Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
In 2021, Fed Govt support for delinquent mortgages will end... Millions of Americans are currently getting help which is great.. but at some point, when it ends in 2021, there has to be a wave of mortgage foreclosures coming.... What does that mean to the mortgage servicing companies like COOP?
I am long on COOP, have been with WAMU for 12+ years, have escrows, but I won't pump COOP knowing what could, repeat could, be coming... I don't want people with little money, buying COOP at $30, thinking it will go to $50-$100, then a wave of foreclosures comes, COOP goes down to $15, and new investors get hurt..
JMHO
ND9
Krombacher, with the "Caveat Emptor" designation on ERHE (for some brokerages), it's going to be harder to cover their shorts... However, what about the rest of us "longs?" Do you think if the ERHE price goes up, we'll be able to sell some of our stock? Or will it also be difficult for us? I was just wondering.... or maybe when ERHE stock goes up, the "Caveat Emptor" designation goes away?
Any thoughts on that?
thanks,
ND9
From Ameritrade: "On January 31, 2021 TD Ameritrade will restrict orders in Caveat Emptor designated OTC securities to liquidating trades only. Closing trades will continue to be allowed after this time."
BBANBOB, if that was the case, then I think they would have just distributed the money now or previously, and then Alice's appeal is mute...
JMHO
ND9
Bummer, just got my Caveat Emptor notification about ERHC Energy today.
***********************************
On January 31, 2021 TD Ameritrade will restrict orders in Caveat Emptor designated OTC securities to liquidating trades only. Closing trades will continue to be allowed after this time
Yes, bullish for now because the Federal Govt is preventing foreclosures..
FHA Again Extends Moratorium on Evictions, Foreclosures. Here's What Investors Should Know
**************************************
At some point, all of this government help will have to stop and then the mortgage foreclosures will begin.
ND9
*********************************************
FHA Again Extends Moratorium on Evictions, Foreclosures. Here's What Investors Should Know
Dec 21, 2020 by Marc Rapport
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) said today (Dec. 21) that it has extended through Feb. 28 its moratorium on evictions and foreclosures for holders of single-family mortgages insured by the division of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The moratoriums had been set to expire on Dec. 31. The FHA's move joins similar extensions put in place by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are part of the independent Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
Together, those entities guarantee millions of mortgages worth trillions of dollars across the country, and the moratoriums are just the latest in a series of such moves (the fourth by the FHA alone) that began not long after COVID-19 shut down much of the U.S. economy, throwing tens of millions of Americans out of work.
The FHA move also includes extending through Feb. 28 its deadline for borrowers to request an initial forbearance of up to six months on their FHA-insured mortgages and allows an additional forbearance of up to six months after that.
The agency specifies that its moratorium "prohibits servicers from initiating or proceeding with foreclosure and foreclosure-related eviction actions for FHA-insured single-family forward and reverse mortgages, except for those secured by legally vacant and abandoned properties."
And something for lenders, servicers, and new buyers
The agency also extended "multiple temporary provisions for lenders and servicers to allow them to continue doing FHA business despite social distancing considerations."
Those include extending the time frame through Feb. 28 for temporary re-verification of employment guidance and the exterior-only appraisal inspection option, along with the temporary provisions for verification of self-employment, rental income, and 203(k) Rehabilitation Mortgage escrow accounts. Also extended, in this case through March 31, is the deadline for providing an insurance endorsement on single-family mortgages in forbearance.
A recognition that the pandemic's effects are not vanishing
Altogether, these moves indicate a recognition from the agencies that guarantee a huge portion of the U.S. housing market that the pandemic, and its effect on the ability for millions of Americans to pay their mortgage and rent, is not going away anytime soon.
"Extensions ensure borrowers can continue to seek assistance and avoid eviction and foreclosure while maintaining temporary policy flexibilities for lenders and servicers," the FHA said in its announcement today. Here is the letter that's being sent to mortgagees.
"COVID-19 has created hardships for millions of Americans. FHA will continue to assist borrowers who are struggling to regain their financial footing as a result of this pandemic. American homeowners should not be forced from their homes while they are seeking help," Federal Housing Commissioner Dana Wade said in the agency's statement.
The Millionacres bottom line
The FHA, just as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are doing, is encouraging borrowers -- both homeowners and landlords -- who can make their mortgage payments to keep doing so, and if you're struggling, to go to your servicer to initiate or continue any forbearance arrangements.
It's also important to keep in mind that forbearance is not the same as forgiveness. The loans will need to become current once the forbearance is over, although the FHA stresses that it doesn't require that be done with a lump-sum payment.
The rules can be complex. For more information, here are the FHA's COVID-19 Resources for Homeowners web page as well as the Coronavirus Mortgage and Housing Assistance web pages maintained by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
https://www.fool.com/millionacres/real-estate-market/articles/fha-again-extends-moratorium-on-evictions-foreclosures-heres-what-investors-should-know/
Trident Energy Books Vantage Jack-Up for E. Guinea Drilling (2nd Qtr 2021)
********************************
Kosmos Energy owns 40% of Ceiba and Okume... So the more success Trident and Kosmos have in that area, the better chance Kosmos will want to move out West to STP EEZ Block 5.
JMHO
ND9
****************************
Trident Energy Books Vantage Jack-Up for E. Guinea Drilling
OE Staff
December 21, 2020
Offshore drilling contractor Vantage Drilling has won a two-well contract for its Sapphire Driller jack-up rig.
The rig will drill for Trident Energy in Equatorial Guinea, starting in the second quarter of 2021.
While Vantage Drilling did not share the financial details of the deal, Norway's Bassoe Offshore has estimated the day rate to be around $75,000, with the contract expected to begin in April. Trident Energy will have options to extend the contract for five more wells.
Trident got hold of its E. Guinea acreage in 2017 when Hess agreed to sell its share in the Ceiba field and Okume complex to Kosmos and Trident. The Ceiba field and Okume complex are located in water depths ranging from 50 meters to 800 meters.
Trident is the operator of the G Block producing-fields, while Kosmos operates the surrounding exploration acreage: Block S, Block W and Block EG-21. Trident describes itself as a company formed with the goal to unlock the value of mid-life oil & gas assets that are no longer central to their owners’ strategic goals.
Worth noting, prior to embarking upon the drilling contract with Trident in E. Guinea, Vantage Drilling's 2009-built Baker Marine Pacific Class 375 jack-up unit will drill in Congo in 1Q 2020, for New Age.
https://www.oedigital.com/news/484066-trident-energy-books-vantage-jack-up-for-e-guinea-drilling
Starcrest Nigeria and ERHC Energy both now have relationships with Shell.. Who is to say The Chrome Group's subsidary Starcrest Nigeria and ERHC aren't now discussing Block #4 with Shell?
ND9
To understand Kosmos and STP EEZ block #4, you have to go back a few years.. You can't look at it from today's perspective... Everything has changed..
Go back a few years ago and Kosmos Energy was acquiring STP EEZ blocks and they wanted to drill in all these STP EEZ blocks and find oil/gas... That has been their Company philosophy for a long, long time.. That is what they do.... But extracting a huge find costs billions and billions of dollars....
Kosmos found this out in Senegal/Mauritania.. After drilling and finding 100 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas (4th largest find in world history), Kosmos understands that they know how to find oil and gas... but you need a super major partner with billions of dollars to develop world class fields that will produce for 30+ years... That is why in the STP EEZ, they had BP as a partner, then also Shell (for awhile)...
So Kosmos wanted to drill in STP EEZ and then share the production/operations costs with super-majors.. That was their STP EEZ philosophy..... That is why they have partners like BP, Shell, Chevron... That is why Kosmos was leading the STP EEZ Block #6 drilling... GALP doesn't know anything about drilling in this type of deep water.. they needed Kosmos, now Shell to help lead that drilling...
However, the huge oil price decline and the COVID19 pandemic made Kosmos changed their philosophy... They didn't have enough cash to continue to explore new Frontiers... They are now focused on operating and producing from existing fields (Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, GOM), or new drilling where they can easily tie into existing production facilities.... So at this moment, they have cut way back on exploration into the new frontiers like Nambia, STP, South Africa, Congo, etc..
Once the Kosmos Senegal/Mauritania fields come on line in a couple of years, things could change and Kosmos might be back, exploring the frontiers again...
ND9
Yeah, I guess 15 years ago, erhc won the rights to JDZ and eez based on their merits and all their drilling experience, lol.. I guess they didn’t bribe anybody, lol..
Bill48, what did you see?
thanks,
ND9
AZCowboy, with all the corruption, politics, and personal agendas, these days, that is all you can do.. just do your best.
Thanks for all you and others on this Board do...
ND9
kingpin, page 326/419 is interesting. So let's just say after the Houston District Court and International Arbitration, Kosmos had the rights to STP EEZ Block #4.... The two Paragraph's below, 1a and 1b, basically say if Kosmos wants to relinquish the block, ERHC Energy has the right to re-acquire the block.. Interesting...
ND9
****************************
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
l. Subject to Kosmos' right to freely assign or transfer all or a part of its interest as Contractor under the PSC pursuant to Article 19 of the PSC, in the event all of the Contractors under the PSC elect to voluntarily relinquish all, but not part only, of the PSC pursuant to Article 6.4 of the PSC during the Exploration
Period, Kosmos agrees:
(a) to provide written notice to ERHC of such intended voluntary
relinquishment not less than forty-five ( 45) days prior to date for
providing notice of relinquishment under the PSC;
(b) allow ERHC the option, for a period of five (5) days following receipt of the notice in (a) above, to notify Kosmos in writing that ERHC elects to acquire the PSC, subject to the terms of the PSC, in lieu of the PSC being voluntarily relinquished for the sum of U.S.$ 1.00;
(c) in the event that ERHC fails to notify Kosmos within the period provided in (b) above, or ERHC elects not to acquire the PSC, then the option provided in (b) above shall terminate, this Undertaking shall terminate and the PSC may be voluntarily relinquished;
(d) in the event that ERHC timely elects to acquire the PSC, Kosmos will
assign all of its interest in the PSC to ERHC subject to the terms of the
PSC and subject to (e) below. ERHC shall be responsible for all costs
associated with the PSC effective as of the date of ERHC's notice under
(b) above; and
(e) in the event that the assignment to ERHC is not approved under the PSC at least two (2) days before the last date for the Contractor to voluntarily relinquish the PSC without incurring additional obligations for the next Phase of the Exploration Period, then Contractor shall notify the ANPSTP in writing that it voluntarily relinquishes its rights in the PSC, as provided under the PSC, without prejudice to ANP -STP subsequently granting assignment of the PSC to ERHC.
Large Green, thanks for the article. I am praying you and article are correct. We just have too much corruption in this country.. it’s everywhere...
Thanks
Alan
Also, don't forget, the ERHC/Kosmos agreement on STP EEZ Block 11 now has been transferred to Shell... So Shell is in Blocks 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 (via Kosmos)......... maybe Shell now wants Block #4... how do we know they haven't assumed Kosmos claim to Block #4?
ND9
badog, that is actually a real good question...
I know Kosmos Energy is producing 11,000 Barrel per Day in Equatorial Guinea. I know they also believe the oil "channel" flows west, continuing from Equatorial Guinea to STP EEZ Block 5, and onto STP EEZ Block 4.. That is one of the reasons they kept STP EEZ Block 5, and filed litigation for STP EEZ Block 4.... So from Kosmos perspective, makes good sense..
But again, your question is a good one.. Why would ERHC Energy sell Block #4 for so little, when they knew that GALP (really Kosmos) was finally going to drill STP EEZ Block #6, in 2020? Once oil was found in any of the blocks, then block #4 would be worth more... Could there have been something in the ERHC Block 4 agreements with Kosmos, that would provide ERHC with future considerations, similar to the STP EEZ Block 11 ERHC/Kosmos agreement? From the ERHC Website, regarding STP EEZ Block 11 agreement with Kosmos, "The agreement enables us to immediately monetize one of our offshore holdings while preserving a financial upside in the event that exploration in Block 11 is successful." Why would ERHC not include the same clause in the Block #4 Kosmos agreement? If Kosmos agreed to this clause in Block #11 agreement with ERHC, maybe the same clause was in Block #4 agreement. How do we know it wasn't in agreement? Maybe it was..... Then Total came along with a better offer.... So we may never know..
Finally, I still wonder how ERHC's rights to two 15% blocks works,,, that is, which blocks can they acquire, and when can they claim those?
Just thinking out loud,
ND9
Large Green, disregard, and thanks! Nd9
Large Green, any thoughts? You haven’t posted in a long time.
Thanks
Nd9
If it wasn't part of WMI's assets weren't part of WMILT, then why do they have to be "liquidated" as you state below... Seems like a contradiction... The are outside bankruptcy, but then you say they all are being liquidated....
Lots of words... too many words, just a game with all the words...
New documents #'s 696, 697, 698
# Date Description
698
12/11/2020 Certificate of Service Filed by Mark E. Haynes on behalf of Simon E. Rodriguez (related document(s):[697] 9013-1.1 Notice).
697
12/11/2020
9013-1.1 Notice Filed by Mark E. Haynes on behalf of Simon E. Rodriguez (related document(s):[696] Application for Compensation). 9013 Objections due by 1/4/2021 for [696].
696
12/11/2020 Sixth Application for Compensation for Mark E. Haynes, Trustee's Attorney, Period: 11/1/2018 to 9/30/2020, Fees Requested: $79,073.50, Expenses Requested: $188.90. Filed by Mark E. Haynes.
6 Attachments
1Exhibit Ex. A
2Exhibit Ex. B-1
3Exhibit Ex. B-2
4Exhibit Ex. B-3
5Exhibit Ex. B-4
6Proposed/Unsigned Order Order Granting Sixth Interim Application for Compensation
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/United-Western-Bancorp-Inc/cob-1:2012-bk-13815
Kosmos Energy Completes Sale of Frontier Exploration Assets to Shell
December 10, 2020
London-listed oil and gas company Kosmos Energy has partially completed the previously announced sale of its frontier offshore oil and gas exploration assets to Shell, with the South Africa transaction expected to complete in 2021.
Under the agreement first announced in September, Shell agreed to buy Kosmos' interests in Suriname, Sao Tome & Principe and Namibia and South Africa.
Shell agreed to acquire Kosmos' 45% interest in PEL0039 block offshore Nambia; 45% interest in Block NCUD in South Africa; 33,33% in Block 42 in Suriname. In São Tomé & Príncipe Shell agreed to acquire Kosmos' shares in the following blocks: Block 6 / 25%; Block 11 / 35%; Blocks 10 & 13 / 35%.
Kosmos said Thursday it had completed the sale of Suriname, Sao Tome & Principe, and Namibia stakes to Shell for approximately $95 million, plus future contingent payments of up to $100 million. The transfer of interests in South Africa is expected to take place in 2021.
The agreement includes contingent payments of $50 million payable upon each commercial discovery from the first four exploration wells drilled across the asset portfolio, capped at $100 million in aggregate. When the deal was first announced in September, three of the four wells were planned for 2021. It's not clear if this schedule is still on.
Andrew G. Inglis, Kosmos Energy's chairman and chief executive officer said: "We are pleased to complete this transaction with Shell on schedule. The proceeds enable Kosmos to strengthen the balance sheet while accelerating high graded exploration opportunities in proven basins. The contingent payments locked into the agreement with Shell ensure we retain upside from frontier exploration with no further investment."
Kosmos will use up to one-third of the initial proceeds for what it said were two high-quality infrastructure-led exploration prospects in the Gulf of Mexico, "each offering hub scale potential with a low-cost, lower-carbon development scheme. "
The first test on the Winterfell prospect is currently drilling with results expected early next year. The company expects to use the remainder of the proceeds to reduce borrowings outstanding under its credit facilities.
"Post completion of the transaction, Kosmos retains a focused exploration portfolio with over six billion barrels of gross resource potential in proven basins in West Africa and the Gulf of Mexico," Kosmos said.
https://www.oedigital.com/news/483780-kosmos-energy-completes-sale-of-frontier-exploration-assets-to-shell
If a “change of control” (as defined in the Indenture) occurs, the holders of the Notes may require the Issuer to purchase for cash all or a portion of their Notes at a purchase price equal to 101% of the principal amount of the Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the repurchase date.
695 12/02/20209013-1.1 Notice Filed by Simon E. Rodriguez on behalf of Simon E. Rodriguez (related document(s):[694] Motion). 9013 Objections due by 12/23/2020 for [694].
694 12/02/2020Motion For Motion to Destory or Abandon Records of the Debtor Filed by Simon E. Rodriguez on behalf of Simon E. Rodriguez.
They also had litigation in district court, Houston texas.. so maybe for legal reasons, kosmos felt it was smart to segregate block 4 from their other 6 STP eez blocks..
Three places:
1.) Payment for WMB.
2.) Payment for WMI hidden assets and subsidiaries.
3.) Payment 12 years of interest.
Kosmos wanted STP EEZ Block #4 for a reason...
Kosmos is currently producing over 11,000 barrels of oil per day, in Equatorial Guinea (EG)... Now again, because of low oil price and COVID-19, Kosmos cut back on of all their future exploration in Suriname, Nambia, Congo, South Africa, Morocco, and of course, in Sao Tome and Principe (STP), 5 out of their 6 blocks, gone....
Notice Kosmos kept EEZ Block #5. Not just because Kosmos is a successful drilling and producing company that is on both sides of the fence (STP and EG), and that STP recently signed an agreement with EG for joint cooperation and possibly, a new joint exploration zone, and both countries want Kosmos to remain... Yes, those are reasons..
However, there is another.. I think Kosmos believes that the EG oil "channel", extends out Westward, into STP EEZ Block 5, and even further West... oh, and what is West of STP EEZ Block 5? Answer: STP EEZ Block 4.
JMHO
ND9
BBANBOB, correct.... if not true, then years ago, Etrade and TDAmeritrade would not have put my escrows into new line items with buy and sell icons.... Those icons don't work today, but like you just said, one day, they might.
ND9
Lol, funny, and remember, kosmos had lead for drilling in block 6... galp doesn’t have deep water experience, expertise, and not qualified... unfortunately, low price of oil and COVID-19 forced kosmos to rein in, basically all their upcoming exploration in São Tomé, Congo, Namibia, South Africa, etc... they are a good exploration company but small.. now shell will lead drilling in 2021..
Interesting timing on mr cooper group’s presentation (dec 1). I am not a financial guru but it strikes me odd that they are doing this presentation at start of dec, then possibly reorganizing with hidden subsidiaries, later in month... does that make sense to anybody? Maybe I am missing something... I guess if it was me, I might reorganize first, then explain it via these financial conferences... I really don’t know, just thinking out loud...
Nd9
Thanks Hotmeat.
In English, what does, "the above-entitled cases(s) will be submitted on the briefs" mean?
What? "... case(s) will be submitted on the briefs..."?? I don't understand this legal jargon... cases submitted on briefs?
What?
thanks,
ND9
Dear Counsel:
The Court has directed me to advise counsel that the above-entitled case(s) will be
submitted on the briefs on Friday, December 11, 2020 pursuant to 3rd Cir. LAR
34.1(a). Since there will be no oral argument, your presence will not be required.
----------------
see attached.
* Case20-1725-AliceGriffin-2020DecemberDate.pdf (31.32 kB - downloaded 35 times.)
691 11/25/2020 Order Granting Application to Employ Dickensheet & Associates, Inc. (related document(s):[688] Application to Employ).
690 11/25/2020 Notice of Withdrawal of Claim Number 28.
689 11/25/2020 ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, AS RECEIVER FOR UNITED WESTERN BANK, TO WITHDRAW PROOF OF CLAIM NO. 28 (related document(s):[684] Motion)
"$JCPNQ rocket time
$JCPNQ Worthless?? I don’t think so
$JCPNQ Delays, Delays, Delays, then Rush, Rush, Rush, now Delays, Delays
$JCPNQ “Good things come to those that wait
During our stay motion hearing, $JCPNQ wouldn’t tell anyone who the real buyer is but I think we all know it’s $amzn
$JCPNQ No signed order yet from judge
A Twitter Army Of Aggrieved Shareholders Claim They’ve Been Taken Advantage Of In The J.C. Penney Bankruptcy Proceedings By A ‘Rigged System’"
Lots of tweets this morning from Niko Celentano.
https://twitter.com/celentano__niko
AZCowboy, getting close to ~ $27.30.
Thanks for all you do...
ND9
11/20/2020: Regulatory Capital Rule: Changes to Applicability Thresholds for Regulatory Capital and Liquidity Requirements; Correction
**********************************************
I'm not sure if this rule change relates to us... but it's a rule change that applies to a Huge Bank Holding companies, like JPMorgan Chase, and specifically, their subsidiaries. I could be wrong, but I think a few months ago, maybe in one of Royal Dude's posts, one of JPM Chase's subsidiaries, was raising a lot of cash. I have highlighted in red, the interesting part.
ND9
************************************************
Regulatory Capital Rule: Changes to Applicability Thresholds for Regulatory Capital and Liquidity Requirements; Correction
A Rule by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on 11/20/2020
AGENCY:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
ACTION:
Correcting amendment.
SUMMARY:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) published an interagency final rule in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019, that revises the criteria for determining the applicability of regulatory capital and liquidity requirements for large U.S. banking organizations and the U.S. intermediate holding companies of certain foreign banking organizations. This final rule aligns the applicability of the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio for purposes of the prompt corrective action provisions in the FDIC's capital rule to its intended scope.
DATES:
Effective Date: November 20, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Phillips, Counsel, mphillips@fdic.gov, (202) 898-3581; Catherine Wood, Counsel, cawood@fdic.gov, (202) 898-3788; Francis Kuo, Counsel, fkuo@fdic.gov, (202) 898-6654; Supervision and Legislation Branch, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20429. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), (800) 925-4618.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, along with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (collectively, the agencies) published a final rule in the Federal Register on November 1, 2019, that revises the criteria for determining the applicability of regulatory capital and liquidity requirements for large U.S. banking organizations and the U.S. intermediate holding companies of certain foreign banking organizations (tailoring rule).[1] Under the tailoring rule, the supplementary leverage ratio of 3 percent applies to certain banking organizations and their subsidiaries, while global systemically important banking organizations (GSIBs) and their subsidiaries are subject to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio. Under the agencies' prompt corrective action (PCA) provisions of the capital rule, depository institution subsidiaries of GSIBs must maintain a supplementary leverage ratio of 6 percent or greater for purposes of the “well capitalized” PCA category.[2]
In promulgating the tailoring rule, the agencies stated in the preamble that the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio is a Category I capital standard, which is applicable only to U.S. GSIBs and their depository institution subsidiaries. Specifically, the preamble to the tailoring final rule provides that the final rule maintains the capital requirements applicable to U.S. GSIBs and their depository institution subsidiaries. These requirements generally reflect agreements reached by the BCBS. U.S. GSIBs and their depository institution subsidiaries must calculate risk-based capital ratios using both the advanced approaches and the standardized approach and are subject to the U.S. leverage ratio. As stated in the preamble, such banking organizations are also subject to the requirement to recognize elements of AOCI in regulatory capital; the requirement to expand the capital conservation buffer by the amount of the countercyclical capital buffer, if applicable; and enhanced supplementary leverage ratio standards.[3] In addition, U.S. GSIBs are subject to the GSIB surcharge. Application of these Category I capital requirements will continue to strengthen the capital positions of U.S. GSIBs and reduce risks to financial stability.
In promulgating the tailoring rule, the agencies, however, inadvertently omitted amending the PCA provisions of the capital rule to reflect the tailoring rule, including the well capitalized PCA category. This PCA provision currently states that beginning on January 1, 2018 and thereafter, an FDIC-supervised institution that is a subsidiary of a covered BHC will be deemed to be well capitalized if the FDIC-supervised institution satisfies 12 CFR 324.403(b)(1)(i)(A) through (E) and has a supplementary leverage ratio of 6.0 percent or greater. For purposes of 12 CFR 324.403(b)(1)(ii), a covered BHC means a U.S. top-tier bank holding company with more than $700 billion in total assets as reported on the company's most recent Consolidated Financial Statement for Bank Holding Companies (Form FR Y-9C) or more than $10 trillion in assets under custody as reported on the company's most recent Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (Form FR Y-15).[4]
This final rule aligns the applicability of the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio to its intended scope covering only global systemically important banking organizations and their subsidiaries as described in the preamble to the tailoring rule. Specifically, this final rule revises §?324.403(b)(1)(ii) by removing the definition of covered BHC and provides that an FDIC-supervised institution that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important bank holding company as defined in 12 CFR 217.402 will be considered well-capitalized for purposes of the PCA provisions of the capital rule if it satisfies certain capital requirements and has a supplementary leverage ratio of 6.0 percent or greater.
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The FDIC is issuing this final rule without prior notice, the opportunity for public comment, and the 30-day delayed effective date ordinarily prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[5] Pursuant to section 553(b)(B) of the APA, general notice and the opportunity for public comment are not required with respect to a rulemaking when an “agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the Start Printed Page 74258finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”?[6]
The FDIC finds that the public interest is best served by implementing this final rule as of the date of Federal Register publication. This final rule's technical correction will correct the applicability of the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio to remove any potential confusion about the regulatory capital requirements applicable to the largest insured depository institutions so that such institutions can focus their attention on the continued intermediation of credit. For purposes of the well capitalized PCA category, this final rule aligns the applicability of the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio to its intended scope covering only global systemically important banking organizations and their subsidiaries as described in the preamble to the tailoring rule. The FDIC finds that there is good cause consistent with the public interest to issue this final rule without notice and comment.
Additionally, the APA requires a 30-day delayed effective date, except for (1) substantive rules which grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause.[7] Because the final rule relieves a restriction, the final rule is also exempt from the APA's delayed effective date requirement.[8] Additionally, the FDIC finds good cause to publish the final rule correction with an immediate effective date for the same reasons set forth above under the discussion of section 553(b)(B) of the APA.
B. Congressional Review Act
For purposes of Congressional Review Act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes a determination as to whether a final rule constitutes a “major” rule.[9] If a rule is deemed a “major rule” by the OMB, the Congressional Review Act generally provides that the rule may not take effect until at least 60 days following its publication.[10]
The Congressional Review Act defines a “major rule” as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the OMB finds has resulted in or is likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.[11]
The delayed effective date required by the Congressional Review Act does not apply to any rule for which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.[12]
For the same reasons set forth above, the FDIC adopts this final rule without the delayed effective date generally prescribed under the Congressional Review Act. Given the importance of aligning the PCA provisions of the capital rule to the tailoring rule, the FDIC believes that delaying the effective date of this final rule would be contrary to the public interest. As required by the Congressional Review Act, the FDIC will submit the final rule and other appropriate reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office for review.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (PRA) states that no agency may conduct or sponsor, nor is the respondent required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. This final rule correction does not contain any information collection requirements therefore the FDIC will make no submissions to OMB in connection with this final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)?[13] requires an agency to consider whether the rules it proposes will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.[14] The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). As discussed previously, consistent with section 553(b)(B) of the APA, the FDIC has determined general notice and opportunity for public comment is impracticable and contrary to the public's interest, and therefore good cause exists to not issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, the FDIC has concluded that the RFA's requirements relating to initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply to this final rule.
E. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA),[15] in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions (IDIs), each Federal banking agency must consider, consistent with the principle of safety and soundness and the public interest, any administrative burdens that such regulations would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and customers of depository institutions, as well as the benefits of such regulations. In addition, section 302(b) of RCDRIA requires new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs generally to take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form, with certain exceptions, including for good cause.[16]
As stated above, this final rule's technical correction will correct the applicability of the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio to remove any potential confusion about the regulatory capital requirements applicable to the largest insured depository institutions so that such institutions can focus their attention on the continued intermediation of credit. In addition, for purposes of the well capitalized PCA category, this final rule aligns the applicability of the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio to its intended scope covering only global systemically important banking organizations and their subsidiaries as described in the preamble to the tailoring rule. As such, this final rule does not impose any additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on IDIs. Therefore, the FDIC finds that the requirements of Start Printed Page 74259RCDRIA do not apply and this final rule will be published with an immediate effective date.
F. Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?[17] requires the Federal banking agencies to use “plain language” in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. In light of this requirement, the FDIC has sought to present the final rule in a simple and straightforward manner.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 324
Administrative practice and procedure
Banks
Banking
Capital
Capital adequacy
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Risk
Savings associations
12 CFR Chapter III
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FDIC corrects chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations by making the following correcting amendment:
PART 324—CAPITAL ADEQUACY OF FDIC-SUPERVISED INSTITUTIONS
1.The authority citation for part 324 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1818(c), 1818(t), 1819(Tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), 1828(n), 1828(o), 1831o, 1835, 3907, 3909, 4808; 5371; 5412; Pub. L. 102-233, 105 Stat. 1761, 1789, 1790 (12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2355, as amended by Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160, 2233 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2386, as amended by Pub. L. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3672, 4089 (12 U.S.C. 1828 note); Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, 1887 (15 U.S.C. 78o-7 note), Pub. L. 115-174; section 4014, Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (15 U.S.C. 9052).
2.Section 324.403 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
§?324.403Capital measures and capital category definitions.
*****
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) An FDIC-supervised institution that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important bank holding company will be deemed to be well capitalized if the FDIC-supervised institution satisfies paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) through (E) of this section and has a supplementary leverage ratio of 6.0 percent or greater. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(1)(ii), global systemically important bank holding company has the same meaning as in 12 CFR 217.402.
*****
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Dated at Washington, DC, on November 4, 2020.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
Footnotes
1. ?Regulatory Capital Rule: Changes to Applicability Thresholds for Regulatory Capital and Liquidity Requirements, 84 FR 59230 (Nov. 1, 2020).
Back to Citation
2. ?See 12 CFR part 324, subpart H.
Back to Citation
3. ?84 FR 59230, 59277.
Back to Citation
4. ?12 CFR 324.403(b)(1)(ii).
Back to Citation
5. ?5 U.S.C. 553.
Back to Citation
6. ?5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Back to Citation
7. ?5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Back to Citation
8. ?5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
Back to Citation
9. ?5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
Back to Citation
10. ?5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3).
Back to Citation
11. ?5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Back to Citation
12. ?5 U.S.C. 808.
Back to Citation
13. ?5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
Back to Citation
14. ?Under regulations issued by the Small Business Administration, a small entity includes a depository institution, bank holding company, or savings and loan holding company with total assets of $600 million or less and trust companies with total assets of $41.5 million or less. See 13 CFR 121.201.
Back to Citation
15. ?12 U.S.C. 4802(a).
Back to Citation
16. ?12 U.S.C. 4802.
Back to Citation
17. ?Pub. L. 106-102, sec. 722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (1999), 12 U.S.C. 4809.
Back to Citation
[FR Doc. 2020-24900 Filed 11-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
PUBLISHED DOCUMENT
The debtors violated law. If she is strong and honest, will stop them.
Judges order after 10 min break.
Debtor finished, judge called on all others to talk, now our lawyer Paterson back up, addressing all their comments... our lawyer again doing well...
Debtor’s lawyer focused on saying shareholders doing this just because they aren’t entitled to anything.. that is his whole case.. he ignored most of what our lawyer addressed, and is now pointing finger at ad hoc ec/shareholders...