month.

During his farewell speech in Boston, he talked about how things have changed since he agreed to serve in the ABA’s leadership chairs. It was 2006. “Remember 2006?” he said. “It was a time of record earnings for the banking industry and no bank failures for the second year in a row.

“What could possibly go wrong?” he quipped.

Johnson listed three big events that took place during his tenure:

First, the subprime mortgage bubble burst and the financial crisis that followed was the most traumatic economic event since the Great Depression.

Second, we had the legislative battle leading to the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act.

And third, my friend, ABA President and CEO Ed Yingling, announced that he was going to retire at the end of this year.

 Johnson used much of his speech to summarize the lobbying efforts bankers undertook during the debate of Dodd-Frank. But then he listed other important association accomplishments during his year as chairman, 2009-2010:

  • We’ve continued the unification of ABA and legacy ACB. That merger made us stronger and more unified at a time when those attributes would be critical.
  • We fully integrated both the curricula and the cultures of the National School of Banking and Stonier to create a new Stonier Graduate School of Banking. Now we have the best of both to continue educating banking leaders.
  • We continue to battle – as we have for more than 20 years – the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s march to mark-to-market accounting. And we’ve worked to encourage bank investors and others to join the fight so FASB can better understand why we’re opposed to having banks mark all financial instruments – including loans – at fair value on the balance sheet.
  • We encouraged Congress to pass a small business lending bill that’s going to help us create jobs in our communities.
  • We brought a thousand bankers to Washington in March to visit their members of Congress as part of our Grass Roots Summit. There is nothing like a hometown banker talking to members of Congress about what matters to their constituents back home.
  • And we continued to promote financial literacy because consumer knowledge is still the best consumer protection.

It was a big year for Art Johnson. Best wishes to Art as he transitions out of the ABA leadership. Look for ABA convention coverage in the Nov. 15 edition of NorthWestern Financial Review.

Rules are more important than enforcement agency

Joe Witt, president of the Minnesota Bankers Association, has been doing an excellent job describing the Dodd-Frank Act to members during the association’s District Meetings, which took place in September and October. He also has an essay in the current edition of MBA News which outlines the legislation quite well. He frames his discussion in the form of 10 questions about the new law.

He makes a very interesting point about the CFPB and the exemption smaller banks get from its enforcement authority. Here is what he said at the District meeting on Oct. 15:

A lot of people look at the bill as it was being discussed and they said, “well, we will be okay because of the small bank exemption from the CFPB.” A lot of people didn’t understand what the exemption was. There are two different aspects of the CFPB that you have to keep in mind. The first one is, this rule-writing authority and the ability to re-write all these regulations and to write new implementing regulations for all the new stuff. That is part one.

Part two was “who is going to enforce those laws?” In the original drafts of the bill that came out from the Obama Administration and the original version from the House, the CFPB itself was going to have examination authority over all banks, large and small. They threw us a little bit of a bone on the enforcement side. If you are a bank that is under $10 billion in assets, your consumer compliance then will continue to be done by your current regulators. Okay, that is on the enforcement side only.

Every bank of all sizes is subject to all of these regulations that we are talking about. And as I talk to bankers, the rule writing part of these new regulations is the most important part because that is where all of the costs are. It is nice that we won’t have a new examiner, don’t get me wrong. But one of my banker friends gave me this analogy:

You are driving through a town, you were going 55 mph on the highway, you get to the 30 mph part, you don’t quite slow down fast enough and you see red lights behind you as you are getting pulled over. Do you care at that point if it is a state trooper, county sheriff or the local police? You don’t care at all who is doing the enforcing. The rule is what is important and I think that analogy applies perfectly here.

 

BofA’s new ‘cash advance’ looks a lot like overdraft fee

Rusty Cloutier, Louisiana banker and former chairman of the Independent Community Bankers of America, was in Minneapolis yesterday to speak to a group of bankers gathered for the 35th anniversary celebration of United Bankers Bank, the country’s first bankers’ bank. Cloutier is author of “Big Bad Banks: How greed and ego among the big shots in banking and government created the crisis that wrecked our economy,” which was published last year.

Cloutier opened a 45 minute presentation with a news tidbit which shows why Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

“Remember Bank of America when they came out two months and said they were no longer going to charge overdraft fees on ATM and debit card transactions?” Cloutier asked. “Bank of America announced a new product yesterday. The new product is called cash advance. If you go to an ATM for a withdrawal  and you don’t have the money, they give you the cash. If you use a debit card and you don’t have money in the bank, they will advance you the cash. The charge is $35 per occurrence.

“Give me a break. And you wonder why the CFPB came into existence.”

If this is true, I would expect outrage from regulators and consumer groups as news of this becomes known.

ABA brand emphasizes unique all-inclusive representation

Diane Casey-Landry, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, described the ABA’s updated brand at the association’s annual convention, which concluded yesterday in Boston. The association’s new tag line is “Building success. Together.”  She explained that the four pillars of ABA’s brand are summed up in the term ‘I-CUE.’

‘I’ stands for ‘impact-driven.’ ABA makes an impact, just as bankers make an impact in their communities, Casey-Landry said.

‘C’ stands for ‘champion.’ “ABA is champion for all,” Casey-Landry said. “Together we champion every aspect of our industry. And our industry is diverse, but we represent every part of that diversity and we are proud to do so.”

‘U’ stands for ‘unmatched scope and scale.’ ABA is the biggest organization representing banks, with resources and expertise unmatched by other trade groups.

‘E’ is for ‘extraordinary’ as in the extraordinary people in the industry, both in the banks and on the ABA staff.

ABA is using the I-CUE format to market itself, as you can see by the way this ABA web page is organized. Clearly, the branding distinguishes itself from other associations which only represent a segment of the industry.

Taylor urges bankers to connect with their customers

William Taylor, an author and the man who founded Fast Company magazine, encouraged bankers to turn the current crisis into an opportunity. He spoke at the opening general session of the ABA convention in Boston this morning.

“Will you emerge with a closer connection to your customers?” Taylor asked. He said as customers become more cynical, they are becoming more selective. He said banks that figure out how to stand out are likely to be selected more often.

How to stand out? Taylor said your bank should care about the customer more than the competitor. He invited bankers to think about ways their institution can demonstrate they care. One example he gave is companies should answer the phone rather than rely on impersonal automated phone answering systems.

He said companies succeed when they figure out how to deliver a more memorable experience than the competition. He said banks need to create an emotional and psychological connection with customers.

“Value accrues to scarcity,” he said. “There is a scarcity of organizations that are excited about serving their customers.”

The question, he said, “is not how to be more efficient, but how to be more human.”

Taylor’s message is resonating throughout the banking industry. Last month, he was the keynote speaker at ABA’s marketing conference conducted in Minneapolis.

Industry distinctions lost on Gibson, probably most Americans

Charles Gibson, the former anchor of ABC’s World News Tonight, and the long-time host of the network’s Good Morning America program, addressed the ABA convention in Boston yesterday morning with a serious message. He said he is “concerned about America.”

He said Americans don’t seem to trust anymore. Washington, he said, isn’t working. “Politics always takes precedence over policy,” he summarized. “In Congress, almost every lawmaker will tell you they hate the system, but they feel powerless to fix it.”

Gibson said members of Congress are polarized, and they have allowed labels to substitute for thought. “It was President Nixon in 1969 who said ‘we cannot learn from each other until we stop shouting at each other.’ How well that fits today,” he said.

Gibson expressed concern over the $3 billion that is spent on lobbying every year, a somewhat odd message for the ABA, an organization for which lobbying is very important.

Nonetheless, Gibson’s message was largely on point, and informative, especially his comments on media where he said that he expects television to move away from broadcasting and toward what he called “narrow casting.” He said that rather than a television signal being beamed into homes across the nation, he expects everything to move to computer, which will give people the opportunity to choose between thousands of offerings. This format, however, will make it very difficult to reach the mass audiences that television has reached in the past.

Gibson’s understanding of the banking industry, however, was disappointing. He clearly did not understand the distinctions between the industry’s largest players and community banks. He didn’t get the meaning of the shadow industry. He didn’t seem to understand that community bankers have nothing to do with the current fiasco involving improperly documented foreclosures.

His lack of understanding is disappointing because he is probably one of the most informed people out there. He has studied people and industries and events all over the world for decades, and yet he didn’t really get that community banks are not the same as the mortgage brokers; they aren’t the ones who invented CMOs. If he isn’t getting it, then it is difficult to have much hope that the average American is getting it.

The banking industry clearly has a lot more work to do, and it is along the lines that Ed Yingling said: you have to toot your own horn more. Bankers need to do a better job telling their own stories so that the difference between them and the shadow players is crystal clear.

Gibson closed his comments by telling bankers: “You have to win public confidence back, one passbook customer at a time.” That’s good advice and I think the way bankers do that is by continuing to work to educate the public about what they do and how they do it.