prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA; P L  95-128 , 12 U S C  §§2901-2908) in response to concerns that federally insured banking institutions were not making sufficient credit available in the local areas in which they were chartered and acquiring deposits  According to some in Con gress, the granting of a public bank charter should translate into a continuing obligation for that bank to serve the credit needs of the public where it was chartered  Consequently, the CRA was enacted to "re-affirm the obligation of federally chartered or insured financial institutions to serve the convenience and needs of their service areas" and "to help meet the credit needs of the localities in which they are chartered, consistent with the prudent operation of the institution " The CRA requires federal banking regulators to conduct examinations to assess whether a bank is meeting local credit needs  The regulators issue CRA credits, or points, where banks engage in qualifying activities—such as mortgage, consumer, and business lending; community investments; and low-cost services that would benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) areas and entities—that occur within assessment areas (where institutions have local deposit-taking operations)  These credits are then used to issue each bank a performance rating from a four-tiered system of descriptive performance levels (Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, or Substantial Noncompliance)  The CRA requires federal banking regulators to take those ratings into account when institutions apply for charters, branches, mergers, and acquisitions, or seek to take other actions that require regulatory approval  Congress became concerned with the geographical mismatch of deposit-taking and lending activities for a variety of reasons  Deposits serve as a primary source of borrowed funds that banks may use to facilitate their lending  Hence, there was concern that banks were using deposits collected from local neighborhoods to fund out-of-state as well as various international lending activities at the expense of addressing the local area's housing, agricultural, and small business credit needs  Another motivation for congressional action was to discourage redlining practices  One type of redlining can be defined as the refusal of a bank to make credit available to all of the neighborhoods in its immediate locality, including LMI neighborhoods where the bank may have collected deposits  A second type of redlining is the practice of denying a creditworthy applicant a loan for housing located in a certain neighborhood even though the applicant may qualify for a similar loan in another neighborhood  This type of redlining pertains to circumstances in which a bank refuses to serve all of the residents in an area, perhaps due to discrimination  The CRA applies to banking institutions with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), such as national banks, savings associations, and state-chartered commercial and savings banks  The CRA does not apply to credit unions, insurance companies, securities companies, and other nonbank institutions because of the differences in their financial business models  The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve System, and the FDIC administer the CRA, which is implemented via Regulation BB  The CRA requires federal banking regulatory agencies to evaluate the extent to which regulated institutions are effectively meeting the credit needs within their designated assessment areas, including LMI neighborhoods, in a manner consistent with the federal prudential regulations for safety and soundness   The CRA's impact on lending activity has been publicly debated  Some observers are concerned that the CRA may induce banks to forgo more profitable lending opportunities in nontargeted neighborhoods by encouraging a disproportionate amount of lending in LMI communities  Furthermore, some argue that the CRA compels banks to make loans to higher-risk borrowers that are more likely to have repayment problems, which may subsequently compromise the financial stability of the banking system  For example, some researchers have attributed the increase in risky lending prior to the 2007-2009 recession to banks attempting to comply with CRA objectives  Others are concerned that enforcement of CRA objectives has not been stringent enough to compel banks to increase financial services in LMI areas  Almost all banks receive Satisfactory or better performance ratings (discussed in more detail below) on their CRA examinations, which some may consider indicative of weak enforcement  This report informs the congressional debate concerning the CRA's effectiveness in incentivizing bank lending and investment activity to LMI customers  It begins with a description of bank CRA examinations, including how a bank delineates its assessment area; the activities that may qualify for points under the three tests (i e , lending, investment, and service) that collectively make up the CRA examination; and how the composite CRA rating is calculated  Next, the report analyzes the difficulty in attributing bank lending decisions to CRA incentives  For example, the CRA does not specify the quality and quantity of CRA-qualifying activities, meaning that CRA compliance does not require adherence to lending quotas or benchmarks  Without explicit benchmarks, linking the composition of banks' loan portfolios to either too strong or too weak CRA enforcement is difficult  Banks are also unlikely to get CRA credit for all of the loans they make to LMI customers  Specifically, higher-risk loans that banking regulators explicitly discourage are unlikely to be eligible for CRA consideration  Furthermore, greater mobility of lending and deposit-taking activity across regional boundaries due to various financial market innovations has complicated the ability to geographically link various financial activities  Hence, many banks' financial activities occurring in a designated assessment area that are eligible for CRA consideration may simply be profitable, meaning they may have occurred without the CRA incentive  Finally, this report summarizes recent policy discussions regarding modernization of the CRA  As noted above, the federal banking regulators conduct regular examinations of banks to assess whether they meet local credit needs in designated assessment areas  The regulators issue CRA credits, or points, when banks engage in qualifying activities—such as mortgage, consumer, and business lending; community investments; and low-cost services that would benefit LMI areas and entities—that occur within assessment areas  Regulation BB provides the criteria that a bank's board of directors must use to determine the assessment area(s) in which its primary regulator will conduct its CRA examination  The assessment area typically has a geographical definition—the location of a bank's main office, branches, and deposit-taking automatic teller machines, as well as surrounding areas where the bank originates and purchases a substantial portion of loans  Assessment areas must generally include at least one metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or at least one contiguous political subdivision, such as a county, city, or town  Regulation BB also requires that assessment areas may not reflect illegal discrimination, arbitrarily exclude LMI geographies, and extend substantially beyond an MSA boundary or a state boundary (unless the assessment area is located in a multistate MSA)  Banking regulators regularly review a bank's assessment area delineations for compliance with Regulation BB requirements as part of the CRA examination  Instead of a more conventionally delineated assessment area, certain banking firms may obtain permission to devise a strategic plan for compliance with Regulation BB requirements  For example, wholesale and limited purpose banks are specialized banks with nontraditional business models  Wholesale banks provide services to larger clients, such as large corporations and other financial institutions; they generally do not provide financial services to retail clients, such as individuals and small businesses  Limited purpose banks offer a narrow product line (e g , concentration in credit card lending) rather than provide a wider range of financial products and services  These banking firms typically apply to their primary regulators to request designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank and, for CRA examination purposes, are evaluated under strategic plan options that have been tailored for their distinctive capacities, business strategies, and expertise  The option to develop a strategic plan of pre-defined CRA performance goals is available to any bank subject to the CRA  The public is allowed time (e g , 30 days) to provide input on the draft of a bank's strategic plan, after which the bank submits the plan to its primary regulator for approval (within 60 days after the application is received)  Regulation BB does not impose lending quotas or benchmarks  Instead, Regulation BB provides banks with a wide variety of options to serve the needs of their assessment areas  Qualifying CRA activities include mortgage, consumer, and business lending; community investments; and low-cost services that would benefit LMI areas and entities  For example, banks may receive CRA credits for such activities as investing in special purpose community development entities (CDEs), which facilitate capital investments in LMI communities (discussed below); providing support (e g , consulting, detailing an employee, processing transactions for free or at a discounted rate, and providing office facilities) to minority- and women-owned financial institutions and low-income credit unions (MWLIs), thereby enhancing their ability to serve LMI customers; serving as a joint lender for a loan originated by MWLIs; facilitating financial literacy education to LMI communities, including any support of efforts of MWLIs and CDEs to provide financial literacy education; opening or maintaining bank branches and other transactions facilities in LMI communities and designated disaster areas; providing low-cost education loans to low-income borrowers; and offering international remittance services in LMI communities  The examples listed above are not comprehensive, but they illustrate several activities banks may engage in to obtain consideration for CRA credits  The banking regulators will consider awarding CRA credits or points to a bank if its qualifying activities occur within an assigned assessment area  The points are then used to compute a bank's overall composite CRA rating  Regulators apply up to three tests, which are known as the lending , investment , and service tests, respectively, to determine whether a bank is meeting local credit need in designated assessment areas  The lending test evaluates the number, amount, and distribution across income and geographic classifications of a bank's mortgage, small business, small farm, and consumer loans  The investment test grades a bank's community development investments in the assessment area  The service test examines a bank's retail service delivery, such as the availability of branches and low-cost checking in the assessment area  The point system for bank performance under the lending, investment, and service tests is illustrated in Table 1   The lending test is generally regarded as the most important of the three tests, awarding banks the most points (CRA credits) in all rating categories  As shown in Table 1 , banks receive fewer credits for making CRA-qualified investments than for providing direct loans to individuals under the lending test  In some instances, an activity may qualify for more than one of the performance tests  Federal banking regulators evaluate financial institutions based upon their capacity, constraints, and business strategies; demographic and economic data; lending, investment, and service opportunities; and benchmark against competitors and peers  Because these factors vary across banks, the CRA examination was customized in 1995 to account for differences in bank sizes and business models  In 2005, the bank size definitions were revised to include small , intermediate small , and large banks  The bank regulators also indexed the asset size thresholds—which are adjusted annually—to inflation using the Consumer Price Index  As of January 1, 2019, a small bank is defined as having less than $1 284 billion in assets as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years; an intermediate small bank has at least $321 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years but less than $1 284 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years; and a large bank has $1 284 billion or more in assets  Small banks are typically evaluated under the lending test  Regulators review (1) loan-to-deposit ratios; (2) percentage of loans in an assessment area; (3) lending to borrowers of different incomes and in different amounts; (4) geographical distribution of loans; and (5) actions on complaints about performance  Intermediate small banks are subject to both the lending and investment tests  Large banks are subject to all three tests  As mentioned previously, direct lending to borrowers, taking place in what is referred to as primary lending markets , qualify for CRA credit under the lending test  Investments taking place in secondary lending markets , in which investors purchase loans that have already been originated (such that little or no direct interaction occurs between investors and borrowers), qualify for CRA credit under the investment test  Secondary market investors may assume the default risk associated with a loan if the entire loan is purchased  Alternatively, if a set of loans are pooled together, then numerous secondary investors may purchase financial securities in which the returns are generated by the principal and interest repayments from the underlying loan pool, thereby sharing the lending risk  Direct ownership of loans or purchases of smaller portions (debt securities) of a pool of loans, therefore, are simply alternative methods to facilitate lending  As shown in Table 1 above, a bank may receive CRA consideration under the lending test for making a loan to LMI individuals that is guaranteed by a federal agency, such as the Federal Home Administration (FHA)  If, however, a bank purchases securities backed by pools of FHA-guaranteed mortgage originations, this activity receives credit under the investment test  Thus, the bank receives less CRA credit when the financial risk is shared with other lenders than it would for making a direct loan (and holding all of the lending risk) even though it would still facilitate lending to LMI borrowers  In 2005, the activities that qualify for CRA credit were expanded to encourage banks to make public welfare investments  More specifically, qualifying activities include a public welfare investment (PWI) that promotes the public welfare by providing housing, services, or jobs that primarily benefit LMI individuals; and a community development investment (CDI), economic development investment , or project that meets the PWI requirements  Examples of CDI activities include promoting affordable housing, financing small businesses and farms, and conducting activities that revitalize LMI areas  Banks may engage in certain activities that typically would not be permitted under other banking laws as long as these activities promote the public welfare and do not expose institutions to unlimited liability  For example, banks generally are not allowed to make direct purchases of the preferred or common equity shares of other banking firms; however, banks may purchase equity shares of institutions with a primary mission of community development (discussed in more detail in the Appendix ) up to an allowable CDI limit  The Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 ( P L  109-351 ) increased the amount that national banking associations and state banks (that are members of the Federal Reserve System) may invest in a single institution from 10% to 15% of a bank's unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus  CDIs that benefit a bank's designated assessment area may qualify for CRA credit  For CRA purposes, the definition of a CDI was expanded in 2005 to include "underserved and distressed" rural areas and "designated disaster areas" to aid the regional rebuilding from severe hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, tornados, and other disasters  The disaster area provision allows banks anywhere in America to receive consideration for CRA credit if they facilitate making credit available to a distressed location or geographic area outside of their own assessment areas  Thus, the 2005 revisions to the PWI and CDI definitions made more banking activities eligible for CRA credits  The banking regulators would consider awarding full CRA credits under the lending test to banks that make CDI loans directly in their assessment areas  Under the investment test, however, the banking regulators may choose to prorate the credits awarded to indirect investments  The Appendix provides examples of CDI activities that would qualify for CRA consideration under the investment test  Any awarded CRA credits could be prorated given that investing banks typically would have less control over when and where the funds are loaned  The CRA was revised in 1989 to require descriptive CRA composite performance ratings that must be disclosed to the public  The composite ratings illustrated in Table 2 are tabulated using the points assigned from the individual tests (shown in Table 1 above)  Grades of Outstanding and Satisfactory are acceptable; Satisfactory ratings in both community development and retail lending are necessary for a composite Satisfactory   Large banks must receive a sufficient amount of points from the investment and service tests to receive a composite Outstanding rating  Regulators include CRA ratings as a factor when lenders request permission to engage in certain activities, such as moving offices or buying another institution  Denying requests, particularly applications for mergers and acquisitions, is a mechanism that may be applied against banking organizations with ratings below Satisfactory   In 2005, the banking regulators also ruled that any evidence of discrimination or credit practices that violate an applicable law, rule, or regulation by any affiliate would adversely affect an agency's evaluation of a bank's CRA performance  Applicants with poor ratings may resubmit their applications after making the necessary improvements  Covered institutions must post a CRA notice in their main offices and make publicly available a record of their composite CRA performance  Given that the CRA is not a federal assistance program and that several regulators implement it separately, no single federal agency is responsible for evaluating its overall effectiveness  In 2000, Congress directed the Federal Reserve to study the CRA's effectiveness  The Federal Reserve's study reported that lending to LMI families had increased since the CRA's enactment but found it was not possible to directly attribute all of that increase to the CRA  For example, advancements in underwriting over the past several decades have enabled lenders to better predict and price borrower default risk, thus making credit available to borrowers that might have been rejected prior to such technological advances  This section examines the difficulty linking bank lending outcomes directly to the CRA, considering questions raised about the subjectivity of the CRA examination itself, whether prudential regulators use CRA to encourage banks to engage in high-risk lending, and whether the increased lending to LMI borrowers since CRA's enactment can be attributed to other profit-incentives that exist apart from the CRA  Questions have been raised as to whether the CRA examination itself is effective at measuring a bank's ability to meet local credit needs  For example, the CRA examinations have an element of subjectivity in terms of measuring both the quality and quantity of CRA compliance  In terms of quality, regulators determine the "innovativeness or flexibility" of qualified loan products; the "innovativeness or complexity" of qualified investments; or the "innovativeness" of ways banks service groups of customers previously not served  The number of points some CRA-qualifying investments receive relative to others is up to the regulator's judgment given that no formal definition of innovativeness has been established (although regulators provide a variety of examples as guidelines for banks to follow)  In terms of quantity, there is no official quota indicating when banks have done enough CRA-qualified activities to receive a particular rating  Without specific definitions of the criteria or quotas, the CRA examination may be considered subjective  Almost all banks pass their CRA examinations  Figure 1 shows the average annual composite scores of banks that received CRA examinations as well as the annual number of bank examinations by size  In general, most banks receive a composite Satisfactory or better rating regardless of the number of banks examined in a year  For all years, approximately 97% or more of banks examined received ratings of Satisfactory or Outstanding   Whether the consistently high ratings reflect the CRA's influence on bank behavior or whether the CRA examination procedures need improvement is difficult to discern  Another issue raised is whether the CRA has resulted in banks making more high-risk loans given that it encourages banks to lend to LMI individuals (perhaps under the presumption that LMI individuals are less creditworthy relative to higher-income individuals)  Since passage of the CRA, however, innovations have allowed lenders to better evaluate the creditworthiness of borrowers (e g , credit scoring, the adoption of automated underwriting), thus enhancing credit availability to both high credit quality and credit-impaired individuals  Credit-impaired borrowers can be charged higher interest rates and fees than those with better credit histories to compensate lenders for taking on greater amounts of credit or default risk  Nontraditional loan products (e g , interest-only, initially low interest rate) allow borrowers to obtain lower regular payments during the early stages of the loan, perhaps under the expectation that their financial circumstances may improve in the later stages as the loan payments adjust to reflect the true costs  The ability to charge higher prices or offer such nontraditional loan products may result in greater higher-risk lending  Because these technological developments in the financial industry occurred after enactment of the CRA, banks' willingness to enter into higher-risk lending markets arguably cannot be attributed solely to the CRA  Regulators arguably are more reluctant to award banks CRA credit for originating higher-risk loans given the scrutiny necessary to determine whether higher loan prices reflect elevated default risk levels or discriminatory or predatory lending practices  Primary bank regulators are concerned with both prudential regulation and consumer protection  It is difficult for regulators to monitor how well borrowers understood the disclosures regarding loan costs and features, or whether any discriminatory or predatory behavior occurred at the time of loan origination  Regulators use fair lending examinations to determine whether loan pricing practices have been applied fairly and consistently across applicants or if some steering to higher-priced loan products occurred  Nevertheless, although it is not impossible for banks to receive CRA credits for making some higher-priced loans, regulators are mindful of practices such as improper consumer disclosure, steering, or discrimination that inflate loan prices  Prudential regulators are also unlikely to encourage lending practices that might result in large concentrations of high-risk loans on bank balance sheets  Hence, certain lending activities—subprime mortgages and payday lending—have been explicitly discouraged by bank regulators, as discussed in more detail below  Although no consensus definition has emerged for subprime lending, this practice may generally be described as lending to borrowers with weak credit at higher costs relative to borrowers of higher credit quality  In September 2006, the banking regulatory agencies issued guidance on subprime lending that was restrictive in tone  The guidance warned banks of the risk posed by nontraditional mortgage loans, including interest-only and payment-option adjustable-rate mortgages  The agencies expressed concern about these loans because of the lack of principal amortization and the potential for negative amortization  Consequently, a study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data reported that banks subject to the CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only 6% of the reported high-cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas  Banks, therefore, received little or no CRA credit for subprime mortgage lending  Instead, federal regulators offered CRA consideration to banks that helped mitigate the effects of distressed subprime mortgages  On April 17, 2007, federal regulators provided examples of various arrangements that financial firms could provide to LMI borrowers to help them transition into affordable mortgages and avoid foreclosure  The various workout arrangements were eligible for favorable CRA consideration  Banks are unlikely to receive CRA consideration for originating subprime mortgages going forward  The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act; P L  111-203 ) requires lenders to consider consumers' ability to repay before extending them mortgage credit, and one way for lenders to comply is to originate qualified mortgages (QMs) that satisfy various underwriting and product-feature requirements  For example, QMs may not have any negative amortization features, interest-only payments, or points and fees that exceed specified caps of the total loan amount; in most cases, borrowers' debt-to-income ratios shall not exceed 43%  QM originations will give lenders legal protections if the required income verification and other proper underwriting procedures were followed  Given the legal protections afforded to QMs, some banks might show greater reluctance toward making non-QM loans  With this in mind, the federal banking regulators announced that banks choosing to make only or predominately QM loans should not expect to see an adverse effect on their CRA evaluations; however, the regulators did not indicate that CRA consideration would be given for non-QMs  Arguably, the federal banking regulators appear less inclined to use the CRA to encourage lending that could be subject to greater legal risks  Banks have demonstrated interest in providing financial services such as small dollar cash advances, which are similar to payday loans, in the form of subprime credit cards, overdraft protection services, and direct deposit advances  However, banks are discouraged from engaging in payday and similar forms of lending  Legislation, such as the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 ( P L  111-24 ), placed restrictions on subprime credit card lending  In addition, federal banking regulators expressed concern when banks began offering deposit advance products due to the similarities to payday loans  Specifically, on April 25, 2013, the OCC, FDIC, and Federal Reserve expressed concerns that the high costs and repeated extensions of credit could add to borrower default risks and issued final supervisory guidance regarding the delivery of these products  Many banks subsequently discontinued offering deposit advances  In general, these legislative and regulatory efforts explicitly discourage banks from offering high-cost consumer financial products and thus such products are unlikely to receive CRA consideration  When various financial products are deemed unsound by bank regulators and not offered by banks, a possible consequence may be that some customers migrate to nonbank institutions willing to provide these higher-cost products  Accordingly, the effectiveness of the CRA diminishes if more individuals choose to seek financial products from nonbank institutions  In general, it can be difficult to determine the extent to which banks' financial decisions are motivated by CRA incentives, profit incentives, or both  Compliance with CRA does not require banks to make unprofitable, high-risk loans that would threaten the financial health of the bank  Instead, CRA loans have profit potential; and bank regulators require all loans, including CRA loans, to be prudently underwritten  As evidenced below, it may be difficult to determine whether banks have made particular financial decisions in response to profit or CRA incentives in cases where those incentives exist simultaneously  For example, banks increased their holdings of municipal bonds in 2009  Although banks may receive CRA consideration under the investment test for purchasing state and local municipal bonds that fund public and community development projects in their designated assessment areas, banks may choose this investment for reasons unrelated to CRA  During recessions, for example, banks may reduce direct (or primary market) lending activities and increase their holdings of securities in the wake of declining demand for and supply of direct loan originations that occur during economic slowdowns and early recovery periods  In addition, a provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P L  111-5 ) provided banks with a favorable tax incentive to invest in municipal bonds in the wake of the 2007-2009 recession  Hence, determining whether banks increased their municipal holdings because of a turn to securities markets for higher yields following a recession, a favorable tax incentive, or the CRA incentive is challenging  Similarly, banks increased their investments in Small Business Investment Corporations (SBICs, defined in the Appendix ) in 2010  Investments in SBICs allow banks to provide subordinate financing (rather than senior debt) to businesses  Senior lenders have first claims to the business's assets in case of failure; however, subordinate financiers provide funds in the form of mezzanine capital or equity, requiring a higher return because they are repaid after senior lenders  Banks generally are not allowed to act as subordinate financiers because they are not allowed to acquire ownership interests in private equity funds, unless such investments promote public welfare  Hence, attributing community development financing activities, such as SBIC investments, to CRA incentives may arguably be easier (relative to other financing activities) because the ability to engage in subordinate financing activities typically represents a CRA exemption from ordinary permissible banking activities  Following the 2007-2009 recession, however, U S  interest rates dropped to historically low levels for an abnormally long period of time  Because low-yielding interest rate environments squeeze profits, banks were likely to search for higher-yielding and larger-sized lending opportunities, such as investments in SBICs  Hence, it remains difficult to determine whether a particular bank's decision to increase SBIC financing activities was driven by normal profit or CRA-related incentives  Between June 2016 and June 2017, more than 1700 U S  bank branches were closed  Many branch closings occurred primarily in rural and low-income tract areas, raising concerns that banks would be able to circumvent their CRA obligation to lend and be evaluated in these areas  A traditional bank business model, however, relies primarily on having access to core deposits , a stable source of funds used to subsequently originate loans  Banks value geographic locations with greater potential to attract high core deposit volumes, which is also consistent with the CRA's requirement that assessment areas include at least one MSA or contiguous political subdivision (as previously discussed)  Furthermore, using FDIC and U S  Census Bureau data, the Federal Reserve noted that the number of branches per capita in 2017 was higher than two decades ago  Hence, determining whether branch closures reflect a bank's intentions to circumvent CRA compliance or to facilitate its ability to attract core deposits is challenging  On April 3, 2018, the U S  Department of Treasury (Treasury) released recommendations to modernize CRA in a memorandum to the federal banking regulators (OCC, FCIC, and the Fed)  Treasury highlighted four of its recommendations, summarized below  When the CRA was enacted in 1977, banks received deposits and made loans primarily through geographical branches  Assessment areas defined geographically arguably may not fully reflect the community served by a bank because of technology developments, such as the internet and mobile phone banking, prompting Treasury to call for revisiting the approach for determining banks' assessment areas  In 2016, the banking regulators issued Interagency Questions and Answers (Q&As) to provide banks guidance pertaining to CRA-eligible activities; however, Treasury noted that each regulator provides its examiners with additional guidance  Also, the Interagency Q&As illustrate past CRA-qualifying activities, but Treasury noted that no formal process currently exists to help determine whether potential (complex, innovative, or innovative) activities would qualify for CRA credit  Treasury recommends establishing clearer standards for CRA-qualifying activities and flexibility (expanding the types of loans, investments, and services that qualify for CRA credit), which may encourage banks to venture beyond activities that typically receive CRA credit  Treasury reports that each bank regulator follows a different examination schedule; the examinations are lengthy; and delays associated with the release of performance evaluations may limit the time banks can react to recommendations before their next CRA examination  Treasury recommends increasing the timeliness of the CRA examination process  Treasury recommends incorporating performance incentives that might result in more efficient lending activities  For example, CRA-qualifying loans may receive credit in the year of origination, but equity investments may receive credit each year that the investment is held  Treasury recommends consistent treatment of loans and investments, which may encourage banks to make more long-term loans (rather than sequences of short-term loans for the sake of being awarded CRA credits at each CRA examination)  On August, 28, 2018, the OCC released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments on ways to modernize the CRA framework  The ANPR solicited comments on the issues raised by Treasury among other things  The OCC's ANPR does not propose specific changes, but its content and the questions posed suggest that the OCC is exploring the possibility of adopting a quantitative metric-based approach to CRA performance evaluation, changing how assessment areas are defined, expanding CRA-qualifying activities, and reducing the complexity, ambiguity, and burden of the regulations on the bank industry  When the comment period closed on November 19, 2018, the OCC had received 1584 comments  The Federal Reserve and the FDIC did not join the OCC in releasing the ANPR  The Federal Reserve System, however, did host research symposiums around the country to gather comments pertaining to CRA reform  As reported by the Federal Reserve, some banking industry comments suggested, among other things, the need for consistency of the CRA examinations to facilitate CRA compliance  Yet some tailoring may still be necessary with respect to determining assessment areas that better reflect each bank's business models, particularly for models that use technology to deliver products and services  The regulators also heard from community and consumer groups  While expressing the need to retain focus on the historical context of the CRA, these groups highlighted the need to address issues pertaining to banking deserts in underserved communities  Community development investments (CDIs) that meet public welfare investment (PWI) requirements are those that promote the public welfare, primarily resulting in economic benefits for low- and moderate-income (LMI) individuals  This appendix provides examples of CDI activities that would qualify for consideration under the CRA investment test  In many cases, covered banks are more likely to take advantage of these optional vehicles to obtain CRA credits if they perceive the underlying investment opportunities to have profit potential  Loan Participations Banks and credit unions often use participation (syndicated) loans to jointly provide credit  When a financial firm (e g , bank, credit union) originates a loan for a customer, it may decide to structure loan participation arrangements with other institutions  The loan originator often retains a larger portion of the loan and sells smaller portions to other financial institutions willing to participate  Suppose a financial firm originates a business or mortgage loan in a LMI neighborhood  A bank may receive CRA investment credit consideration by purchasing a participation, thus becoming a joint lender to the LMI borrower  An advantage of loan participations is that the default risk is divided and shared among the participating banks (as opposed to one financial firm retaining all of the risk)  CRA consideration is possible if the activity occurs within the designated assessment area  For all participating banks to receive credit, some overlap in their designated assessment areas must exist  An exception is made for participations made to benefit designated disaster areas, in which all participating banks would receive CRA consideration regardless of location  State and Local Government Bonds State and local governments issue municipal bonds, and the proceeds are used to fund public projects, community development activities, and other qualifying activities  The interest that nonbank municipal bondholders receive is exempt from federal income taxes to encourage investment in hospitals, schools, infrastructure, and community development projects that require state and local funding  Legislative actions during the 1980s eliminated the tax-exempt status of interest earned from holdings of municipal bonds for banks  Although banks no longer have a tax incentive to purchase municipal bonds, they still consider the profitability of holding these loans, as they do with all lending opportunities  Furthermore, banks receive CRA investment consideration when purchasing state and local municipal bonds that fund public and community development projects in their designated assessment areas  CRA-Targeted Secondary Market Instruments Secondary market financial products have been developed to facilitate the ability of banks to participate in lending activities eligible for CRA consideration, such as purchasing mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) or shares of real estate investment trusts (REITs)  A MBS is a pool of mortgage loans secured by residential properties; a multifamily MBS is a pool of mortgage loans secured by multifamily properties, consisting of structures designed for five or more residential units, such as apartment buildings, hospitals, nursing homes, and manufactured homes  CRA-MBSs are MBSs consisting of loans that originated in specific geographic assessment areas, thereby allowing bank purchases into these pools to be eligible for CRA consideration under the investment test  Similarly, REITs may also pool mortgages, mortgage MBSs, and real estate investments (e g , real property, apartments, office buildings, shopping malls, hotels)  Investors purchase shares in REIT pools and defer the taxes  Banks may only invest in mortgage REITs and MBS REITs  Similar to the CRA-MBSs, the REITs must consist of mortgages and MBSs that would be eligible for CRA consideration  The Community Development Trust REIT is an example of a REIT that serves as a CRA-qualified investment for banks  Community Development Financial Institutions and Equity Equivalent Investments The Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) Fund was created by the Riegle Community Development Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (the Riegle Act; P L  103-325 )  The CDFI Fund was established to promote economic development for distressed urban and rural communities  The CDFI Fund, currently located within the U S  Department of the Treasury, is authorized to certify banks, credit unions, nonprofit loan funds, and (for-profit and nonprofit) venture capital funds as designated CDFIs  In other words, a bank may satisfy the requirements to become a CDFI, but not all CDFIs are banks  The primary focus of institutions with CDFI certification is to serve the financial needs of economically distressed people and places  The designation also makes these institutions eligible to receive financial awards and other assistance from the CDFI Fund  In contrast to non-CDFI banks, some CDFI banks have greater difficulty borrowing funds and then transforming them into loans for riskier, economically distressed consumers  The lack of loan level data for most CDFI banks causes creditors to hesitate in making low-cost, short-term loans to these institutions  Specifically, the lack of information on loan defaults and prepayment rates on CDFI banking assets is likely to result in limited ability to sell these loan originations to secondary loan markets  Consequently, the retention of higher-risk loans, combined with limited access to low-cost, short-term funding, makes CDFI banks more vulnerable to liquidity shortages  Hence, CDFIs rely primarily on funding their loans (assets) with net assets , which are proceeds analogous to the equity of a traditional bank or net worth of a credit union  CDFI net assets are often acquired in the form of awards or grants from the CDFI Fund or for-profit banks  Funding assets with net assets is less expensive for CDFIs than funding with longer-term borrowings  Banks may obtain CRA investment credit consideration by making investments to CDFIs, which provides CDFIs with net assets (equity)  Under PWI authority, banks are allowed to make equity investments in specialized financial institutions, such as CDFIs, as long as they are considered by their safety and soundness regulator to be at least adequately capitalized   Furthermore, the final Basel III notification of proposed regulation (NPR) allows for preferential capital treatment for equity investments made under PWI authority, meaning equity investments to designated CDFIs may receive more favorable capital treatment  Consequently, banks often provide funds to CDFIs through equity equivalent investments (EQ2s), which are debt instruments issued by CDFIs with a continuous rolling (indeterminate) maturity  EQ2s, from a bank's perspective, are analogous to holding convertible preferred stock with a regularly scheduled repayment  Hence, banks may view EQ2s as a potentially profitable opportunity to invest in other specialized financial institutions and receive CRA consideration, particularly when the funds are subsequently used by CDFIs to originate loans in the banks' assessment areas  Small Business Investment Companies The Small Business Administration (SBA) was established in 1953 by the Small Business Act of 1953 (P L  83-163) to support small businesses' access to capital in a variety of ways  Although issuing loan guarantees for small businesses is a significant component of its operations, the SBA also has the authority to facilitate the equity financing of small business ventures through its Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program, which was established by the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (P L  85-699)  SBICs that are licensed and regulated by the SBA may provide debt and equity financing and, although not a program requirement, educational (management consulting) resources for businesses that meet certain SBA size requirements  Banks may act as limited partners if they choose to provide funds to SBICs, which act as general partners  Banks may establish their own SBICs, jointly establish SBICs (with other banks), or provide funds to existing SBICs  SBICs subsequently use bank funding to invest in the long-term debt and equity securities of small, independent (SBA-eligible) businesses, and banks may receive CRA investment consideration if the activities benefit their assessment areas  Community banks invest in SBICs because of the profit potential as well as the opportunity to establish long-term relationships with business clients during their infancy stages  Banks that are considered by their regulators to be adequately capitalized are allowed to invest in these specialized financial institutions under PWI authority, but the investments still receive risk-based capital treatment  SBIC assets, similar to CDFIs, are illiquid given the difficulty to obtain credit ratings for SBIC investments; thus, they cannot be sold in secondary markets  Because banks risk losing the principal of their equity investments, they are required to perform the proper due diligence associated with prudent underwriting  Tax Credits The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 ( P L  99-514 ) to encourage the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing  Generally speaking, government (federal or state) issued tax credits may be bought and, in many cases, sold like any other financial asset (e g , stocks and bonds)  Owners of tax credits may reduce their tax liabilities either by the amount of the credits or by using the formulas specified on those credits, assuming the owners have participated in the specified activities that the government wants to encourage  For LIHTCs, banks may use a formula to reduce their federal tax liabilities when they provide either credit or equity contributions (grants) for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing  If a bank also owns a LIHTC, then a percentage of the equity grant may be tax deductible if the CDFI uses the funds from the grant to finance affordable rental housing  Furthermore, banks may receive consideration for CRA-qualified investment credits  After a domestic corporation or partnership receives designation as a Community Development Entity (CDE) from the CFDI Fund, it may apply for New Markets Tax Credits (NMTCs)  Encouraging capital investments in LMI communities is the primary mission of CDEs, and CDFIs and SBICs automatically qualify as CDEs  Only CDEs are eligible to compete for NMTCs, which are allocated by the CDFI Fund via a competitive process  Once awarded an allocation of NMTCs, the CDE must obtain equity investments in exchange for the credits  Then, the equity proceeds raised must either be used to provide loans or technical assistance or deployed in eligible community investment activities  Only for-profit CDEs, however, may provide NMTCs to their investors in exchange for equity investments  Investors making for-profit CDE equity investments can use the NMTCs to reduce their tax liabilities by a certain amount over a period of years  As previously discussed, a bank may receive CRA credit for making equity investments in nonprofit CDEs and for-profit subsidiaries, particularly if the investment occurs within the bank's assessment area  Furthermore, banks may be able to reduce their tax liabilities if they can obtain NMTCs from the CDEs in which their investments were made 


Report 2: Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs  Small businesses have played an important role in net job growth during previous economic recoveries, particularly in the construction, housing, and retail sectors  For example, after the eight-month recession that began in July 1990 and ended in March 1991, small businesses (defined for this purpose as having fewer than 500 employees) increased their net employment in the first year after the recession, whereas larger businesses continued to experience declines in employment  During the most recent recession (December 2007-June 2009), small businesses accounted for almost 60% of net job losses  From the end of the recession through the end of FY2012, small businesses accounted for about 63% of net new jobs, close to their historical average share of net new job creation  Since then, small businesses have added about 65% of net new jobs  Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses  Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit  They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs  Several laws were enacted during the 111 th Congress to enhance small business access to capital  For example, P L  111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including $375 million to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program's maximum loan guaranty percentage from 85% on loans of $150,000 or less and 75% on loans exceeding $150,000 to 90% for all regular 7(a) loans  P L  111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF) ($4 0 billion was issued) to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses  It also authorized a $1 5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA's loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA's fee subsidies and the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses  P L  111-322 , the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011  According to the SBA, the temporary fee subsidies and 90% maximum loan guaranty for the 7(a) program "engineered a significant turnaround in SBA lending     The end result is that the agency helped put more than $42 billion in the hands of small businesses through the Recovery Act and Jobs Act combined " This report focuses on the SBLF  It begins with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans  The SBLF's advocates argued that the fund was an important part of a larger effort to enhance the supply of small business loans  After describing the program's structure, the report then examines other arguments that were presented both for and against the program's enactment  Advocates claimed the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs  Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments  The report concludes with an examination of the SBLF's implementation by the Department of the Treasury and a discussion of bills introduced during recent Congresses to amend the SBLF  For example, during the 112 th Congress, S  681 , the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have, among other provisions, limited the program's authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program  H R  2807 , the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF when its investment authority expired on September 27, 2011, to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund "to continue the program of making capital investments in eligible community development financial institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses " H R  3147 , the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have, among other provisions, extended the Department of the Treasury's investment authority from one year following the date of enactment to two years  During the 113 th Congress, H R  2474 , the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund  Each quarter, the Federal Reserve Board surveys senior loan officers concerning their bank's lending practices  The survey includes questions about both the supply and demand for small business loans  For example, the survey includes a question concerning their bank's credit standards for small business loans: "Over the past three months, how have your bank's credit standards for approving applications for C&I [commercial and industrial] loans or credit lines—other than those to be used to finance mergers and acquisitions—for small firms (defined as having annual sales of less than $50 million) changed?" The senior loan officers are asked to indicate if their bank's credit standards have "Tightened considerably," "Tightened somewhat," "Remained basically unchanged," "Eased somewhat," or "Eased considerably " Subtracting the percentage of respondents reporting "Eased somewhat" and "Eased considerably" from the percentage of respondents reporting "Tightened considerably" and "Tightened somewhat" provides an indication of the market's supply of small business loans  As shown in Figure 1 , senior loan officers reported that they generally tightened small business loan credit standards from 2007 through late 2009  Since 2009, small business credit markets have generally improved, with some tightening in 2016 and the end of 2018  The survey also includes a question concerning the demand for small business loans: "Apart from normal seasonal variation, how has demand for C&I loans changed over the past three months for small firms (annual sales of less than $50 million)?" Senior loan officers are asked to indicate if demand was "Substantially stronger," "Moderately stronger," "About the same," "Moderately weaker," or "Substantially weaker " Subtracting the percentage of respondents reporting "Moderately weaker" and "Substantially weaker" from the percentage of respondents reporting "Substantially stronger" and "Moderately stronger" provides an indication of the market's demand for small business loans  As shown in Figure 1 , senior loan officers reported that the demand for small business loans declined somewhat in 2007 and 2008, and declined significantly in 2009  Demand then leveled off (at a relatively reduced level) during 2010, increased somewhat during the first half of 2011, declined during the latter half of 2011, generally increased from 2012 through 2015, and has varied somewhat, increasing in some quarters and declining in others, since then  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has maintained comparable small business lending data for the second quarter (June 30) of each year since 2002  Figure 2 shows the amount of outstanding small business loans (defined by the FDIC as commercial and industrial loans of $1 million or less) for nonagricultural purposes as of June 30 of each year from 2006 to 2018  As shown in Figure 2 , the amount of outstanding small business loans for nonagricultural purposes increased at a relatively steady pace from June 30, 2006, to June 30, 2008, declined over the next several years, and has increased each year since June 30, 2013  Although changes in small business outstanding debt are not necessarily a result of changes in the supply of small business loans, many, including the SBA, view a decline in small business outstanding debt as a signal that small businesses might be experiencing difficulty accessing sufficient capital to enable them to lead job growth  According to an SBA-sponsored study of small business lending, several factors contributed to the decline in small business lending from 2007 to 2010  The report's authors noted that the 30% decline in home prices from their peak in 2006 to 2010 diminished the value of collateral for many small business borrowers, some of whom had relied on home equity loans to finance their small businesses during the real estate boom  The authors concluded that the absence of this additional source of collateral may have contributed to a decline in lending to small businesses  They also argued that many small businesses found it increasingly difficult to renew existing lines of credit as lenders became more cautious as a result of slow economic growth and an increasing risk of loan defaults, especially among small business start-ups, which are generally considered among the most risky investments  The authors argued that in this newly regulated market, smaller lenders are likely to be less profitable because they have fewer sales of products and services to spread out over the higher auditing and FDIC costs  Hence, they have less money to lend to small businesses and others; and the relative difficulty in assessing creditworthiness due to the lack of information about potential financial performance is very high in small business lending, especially in financial markets driven by factor—rather than relationship—lending  Therefore, one would expect the small business loan market to recover more slowly than other financial markets  The authors also noted that FDIC data indicated that small business lending had not only declined in absolute terms (the total amount of dollars borrowed and the total number of small business loans issued), but in relative terms as well (the market share of business loans): Over the eight years from 2003 through 2010, small business loans as a share of total business loans declined by more than 12 percentage points, from 81 7% in 2003 to 68 9% in 2010  Perhaps of most concern is the further decline in the ratios of small business loans to total assets and small business loans to total business loans  Small business loans constituted about 16 8% of total assets in 2005, but only 15 3% in 2010; hence, small business lending is becoming less significant for these lenders  Small business lending is also losing market share in the business loan market  In the eight-year period from 2003 to 2010, small business loans as a share of total business loans declined more than 10 percentage points from 81 7% in 2003 to 68 9% in 2010  According to the previously mentioned SBA-sponsored study of small business lending, the demand for small business loans fell during the recession primarily because many small businesses experienced a decline in sales and many small business owners had a heightened level of uncertainty concerning future sales  The study's authors argued that given small business owners' lack of confidence in the demand for their goods and services, many small business owners decided to save capital instead of hiring additional employees and borrowing capital to invest in business expansions and inventory  The responses of small business owners to a monthly survey by the National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation (NFIB) concerning small business owners' views of the economy support the argument that declining sales contributed to the reduced demand for small business loans  From 2008 through 2011, small business owners responding to the NFIB surveys identified poor sales as their number-one problem  Prior to 2008, taxes had been reported as their number-one problem in nearly every survey since the monthly surveys began in 1986  Also, employment data suggest that small businesses were particularly hard hit by the recession  As mentioned previously, small businesses accounted for almost 60% of the net job losses during the December 2007-June 2009 recession  According to testimony by the Secretary of the Treasury before the House Small Business Committee on June 22, 2011, small businesses were especially hard hit by the recession because [s]mall businesses are concentrated in sectors that were especially hard hit by the recession and the bursting of the housing bubble: construction and real estate  More than one-third of all construction workers are employed by firms with less than 20 workers, and an additional third are employed by businesses with fewer than 100 employees  Just over half of those employed in the real estate, rental, and leasing sectors work for businesses with less than 100 workers on their payrolls  More broadly, the rate of job losses was almost twice as high in small businesses as it was in larger firms during the depths of the crisis  During the 111 th Congress, legislation designed to increase both the supply and demand for small business loans was adopted  For example, Congress provided more than $1 1 billion to temporarily subsidize fees for the SBA's 7(a) and 504/Certified Development Company (504/CDC) loan guaranty programs and to increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage from 85% on loans of $150,000 or less and 75% on loans exceeding $150,000 to 90% for all regular 7(a) loans (funding was exhausted on January 3, 2011)  The fee subsidies were designed to increase the demand for small business loans by reducing the cost of borrowing  The 90% loan guarantee was designed to increase the supply of small business loans by reducing the risk of lending  Congress also provided the SBA additional resources to expand its lending to small businesses  For example, ARRA included a $255 million temporary, two-year small business stabilization program to guarantee loans of $35,000 or less to small businesses for qualified debt consolidation, later named the America's Recovery Capital (ARC) Loan program (the program ceased issuing new loan guarantees on September 30, 2010); an additional $15 million for the SBA's surety bond program and a temporary increase in that program's maximum bond amount from $2 million to $5 million and up to $10 million under certain conditions (the higher maximum bond amounts ended on September 30, 2010); an additional $6 million for the SBA's Microloan program's lending program and an additional $24 million for the Microloan program's technical assistance program; and increased the funds ( leverage ) available to SBA-licensed Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) to no more than 300% of the company's private capital or $150 million, whichever is less  Several other programs were also enacted during the 111 th Congress to increase the supply of small business loans  For example, ARRA authorized the SBA to establish a temporary secondary market guarantee authority to provide a federal guarantee for pools of first lien 504/CDC program loans that are to be sold to third-party investors  ARRA also authorized the SBA to make below-market interest rate direct loans to SBA-designated "Systemically Important Secondary Market (SISM) Broker-Dealers" that would use the loan funds to purchase SBA-guaranteed loans from commercial lenders, assemble them into pools, and sell them to investors in the secondary loan market  P L  111-240 extended the SBA's secondary market guarantee authority from two years after the date of ARRA's enactment to two years after the date of the program's first sale of a pool of first lien position 504/CDC loans to a third-party investor (which took place on September 24, 2010)  The act also increased the loan guarantee limits for the SBA's 7(a) program from $2 million to $5 million, and for the 504/CDC program from $1 5 million to $5 million for "regular" borrowers, from $2 million to $5 million if the loan proceeds are directed toward one or more specified public policy goals, and from $4 million to $5 5 million for manufacturers  It also increased the SBA's Microloan program's loan limit for borrowers from $35,000 to $50,000 and for microlender intermediaries after their first year in the program from $3 5 million to $5 million  In addition, it temporarily increased for one year (through September 26, 2011) the SBA 7(a) Express Program's loan limit from $350,000 to $1 million  The act also authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish the $30 billion SBLF and a $1 5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs  The SBLF was designed "to address the ongoing effects of the financial crisis on small businesses by providing temporary authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses " The SBLF's legislative history, including differences in the House- and Senate-passed versions of the program, appears in the Appendix   P L  111-240 authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to make up to $30 billion in capital investments in eligible institutions with total assets equal to or less than $1 billion or $10 billion (as of the end of the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009)  The authority to make capital investments in eligible institutions was limited to one year after enactment  Eligible financial institutions with total assets equal to or less than $1 billion as of the end of the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009 could apply to receive a capital investment from the SBLF in an amount not exceeding 5% of risk-weighted assets, as reported in the FDIC call report immediately preceding the date of application  During the fourth quarter of 2009, 7,340 FDIC-insured lending institutions reported having assets amounting to less than $1 billion  Eligible financial institutions with total assets of $10 billion or less as of the end of the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009 could apply to receive a capital investment from the fund in an amount not exceeding 3% of risk-weighted assets, as reported in the FDIC call report immediately preceding the date of application  During the fourth quarter of 2009, 565 FDIC-insured lending institutions reported having assets of $1 billion to $10 billion  Risk-weighted assets are assets such as cash, loans, investments, and other financial institution assets that have different risks associated with them  FDIC regulations (12 C F R  §567 6) establish that cash and government bonds have a 0% risk-weighting; residential mortgage loans have a 50% risk-weighting; and other types of assets (such as small business loans) have a higher risk-weighting  Lending institutions on the FDIC problem bank list or institutions that have been removed from the FDIC problem bank list for less than 90 days are ineligible to participate in the program  A lending institution can refinance securities issued through the Treasury Capital Purchase Program (CPP) and the Community Development Capital Incentive (CDCI) program under TARP, but only if that institution had not missed more than one dividend payment due under those programs  Participating banks (C corporations and savings associations) are charged a dividend rate of no more than 5% per annum initially, with reduced rates available if the bank increases its small business lending by specified amounts  For example, during any calendar quarter in the initial two years of the capital investments under the program, the bank's dividend rate is lowered if it increases its small business lending, as reported in its FDIC call reports, compared with the average small business lending it made in the four previous quarters immediately preceding the law's enactment, minus some allowable adjustments  Table 1 shows the dividend rates associated with small business lending increases by C corporation banks and savings associations  Table 2 shows the dividend rates associated with small business lending increases by participating S corporation banks and mutual lending institutions  These rates are slightly higher than those for C corporation banks and savings associations "to reflect after-tax effective rates equivalent to the dividend rate paid by other classes of institutions participating in the Fund through the issuance of preferred stock " As will be discussed later, an S corporation does not pay federal taxes at the corporate level  Any business income or loss is "passed through" to shareholders who report it on their personal income tax returns  Community Development Financial Institutions (CFDIs) are provided funding for an initial eight years with an automatic rollover for two additional years at the issuer's option  On the 10 th anniversary of the investment date the issuer repays the principal amount, together with all accrued and unpaid interest  Additionally, the dividend rate is 2% per annum for the first eight years from the investment date (payable quarterly in arrears on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) and 9% thereafter  SBLF applicants are required to submit a small business lending plan to the appropriate federal banking agency and, for applicants that are state-chartered banks, to the appropriate state banking regulator  The plan must describe how the applicant's business strategy and operating goals will allow it to address the needs of small businesses in the areas it serves, as well as a plan to provide linguistically and culturally appropriate outreach, where appropriate  The plan is treated as confidential supervisory information  The Secretary of the Treasury is required to consult with the appropriate federal banking agency or, in the case of an eligible institution that is a nondepository community development financial institution, the Community Development Financial Institution Fund, before determining if the eligible institution may participate in the program  The act directed that all funds received by the Secretary of the Treasury in connection with purchases made by the SBLF, "including interest payments, dividend payments, and proceeds from the sale of any financial instrument, shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt " The SBLF's advocates argued that it would create jobs by encouraging lenders, especially those experiencing liquidity problems (access to cash and easily tradable assets), to increase their lending to small businesses  For example, the House report accompanying H R  5297 , the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, argued that the SBLF was needed to enhance small business's access to capital, which, in turn, was necessary to enable those businesses to create jobs and assist in the economic recovery: There has been a dramatic decrease in the amount of bank lending in the past several quarters  On May 20, 2010, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released its Quarterly Banking Profile for the first quarter of 2010  The report shows that commercial and industrial loans declined for the seventh straight quarter, down more than 17% from the year before  Many companies, particularly small businesses, claim that it is becoming harder to get new loans to keep their business operating and that banks are tightening requirements or cutting off existing lines of credit even when the businesses are up to date on their loan repayments  Treasury Secretary Timothy F  Geithner recently acknowledged the problem encountered by some banks, both healthy and troubled, which have been told to maintain capital levels in excess of those required to be considered well capitalized  Some banks say they have little choice but to scale back lending, even to creditworthy borrowers, and the most recent Federal Reserve data shows banks are continuing to tighten lending terms for small businesses  A dissenting view, endorsed by the House Committee on Financial Services' minority members, was included in the report  This view argued that the SBLF does not properly deal with the lack of financing for small businesses: Instead of addressing the problem by stimulating demand for credit by small businesses, H R  5297 injects capital into banks with no guarantees that they will actually lend  The bill allows a qualifying bank to obtain a capital infusion from the government without even requiring the bank to make a loan for two years  In fact, if a bank reduces or fails to increase lending to small business during those first two years, it would not face any penalty  It defies logic that the Majority would support a bill to increase lending that does not actually require increased lending  A more effective response to the challenges facing America's small businesses was offered by Representatives Biggert, Paulsen, Castle, Gerlach, and King, whose amendment would have extended a series of small business tax credits before implementing the Small Business Lending Fund  Advocates also argued that even if the SBLF were authorized "the program probably would not be fully operational for months; banks could shun the program for fear of being stigmatized by its association with TARP; and many banks would avoid taking on new liabilities when their existing assets are troubled " They contended that the bill did not provide sufficient oversight for effectively monitoring the program because the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury, who was given that oversight responsibility under the bill, "might not be able to direct sufficient attention to this task given its other responsibilities " They argued that the Special Inspector General of TARP would be in a better position to provide effective oversight of the program  These, and other, arguments were presented during House floor debate on the bill  For example, Representative Melissa Bean advocated the bill's passage, arguing that the SBLF builds on the effective financial stabilization measures Congress has previously taken by establishing a new $30 billion small business loan fund to provide additional capital to community banks that increase lending to small businesses  This $30 billion investment on which the government will be collecting dividends and earning a profit per the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates can be leveraged by banks into over $300 billion in new small business loans  This is an important investment by the Federal Government in our small business that brings tremendous returns  The terms of the capital provided to banks are performance based; the more a bank increases its small business lending, the lower the dividend rate is for the SBLF capital  If a bank decreases its small business lending, it will be penalized with higher dividend rates  This legislation includes strong safeguards to ensure that banks adequately utilize available funds to increase lending to small businesses, not for other lending or to improve their balance sheet  There will be oversight consistently throughout the program, plus it requires that the capital be invested only in strong financial institutions at little risk of default and the best positioned to increase small business lending  It's important for Americans to understand that although this fund has a maximum value of $30 billion, it is estimated to make a profit for taxpayers in the long run  And the money will ultimately go not to banks, but to the small businesses and their communities that they lend to  As our financial system stabilizes and our community banks recapitalize, these funds will be repaid to Treasury with full repayment required over the next 10 years  Representative Nydia Velázquez, then-chair of the House Committee on Small Business, added that the legislation had sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the funds were targeted at small businesses: First, banks must apply to the Treasury to receive funds, with a detailed plan on how to increase small business lending at their institution  This language was included at my insistence that we need to make sure that small businesses will get the benefit of this legislation  Second, this capital, repayment of the government loans will be at a dividend rate starting at 5% per year  This rate will be lowered by 1% for every 2 5% increase in small business lending over 2009 levels  It can go as low as a total dividend rate of just 1% if the bank increases its business lending by 10% or more, incentivizing banks to do the right thing  To ensure that banks actually use the funding they receive, the rate will increase—and there are penalties—to 7% if the bank fails to increase its small business lending at their institution within 2 years  To ensure that all federal funds are paid back within 5 years, the dividend rate will increase to 9% for all banks, irrespective of their small business lending, after 4 1/2 years  Representative Velázquez added "let me just make it clear … CBO estimates that [the SBLF] will save taxpayers $1 billion over 10 years, as banks are expected to pay back this loan over 10 years, with interest " Representative Randy Neugebauer opposed the bill's adoption, arguing that the majority is repeating the same failed initiatives that have helped our national debt grow to $13 trillion in the past 2 years  This bill follows the model of the TARP program, minus [TARP's] stronger oversight, and it puts another $30 billion into banks in the hopes that lending to small businesses will increase  In the words of Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General who oversees the TARP, "In terms of its basic design," he says, "its participants, its application process, from an oversight perspective, the Small Business Lending Fund would essentially be an extension of the TARP's Capital Purchase Program " From the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, chaired by Elizabeth Warren, she says, "The SBLF's prospects are far from certain  The SBLF also raises questions about whether, in light of the Capital Purchase Program's poor performance in improving credit access, any capital infusion program can successfully jump-start small business lending " This bill allows for another $33 billion in spending that will be added to the government's credit card  The CBO tells us that the bank lending portion will ultimately cost taxpayers $3 4 billion when market risk is taken into account  The House passed H R  5297 by a vote of 241-182, on June 17, 2010  The arguments presented during House floor debate on H R  5297 were also presented during Senate consideration of the bill  Advocates argued that the SBLF would encourage higher levels of small business lending and jobs  For example, Senator Mary Landrieu argued on July 21, 2010, that the SBLF should be adopted because it "is not a government program for banks  It is a public-private partnership lending strategy for small business " She added that as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, she talked with her colleagues, including the SBLF's opponents, and revised the program to address their concerns  She also argued that the SBLF has hundreds of endorsements from independent banks, the community banks and almost every small business association in America … makes $1 billion [according to the CBO score] … is not direct lending from the federal government  It is not creating a new bureaucracy … [It is] voluntary … there are no onerous restrictions … The small business gets the loans  We create jobs  People are employed  The recession starts ending…  It has nothing to do with TARP money  It is not a TARP program  It is not a bank program  It doesn't have anything to do with banks except that we are working in partnership with banks to lend money to small businesses which are desperate for money  Opponents argued that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for TARP recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments  In addition, there were disagreements over the number of amendments that could be offered by the minority, which led several Senators to oppose further consideration of the bill until that issue was resolved to their satisfaction  For example, on July 22, 2010, Senator Olympia Snowe argued that although "under a cash-based estimate, CBO listed the official score for the lending fund as raising $1 1 billion over 10 years," SBLF proponents "fail to mention" that when CBO scored the SBLF using an alternative methodology that adjusts for market risk, it estimated that the SBLF could cost $6 2 billion  Senator Snowe also argued that the bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP stated in its May 2010 oversight report that the proposed SBLF "substantially resembles" the TARP and "is a bank-focused capital infusion program that is being contemplated despite little, if any, evidence that such programs increase lending " Senator Snowe noted that she regretted "that we are in a position where we have not been able to reach agreement allowing the minority to offer amendments, which is confounding and perplexing as well as disappointing " Senator Snowe later added that the SBLF's incentives to encourage lending to small businesses also "could encourage unnecessarily risky behavior by banks … to avoid paying higher interest rates " Opponents also questioned the SBLF's use of quarterly call report data as submitted by lenders to their appropriate banking regulator to determine what counts as a small business loan  Call report data denotes loans of $1 million or less as small business loans, regardless of the size of the business receiving the loan  As a result, the SBLF's opponents argued that "the data used to measure small business lending in the SBLF covers an entirely different set of small businesses than those that fall within the definition set out in the Small Business Act or used by the SBA " The Senate's version of H R  5297 was agreed to on September 16, 2010, by a vote of 68-38  The House agreed to the Senate-passed version of H R  5297 on September 23, 2010, by a vote of 237-187, and the bill, retitled the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, was signed into law by President Obama on September 27, 2010  On February 14, 2011, the Obama Administration issued its budget recommendation for FY2012  The budget anticipated that the SBLF would provide $17 399 billion in financings, well below its authorized amount of $30 billion  This was the first indication that the SBLF's implementation may not proceed as expected  The second indication that the program's implementation may not proceed as expected was an unanticipated delay in the writing of the program's regulations  The U S  Treasury was criticized by some for not implementing the program quickly enough  The first financing took place on June 21, 2011, about nine months after the program's enactment  The delay was largely due to the Treasury's need to finalize the SBLF's investment decision process with federal banking agencies and the need to create separate SBLF regulations for financial institutions established as C corporations, Subchapter S corporations, mutual lending institutions, and Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs)  A C corporation is a legal entity established under state law and includes shareholders, directors, and officers  The profit of a C corporation is taxed to the corporation when earned and then is taxed to the shareholders when distributed as dividends  The majority of insured depository institutions, bank holding companies, and savings and loan holding companies are C corporations  A Subchapter S c orporation refers to a section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) that allows a corporation to pass corporate income, losses, deductions, and credits through to its shareholders for federal tax purposes  Shareholders of S corporations report the flow-through of income and losses on their personal tax returns and are assessed tax at their individual income tax rates  This allows S corporations to avoid double taxation on the corporate income  Mutual lending institutions , which include many thrifts, are owned by their depositors or policyholders  They have no stockholders  CDFIs are financial entities certified by the CDFI Fund in the U S  Department of the Treasury and provide capital and financial services to underserved communities  The establishment of separate regulations for each of these different types of financial institutions was largely related to issues involving whether the SBLF's financings would be counted by banking regulatory agencies as Tier 1 capital (core capital that is relatively liquid, such as common shareholders' equity, disclosed reserves, most retained earnings, and perpetual noncumulative preferred stocks) or as Tier 2 capital (supplementary capital that consists mainly of undisclosed reserves, revaluation reserves, general provisions, hybrid instruments, and subordinated term debt)  The treatment of the SBLF's financings was important given that banks must maintain a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of 8% (the ratio measures bank capital against assets, with asset values risk-weighted, or adjusted on a scale of riskiness) to be considered adequately capitalized by federal banking regulators  In addition, banks must maintain a minimum Tier 1 risk-based ratio to assets, typically 3% for banking institutions with the highest financial ratings and 4% for others  According to Treasury officials, under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, S corporations can have only a single class of stock (common shares)  Consequently, these institutions cannot issue preferred stock to Treasury  As a result, Treasury had to consider purchasing subordinated debt from these institutions, which the banking regulatory agencies would likely designate as Tier 2 capital  Treasury officials believed that providing Tier 2 capital would probably result in fewer S corporation participants  Additionally, because mutual lending institutions do not issue stock, Treasury officials were unable to receive preferred stock as consideration for an investment in this type of institution  Therefore, Treasury had to consider purchasing subordinated debt from these institutions as well

ground_truth: The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA; P.L. 95-128, 12 U.S.C. §§2901-2908) addresses how banking institutions meet the credit needs of the areas they serve, particularly in low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods. The federal banking regulatory agencies—the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)—currently implement the CRA. The regulators issue CRA credits, or points, where banks engage in qualifying activities—such as mortgage, consumer, and business lending; community investments; and low-cost services that would benefit LMI areas and entities—that occur with a designated assessment area. These credits are then used to issue each bank a performance rating. The CRA requires these ratings be taken into account when banks apply for charters, branches, mergers, and acquisitions among other things. The CRA, which was enacted in 1977, was subsequently revised in 1989 to require public disclosure of bank CRA ratings to establish a four-tiered system of descriptive performance levels (i.e., Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, or Substantial Noncompliance). In 1995, the CRA examination was customized to account for differences in bank sizes and business models. In 2005, the bank size definitions were revised and indexed to the Consumer Price Index. The 2005 amendments also expanded opportunities for banks to earn CRA credit for public welfare investments (such as providing housing, services, or jobs that primarily benefit LMI individuals). Qualifying activities under the CRA have evolved to include consumer and business lending, community investments, and low-cost services that would benefit LMI areas and entities. Congressional interest in the CRA stems from various perceptions of its effectiveness. Some have argued that, by encouraging lending in LMI neighborhoods, the CRA may also encourage the issuance of higher-risk loans to borrowers likely to have repayment problems (under the presumption that low-income is correlated with lower creditworthiness), which can translate into losses for lenders. Others are concerned that the CRA is not generating sufficient incentives to increase credit availability to qualified LMI borrowers, which may impede economic recovery for some, particularly following the 2007-2009 recession. This report informs the congressional debate concerning the CRA's effectiveness in incentivizing bank lending and investment activity to LMI borrowers. After a discussion of the CRA's origins, it presents the CRA's examination process and bank activities that are eligible for consideration of CRA credits. Next, it discusses the difficulty of determining the CRA's influence on bank behavior. For example, the CRA does not specify the quality and quantity of CRA-qualifying activities, meaning that compliance with the CRA does not require adherence to lending quotas or benchmarks. In the absence of benchmarks, determining the extent to which CRA incentives have influenced LMI credit availability relative to other factors is not straightforward. Banks also face a variety of financial incentives—for example, capital requirements, the prevailing interest rate environment, changes in tax laws, and technological innovations—that influence how much (or how little) they lend to LMI borrowers. Because multiple financial profit incentives and CRA incentives tend to exist simultaneously, it is difficult to determine the extent to which CRA incentives have influenced LMI credit availability relative to other factors.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2:  Treasury completed its regulations for C corporation banks first  For C corporations, SBLF funds are treated as Tier I capital and the Treasury purchases senior perpetual noncumulative preferred stock (or an equivalent)  The stock pays a quarterly dividend on the first day of each quarter after closing of the SBLF capital program funding  Tier 1 capital is the core measure of a bank's financial strength from a regulator's point of view  It is composed of core capital, which consists primarily of common stock and disclosed reserves (or retained earnings) but may also include nonredeemable, noncumulative preferred stock  In contrast, S corporations and mutual lending institutions receive unsecured subordinated debentures from the Treasury, which are considered Tier 2 capital for regulatory capital requirements  The application deadline for C corporation banks was May 16, 2011  The application deadline for Subchapter S corporations and mutual lending institutions was June 6, 2011, and the application deadline for CDFIs was June 22, 2011  A total of 926 institutions applied for $11 8 billion in SBLF funding  Treasury approved more than $4 0 billion in SBLF financing to 332 lending institutions ($3 9 billion to 281 community banks and $104 million to 51 CDFIs)  SBLF recipients have offices located in 47 states and the District of Columbia  The average financing was $12 1 million, ranging from $42,000 to $141 0 million  Of the 332 lending institutions which received financing, 137 institutions had participated in TARP's Community Development Capital Initiative or its Capital Purchase Program  These institutions received nearly $2 7 billion in SBLF financing (66 8% of the total)  Treasury is required to publish monthly reports describing all transactions made under the SBLF program during the reporting period  It is also required to publish a semiannual report (each March and September) providing all projected costs and liabilities, operating expenses, and transactions made by the SBLF, including a list of all participating institutions and the amounts each institution has received under the program  Treasury must also publish a quarterly report describing how participating institutions have used the funds they have received  SBLF participants must submit an initial supplemental report to Treasury no later than five business days before closing  The report provides information from the institution's FDIC call reports or, for holding companies, from their subsidiaries' FDIC call reports, that Treasury uses to establish an initial baseline for measuring the SBLF participants' progress in making loans to small businesses  The initial baseline is the average amount of qualified small business lending that was outstanding for the four full quarters ending on June 30, 2010  It is derived by first adding the outstanding amount of lending reported for all commercial and industrial loans, owner-occupied nonfarm, nonresidential real estate loans, loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to farmers, and loans secured by farmland  Then, the outstanding amount of lending for large loans (defined as any loan or group of loans greater than $10 million), loans to large businesses (defined as businesses with annual revenues greater than $50 million), and the portion of any loans guaranteed by the U S  government or for which the risk is assumed by a third party is subtracted from that amount  The lending institution then adds back any cumulative charge-offs with respect to such loans since July 1, 2010  This last adjustment is done to prevent lending institutions from being penalized for appropriately charging off loans  Each SBLF participant's small business lending baseline is also adjusted to take into account any gains in qualified small business lending during the four baseline quarters resulting from mergers, acquisitions, and loan purchases  This adjustment is designed to ensure that dividend rate reductions provided to any SBLF participant correspond to additional lending to small businesses and not to the acquisition of existing loans  In addition, the cumulative baseline for all SBLF participants will decrease over time as SBLF participants repay their SBLF loans and exit the program  For example, the initial small business lending baseline for the 332 SBLF participants as of March 31, 2011, was $35 52 billion ($34 75 billion for 281 banks and $770 48 million for 51 CDFIs)  The small business lending baseline for the 50 institutions that continued to participate in the SBLF as of December 31, 2018, was $1 5 billion ($808 8 million for 7 banks and $714 5 million for 43 CDFIs)  Table 3 provides the number and type of SBLF participating institutions, the small business lending baseline, the amount of small business lending by participants, the change in small business lending by participants, and the change in small business lending by both current and former participants from 2011 to 2018  The number of SBLF participating institutions is declining as institutions repay their loans and exit the program  As Treasury anticipated, this decline has accelerated following the first quarter of 2016 because the dividend rates for C corporation banks and savings associations and for S corporation banks and mutual lending institutions were increased at that time (to 9% and 13 8%, respectively)  SBLF institutions are also required to submit quarterly supplemental reports, due in the calendar quarter following submission of the initial supplemental report and in each of the next nine quarters, to determine their dividend rate for the next quarter  Using information contained in the quarterly supplemental reports, Treasury announced in its April 2019 quarterly report on SBLF Participants' Small Business Lending Growth that, as of December 31, 2018 The 50 current SBLF participants (7 banks and 43 CDFIs) increased their small business lending by $1 347 billion over a $1 523 billion baseline  Since inception, the total increase in small business lending reported by both current and former SBLF participants is more than $19 1 billion over the baseline  All seven of the currently participating community banks and 39 of the 43 currently participating CDLFs increased their small business lending over baseline levels  Most current participants report that their small business lending increases have been substantial, with 43 of 50 current SBLF participants (86 0%) increasing small business lending by 10% or more  Treasury officials have praised the SBLF's performance  For example, on October 9, 2012, then-Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal Wolin announced that the SBLF quarterly use of funds report released that day "is further indication that the Administration's Small Business Lending Fund is continuing to help create an environment in which entrepreneurial small businesses can succeed and excel " He added that "banks in the SBLF program continue to show large increases in the lending available for small businesses to grow, create jobs, and support families in communities across the country " Some financial commentators have expressed a somewhat less sanguine view of the program's performance  For example, one commentator noted, after the release of the quarterly use of funds report in January 2012, that although the report of increased small business lending was positive news "it is difficult to isolate the proportion of new lending that would have occurred anyway" due to improvements in the economy  Another commentator noted that the data may have been skewed by SBLF participants who were entering the small business lending market for the first time, making the increases appear larger and more significant than they actually are; yet another noted that the reported growth in small business lending occurred over six quarters (since June 30, 2010) and that the results, although positive, are "not as impressive as it may seem " A commentator argued in September 2012 that "if the SBLF ends up being a success story, it will have been on a far smaller scale than either Obama or Congress had originally expected  What's more, it's become clear that even boatloads of financing won't change the fact that demand for the loans themselves has also fallen off, as small businesses themselves are reluctant to expand in a stagnant economy " In addition, on August 29, 2013, Treasury's Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an audit of Treasury's reporting of small business lending gains relative to small business lending levels prior to the lenders' participation in the program  The OIG found that "small business lending gains reported by Treasury are significantly overstated and cannot be linked directly to SBLF funding " Specifically, the OIG noted that "substantial amounts [$3 4 billion of the then reported $8 9 billion] of the reported gains occurred prior to participants receiving SBLF funding " As the OIG explained, the lending gains reported [by Treasury] were measured against the same baseline period that the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (the Act) instructs Treasury to use for setting dividend rates for repayment of the SBLF capital, which is the four calendar quarters [which] ended [on] June 30, 2010  However, measuring program performance against a baseline with a midpoint seven quarters prior to when most participants received funding inflates program accomplishments and is not responsive to provisions in the Act that direct Treasury to report on participant use of the SBLF funds received  The OIG also argued that the reported lending gains cannot be directly linked to the SBLF capital that Treasury invested in the financial institutions because the lending gains reported "represent all small business lending gains that institutions participating in the SBLF achieved, regardless of how the loans were funded " In addition, the OIG noted, among other findings, that "a relatively small number (35 or 11%) of SBLF participants accounted for half of small business lending increases between the baseline figure and December 31, 2012 " During the 112 th Congress, several bills were introduced to change the SBLF  None of the bills were enacted  For example, then-Senator Snowe introduced S  681 , the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, on March 30, 2011  Senator Snowe argued that While I would prefer to terminate this fund altogether, it is unlikely based on the current political environment, which is why we must work to protect taxpayers from some of its most egregious provisions  My goal with this legislation is to ensure that only healthy banks have access to taxpayer money, that they are required to repay loans within a reasonable period of time, and that small businesses find the affordable credit they need  The bill would have, among other things, required recipients to repay SBLF distributions within 10 years of the receipt of the investment; terminated the program no later than 15 years after the date of the bill's enactment; prohibited the Secretary of the Treasury from making capital investments under the program if the FDIC is appointed receiver of 5% or more of the institutions receiving an investment under the program; prohibited participation by any institution that received an investment under TARP (effective on the date of the bill's enactment); removed provisions allowing the Secretary of Treasury to make a capital investment in institutions that would otherwise not be recommended to receive the investment based on the institution's financial condition, but are able to provide a matching investment from private, nongovernmental investors; required the approval of appropriate financial regulators when determining whether an institution should receive a capital investment; and revised the benchmark against which changes in the amount of small business lending is measured from the four full quarters immediately preceding the date of enactment to calendar year 2007  In addition, H R  1387 , the Small Business Lending Fund Accountability Act of 2011, would have provided the Special Inspector General for TARP responsibility for providing oversight over the SBLF  S Amdt  279 to S  493 , the Small Business Innovation Research, Small Business Technology Transfer Reauthorization Act of 2011, would have prevented TARP recipients from using funds received in any form under any other federal assistance program, including the SBLF program  H R  2807 , the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund beginning on the date when the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to make capital investments in eligible institutions expired (on September 27, 2011)  The bill's stated intent was "to increase the availability of credit for small businesses " H R  3147 , the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury's investment authority from one year following enactment to two years and required the Treasury Secretary to provide any institution not selected for participation in the program the reason for the rejection, ensure that the rejection reason remains confidential, and establish an appeal process that provides the institution an opportunity to contest the reason provided for the rejection of its application  During the 113 th Congress, H R  2474 , the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have, among other provisions, transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund  The SBLF was enacted as part of a larger effort to enhance the supply of capital to small businesses  Advocates argued that the SBLF would help to address the decline in small business lending and create jobs  Opponents were not convinced that it would enhance small business lending and worried about the program's potential cost to the federal treasury and its similarities to TARP  Participating institutions are reporting they have increased their small business lending  However, as has been discussed, questions have been raised concerning the validity of these reported amounts  Specifically, as Treasury's OIG argued in its August 2013 audit, more than one-third of the reported lending gains at that time occurred prior to September 30, 2011, the quarter in which most SBLF participants received their SBLF funds; the reported small business lending gains reflect all of the small business lending gains that the participants achieved, regardless of how the loans were funded; and previous OIG audits "have shown that a large number of participants misreport their small business lending activity " In those previous audits, "50% or more of the institutions reviewed submitted erroneous lending data to Treasury, either overstating or understating their small business lending gains " In addition to questions related to the validity of the reported small business lending gains, any analysis of the program's influence on small business lending is likely to be more suggestive than definitive because differentiating the SBLF's effect on small business lending from other factors, such as changes in the lender's local economy, is methodologically challenging, especially given the relatively small amount of financing involved relative to the national market for small business loans  The SBLF's $4 0 billion in financing represents less than 0 7% of outstanding small business loans (as defined by the FDIC)  In terms of the concerns expressed about the program's potential cost, Treasury initially estimated in December 2010 that the SBLF could cost taxpayers up to $1 26 billion (excluding administrative costs that were initially estimated at about $26 million annually but actual outlays were $4 54 million in FY2014, $9 05 million in FY2015, $5 01 million in FY2016, and $3 4 million in FY2017)  Treasury based that estimate on an expectation that about $17 billion in SBLF financings would be disbursed  In October 2011, Treasury estimated the program's costs based on actual participant data  It estimated that the SBLF would generate a savings of $80 million (excluding administrative costs), with the savings coming primarily from a lower-than-expected financing level and, to a lesser extent, improvements in projected default rates "due to higher participant quality than expected" and lower market interest rates  Treasury issues a semiannual report on SBLF costs  In its latest semiannual cost report, released on August 16, 2018, Treasury estimated that the SBLF will "generate a lifetime positive return of $31 million [excluding administrative costs] for the Treasury General Fund " One issue that arose relative to the program's projected cost is the noncumulative treatment of dividends  Treasury's OIG reported in May 2011 that Under the terms set by legislation, dividend payments are non-cumulative, meaning that institutions are under no obligation to make dividend payments as scheduled or to pay off previously missed payments before exiting the program  This dividend treatment differs from the TARP programs, in which many dividend payments were cumulative  This change in dividend treatment was driven by changes in capital requirements mandated by the Collins Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act  The amendment equalizes the consolidated capital requirements for Tier 1 capital of bank holding companies by requiring that, at a minimum, regulators apply the same capital and risk standards for FDIC-insured banks to bank holding companies  Under TARP, the FRB [Federal Reserve Board] and FDIC treated capital differently at the holding company and depository institution levels  The FRB treated cumulative securities issued by holding companies as Tier 1 capital, while FDIC treated non-cumulative securities issued by depository institutions as Tier 1 capital  In order to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act requirement that securities purchased from holding companies receive the same capital treatment as those purchased from depository institutions, Treasury made the dividends under SBLF non-cumulative  Additionally, given that Tier 1 capital must be perpetual and cannot have a mandatory redemption date, the 10-year repayment period in the Small Business Jobs Act cannot be enforced  Treasury addressed this issue by placing the following additional requirements and restrictions on participants who miss dividend payments: the participant's CEO [Chief Executive Office] and CFO [Chief Financial Officer] must provide written notice regarding the rationale of the board of directors (BOD) for not declaring a dividend; no repurchases may be affected and no dividends may be declared on any securities for the applicable quarter and the following three quarters; after four missed payments (consecutive or not), the issuer's BOD must certify in writing that the issuer used best efforts to declare and pay dividends appropriately; after five missed payments (consecutive or not), Treasury may appoint a representative to serve as an observer on the issuer's BOD; and after six missed payments (consecutive or not), Treasury may elect two directors to the issuer's BOD if the liquidation preference is $25 million or more  Treasury's OIG agreed that Treasury's equity investment policy is consistent with the legislation and that "it has reasonably structured the program to incentivize payment of dividends " However, it recommended that "Congress consider whether an amendment to the Small Business Jobs Act and/or waiver from the Collins Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act is needed to make the repayment of dividends a requirement for exiting the program " In conclusion, congressional oversight of the SBLF is currently focused on the program's potential long-term costs and effects on small business lending  Underlying those concerns are fundamental disagreements regarding the best way to assist small businesses  Some advocate the provision of additional federal resources to assist small businesses in acquiring capital necessary to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs  Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit  They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs  The SBLF's Legislative Origin On March 16, 2009, President Obama announced the first SBLF-like proposal  Under that proposal, the Department of the Treasury would have used TARP funds to purchase up to $15 billion of SBA-guaranteed loans  The purchases were intended to "immediately unfreeze the secondary market for SBA loans and increase the liquidity of community banks " The plan was dropped after it met resistance from lenders  Some lenders objected to TARP's requirement that participating lenders comply with executive compensation limits and issue warrants to the federal government  Smaller, community banks objected to the program's paperwork requirements, such as the provision of a small-business lending plan and quarterly reports  In his January 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama proposed the creation of a $30 billion SBLF to enhance access to credit for small businesses: When you talk to small business owners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies  Financing remains difficult for small business owners across the country, even those that are making a profit  Tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat  In response to the opposition community lenders had expressed concerning TARP's restrictions in 2009, the Obama Administration proposed that Congress approve legislation authorizing the transfer of up to $30 billion in TARP spending authority to the SBLF and statutorily establish the new program as distinct and independent from TARP and its restrictions  The Administration's legislative proposal was finalized and sent to Congress on May 7, 2010  Representative Barney Frank, then-chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, introduced H R  5297 , the Small Business Lending Fund Act of 2010, on May 13, 2010  The House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing on H R  5297 on May 18, 2010, and passed the bill, as amended to include a State Small Business Credit Initiative, the following day  The House passed the bill, as amended to include a Small Business Early-Stage Investment Program, a Small Business Borrower Assistance Program, and some small business tax reduction provisions, on June 17, 2010  The House-Passed Version of the SBLF Title I of the House-passed version of H R  5297 authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion SBLF "to address the ongoing effects of the financial crisis on small businesses by providing temporary authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments in eligible institutions" with total assets equal to or less than $1 billion or $10 billion (as of the end of the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009) "in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses " The authority to make capital investments in eligible institutions was limited to one year after enactment  Eligible financial institutions having total assets equal to or less than $1 billion as of the end of the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009 could apply to receive a capital investment from the SBLF in an amount not exceeding 5% of risk-weighted assets, as reported in the FDIC call report immediately preceding the date of application  During the fourth quarter of 2009, 7,340 FDIC-insured lending institutions reported having assets amounting to less than $1 billion  Eligible financial institutions having total assets equal to or less than $10 billion as of the end of the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009 could apply to receive a capital investment from the fund in an amount not exceeding 3% of risk-weighted assets, as reported in the FDIC call report immediately preceding the date of application  During the fourth quarter of 2009, 565 FDIC-insured lending institutions reported having assets of $1 billion to $10 billion  Risk-weighted assets are assets such as cash, loans, investments, and other financial institution assets that have different risks associated with them  FDIC regulations (12 C F R  §567 6) establish that cash and government bonds have a 0% risk-weighting; residential mortgage loans have a 50% risk-weighting; and other types of assets (such as small business loans) have a higher risk-weighting  Lending institutions on the FDIC problem bank list or institutions that have been removed from the FDIC problem bank list for less than 90 days were ineligible to participate in the program  Lending institutions could refinance securities issued through the Treasury Capital Purchase Program (CPP) and the Community Development Capital Incentive (CDCI) program under TARP, but only if the institution had not missed more than one dividend payment due under those programs  Participating banks would be charged a dividend rate of no more than 5% per annum initially, with reduced rates available if the bank increased its small business lending  For example, during any calendar quarter in the initial two years of the capital investments under the program, the bank's rate would be lowered if it had increased its small business lending compared to the average small business lending it made in the four previous quarters immediately preceding the enactment of the bill, minus some allowable adjustments  A 2 5% to less than 5% increase in small business lending would have lowered the rate to 4%, a 5% to less than 7 5% increase would have lowered the rate to 3%, a 7 5% to less than 10% increase would have lowered the rate to 2%, and an increase of 10% or greater would have lowered the rate to 1%  Table A-1 shows the dividend rates associated with small business lending increases for C corporation banks and savings institutions under H R  5297   These rates were subsequently included in the final law  The bill also authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust these dividend rates for S corporations "to take into account any differential tax treatment of securities issued by such eligible institution " Also, Community Development Financial Institutions were to be charged a dividend rate of 2% per annum for eight years, and 9% thereafter  SBLF applicants were also required to submit a small business lending plan to the appropriate federal banking agency and, for applicants that are state-chartered banks, to the appropriate state banking regulator  The plan was to describe how the applicant's business strategy and operating goals will allow it to address the needs of small businesses in the areas it serves, as well as a plan to provide linguistically and culturally appropriate outreach, where appropriate  The plan was to be treated as confidential supervisory information  The Secretary of the Treasury was required to consult with the appropriate federal banking agency or, in the case of an eligible institution that is a nondepository community development financial institution, the Community Development Financial Institution Fund, before determining if the eligible institution was to participate in the program  The bill specified that the SBLF would be "established as separate and distinct from the Troubled Asset Relief Program established by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008  An institution shall not, by virtue of a capital investment under the Small Business Lending Fund Program, be considered a recipient of the Troubled Asset Relief Program " The bill also directed that all funds received by the Secretary of the Treasury in connection with purchases made by the SBLF, "including interest payments, dividend payments, and proceeds from the sale of any financial instrument, shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt " The Senate-Passed Version of the SBLF Title IV of the Senate-passed version of H R  5297 , which later became law, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion SBLF to make capital investments in eligible community banks with total assets equal to or less than $1 billion or $10 billion  There were several differences between the Senate-passed version of H R  5297 's SBLF provisions and the SBLF provisions in the House-passed version of H R  5297   Specifically, the House-passed version of H R  5297 indicated that eligible institutions may be insured depository institutions that are not controlled by a bank holding company or a savings and loan holding company that is also an eligible institution and is not directly or indirectly controlled by any company or other entity that has total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion, bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, community development financial institution loan funds, and small business lending companies, all with total assets of $10 billion or less (as of the end of 2009)  The Senate-passed version of H R  5297 did not provide eligibility to small business lending companies  House-passed version of H R  5297 defined small business lending "as small business lending as defined by and reported in an eligible institution's quarterly call report, where each loan comprising such lending is made to a small business and is one the following types: (1) commercial and industrial loans; (2) owner-occupied nonfarm, nonresidential real estate loans; (3) loans to finance agricultural production and other loans to farmers; (4) loans secured by farmland; (5) nonowner-occupied commercial real estate loans; and (6) construction, land development and other land loans " The Senate-passed version of H R  5297 's definition of small business lending did not include nonowner-occupied commercial real estate or construction, land development and other land loans  Senate-passed version of H R  5297 had an exclusion provision prohibiting recipient lending institutions from using the funds to issue loans that have an original amount greater than $10 million or that would be made to a business with more than $50 million in revenues  The House-passed version of H R  5297 did not contain this provision  House-passed version of H R  5297 indicated that the incentives received in the form of reduced dividend rates during the first 4 5-year period following the date on which an eligible institution received a capital investment under the program would be contingent on an increase in the number of loans made  If the number of loans made by the institution did not increase by 2 5% for each 2 5% increase of small business lending, then the rate at which dividends and interest would be payable during the following quarter on preferred stock or other financial instruments issued to the Treasury by the eligible institution would be (i) 5%, if this quarter is within the two-year period following the date on which the eligible institution received the capital investment under the program; or (ii) 7%, if the quarter is after the two-year period  The Senate-passed version of H R  5297 did not contain this legislative language  House-passed version of H R  5297 included an alternative computation provision that would have allowed eligible institutions to compute their small business lending amounts for incentive purposes as if the definition of their small business lending amounts did not require that the loans comprising such lending be made to small business  This alternative computation would have been allowed if the eligible institution certified that all lending included by the institution for purposes of computing the increase in lending was made to small businesses  The Senate-passed version of H R  5297 did not contain this provision  House-passed version of H R  5297 indicated that an eligible institution that is a community development loan fund may apply to receive a capital investment from the SBLF in an amount not exceeding 10% of total assets, as reported in the audited financial statements for the fiscal year of the eligible institution that ended in calendar year 2009  The Senate-passed version of H R  5297 specifies 5%  House-passed version of H R  5297 would have required the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, to develop eligibility criteria to determine the financial ability of a Community Development Loan Fund to participate in the program and repay the investment  It provided a list of recommended eligibility criteria that the Secretary of the Treasury could use for this purpose  The Senate-passed version of H R  5297 provided a similar, but mandatory, list of eligibility criteria that must be used for this purpose  House-passed version of H R  5297 contained a temporary amortization authority provision which would have allowed an eligible institution to amortize any loss or write-down on a quarterly straight-line basis over a period of time, adjusted to reflect the institution's change in the amount of small business lending relative to the baseline  The Senate-passed version of H R  5297 did not contain this provision  The Senate's version of H R  5297 was agreed to in the Senate on September 16, 2010, after considerable debate and amendment to remove the Small Business Early-Stage Investment Program and Small Business Borrower Assistance Program, revise the SBLF, and add numerous other provisions to assist small businesses, including additional small business tax reduction provisions  The House agreed to the Senate amendments on September 23, 2010, and President Obama signed the bill, retitled the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 ( P L  111-240 ), into law on September 27, 2010 
Report 2:  This is a decrease from 1 35% and 1 30%, respectively, which is what FHA had been charging from April 1, 2013, until January 26, 2015  These premiums apply to most single-family mortgages; FHA charges different annual premiums in certain circumstances, including for loans with shorter loan terms or higher principal balances  Table 2 shows the up-front and annual mortgage insurance premiums that have been in effect for most loans since January 26, 2015  In the past, if borrowers prepaid their loans, they may have been due refunds of part of the up-front insurance premium that was not "earned" by FHA  The refund amount depended on when the mortgage closed and declined as the loan matured  The Consolidated Appropriations Act 2005 ( P L  108-447 ) amended the National Housing Act to provide that, for mortgages insured on or after December 8, 2004, borrowers are not eligible for refunds of up-front mortgage insurance premiums except when borrowers are refinancing existing FHA-insured loans with new FHA-insured loans  After three years, the entire up-front insurance premium paid by borrowers who refinance existing FHA-insured loans with new FHA-insured loans is considered "earned" by FHA, and these borrowers are not eligible for any refunds  The annual mortgage insurance premiums are not refundable  However, beginning with loans closed on or after January 1, 2001, FHA had followed a policy of automatically cancelling the annual mortgage insurance premium when, based on the initial amortization schedule, the loan balance reached 78% of the initial property value  However, for loans with FHA case numbers assigned on or after June 3, 2013, FHA will continue to charge the annual mortgage insurance premium for the life of the loan for most mortgages  This change responded to concerns about the financial status of the FHA insurance fund  FHA has stated that, since it continues to insure the entire remaining mortgage amount for the life of the loan, and since premiums were cancelled on the basis of the loan amortizing to a percentage of the initial property value rather than the current value of the home, FHA has at times had to pay insurance claims on defaulted mortgages where the borrowers were no longer paying annual mortgage insurance premiums  An FHA-insured mortgage is considered delinquent any time a payment is due and not paid  Once the borrower is 30 days late in making a payment, the mortgage is considered to be in default  In general, mortgage servicers may initiate foreclosure on an FHA-insured loan when three monthly installments are due and unpaid, and they must initiate foreclosure when six monthly installments are due and unpaid, except when prohibited by law  A program of loss mitigation strategies was authorized by Congress in 1996 to minimize the number of FHA loans entering foreclosure, and has since been revised and expanded to include additional loss mitigation options  Prior to initiating foreclosure, mortgage servicers must attempt to make contact with borrowers and evaluate whether they qualify for any of these loss mitigation options  The options must be considered in a specific order, and specific eligibility criteria apply to each option  Some loss mitigation options, referred to as home retention options, are intended to help borrowers remain in their homes  Other loss mitigation options, referred to as home disposition options, will result in the borrower losing his or her home, but avoiding some of the costs of foreclosure  The loss mitigation options that servicers are instructed to pursue on FHA-insured loans are summarized in Table 3   Additional loss mitigation options are available for certain populations of borrowers  For example, defaulted borrowers in military service may be eligible to suspend the principal portion of monthly payments and pay only interest for the period of military service, plus three months  On resumption of payment, loan payments are adjusted so that the loan will be paid in full according to the original amortization  Certain loss mitigation options are also available in areas affected by presidentially declared major disasters  FHA's single-family mortgage insurance program is funded through FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI Fund)  Cash flows into the MMI Fund primarily from insurance premiums and proceeds from the sale of foreclosed homes  Cash flows out of the MMI Fund primarily to pay claims to lenders for mortgages that have defaulted  This section provides a brief overview of (1) how the FHA-insured mortgages insured under the MMI Fund are accounted for in the federal budget and (2) the MMI Fund's compliance with a statutory capital ratio requirement  For more detailed information on the financial status of the MMI Fund, see CRS Report R42875, FHA Single-Family Mortgage Insurance: Financial Status of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI Fund)   The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) specifies the way in which the costs of federal loan guarantees, including FHA-insured loans, are recorded in the federal budget  The FCRA requires that the estimated lifetime cost of guaranteed loans (in net present value terms) be recorded in the federal budget in the year that the loans are insured  When the present value of the lifetime cash flows associated with the guaranteed loans is expected to result in more money coming into the account than flowing out of it, the program is said to generate negative credit subsidy  When the present value of the lifetime cash flows associated with the guaranteed loans is expected to result in less money coming into the account than flowing out of it, the program is said to generate positive credit subsidy  Programs that generate negative credit subsidy result in offsetting receipts for the federal government, while programs that generate positive credit subsidy require an appropriation to cover the cost of new loan guarantees  The MMI Fund has historically been estimated to generate negative credit subsidy in the year that the loans are insured and therefore has not required appropriations to cover the expected costs of loans to be insured  The MMI Fund does receive appropriations to cover salaries and administrative contract expenses  The amount of money that loans insured in a given year actually earn for or cost the government over the course of their lifetime is likely to be different from the original credit subsidy estimates  Therefore, each year as part of the annual budget process, each prior year's credit subsidy rates are re-estimated based on the actual performance of the loans and other factors, such as updated economic projections  These re-estimates affect the way in which funds are held in the MMI Fund's two primary accounts: the Financing Account and the Capital Reserve Account  The Financing Account holds funds to cover  expected  future costs of FHA-insured loans  The Capital Reserve Account holds additional funds to cover any additional unexpected future costs  Funds are transferred between the two accounts each year on the basis of the re-estimated credit subsidy rates to ensure that enough is held in the Financing Account to cover updated projections of expected costs of insured loans   If FHA ever needs to transfer more funds to the Financing Account than it has in the Capital Reserve Account, it can receive funds from Treasury to make this transfer under existing authority and without any additional congressional action  This occurred for the first time at the end of FY2013, when FHA received $1 7 billion from Treasury to make a required transfer of funds between the accounts  The funds that FHA received from Treasury did not need to be spent immediately, but were to be held in the Financing Account and used to pay insurance claims, if necessary, only after the remaining funds in the Financing Account were spent  The MMI Fund has not needed any additional funds from Treasury to make required transfers of funds between the two accounts since that time  The MMI Fund is also required by statute to maintain a capital ratio of at least 2%, which is intended to ensure that the fund is able to withstand some increases in the costs of loans guaranteed under the insurance fund  The capital ratio measures the amount of funds that the MMI Fund currently has on hand, plus the net present value of the expected future cash flows associated with the mortgages that FHA currently insures (e g , the amounts it expects to earn through premiums and lose through claims paid)  It then expresses this amount as a percentage of the total dollar volume of mortgages that FHA currently insures  In other words, the capital ratio is a measure of the amount of funds that would remain in the MMI Fund after all expected future cash flows on the loans that it currently insures have been realized, assuming that FHA did not insure any more loans going forward  Beginning in FY2009, and for several years thereafter, the capital ratio was estimated to be below this mandated 2% level  The capital ratio again exceeded the 2% threshold in FY2015, when it was estimated to be 2 07%  This represented an improvement from an estimated capital ratio of 0 41% at the end of FY2014, and from negative estimated capital ratios at the ends of FY2013 and FY2012  The capital ratio has remained above 2% since that time, and was estimated to be 2 76% in FY2018  A low or negative capital ratio does not in itself trigger any special assistance from Treasury, but it raises concerns that FHA could need assistance in order to continue to hold enough funds in the Financing Account to cover expected future losses  In the years since the housing market turmoil that began around 2007, FHA has taken a number of steps designed to strengthen the insurance fund  These steps have included increasing the mortgage insurance premiums charged to borrowers; strengthening underwriting requirements, such as by instituting higher down payment requirements for borrowers with the lowest credit scores; and increasing oversight of FHA-approved lenders  The number of new mortgages insured by FHA in a given year depends on a variety of factors  In general, the number of new mortgages insured by FHA increased during the housing market turmoil (and resulting contraction of mortgage credit) that began around 2007, reaching a peak of 1 8 million mortgages in FY2009 before beginning to decrease somewhat  FY2014 was the only year since FY2007 that FHA insured fewer than 1 million new mortgages  As shown in Table 4 , FHA insured just over 1 million new single-family purchase and refinance mortgages in FY2018  Together, these mortgages had an initial loan balance of $209 billion  About 77% (776,284) of the mortgages were for home purchases, while about 23% (238,325) were for refinancing an existing mortgage  The overall number of mortgages insured by FHA in FY2018 represented a decrease from FY2017, when it insured 1 25 million mortgages  Many FHA-insured mortgages are obtained by first-time homebuyers, lower-and moderate-income homebuyers, and minority homebuyers  Of the home purchase mortgages insured by FHA in FY2018, about 83% were made to first-time homebuyers  Over a third of all mortgages (both for home purchases and refinances) insured by FHA in FY2018 were made to minority borrowers  As shown in Table 5 , at the end of FY2018 FHA was insuring a total of over 8 million single-family loans that together had an outstanding balance of nearly $1 2 trillion  Since it was first established in 1934, FHA has insured a total of over 47 5 million home loans  FHA's share of the mortgage market is the amount of mortgages that are insured by FHA compared to the total amount of mortgages originated or outstanding in a given time period  FHA's market share can be measured in a number of different ways  Therefore, when evaluating FHA's market share, it is important to recognize which of several different figures is being reported  First, FHA's share of the mortgage market can be computed as the number of FHA-insured mortgages divided by the total number of mortgages, or as the dollar volume of FHA-insured mortgages divided by the total dollar volume of mortgages  Furthermore, FHA's market share is sometimes reported as a share of all mortgages , and sometimes only as a share of home purchase mortgages (as opposed to both mortgages made to purchase a home and mortgages made to refinance an existing mortgage)  A market share figure can be reported as a share of all mortgages originated within a specific time period , such as a given year, or as a share of all mortgages outstanding at a point in time , regardless of when they were originated  Finally, FHA's market share is sometimes also reported as a share of the total number of mortgages that have some kind of mortgage insurance (including mortgages with private mortgage insurance and mortgages insured by another government agency) rather than as a share of all mortgages regardless of whether or not they have mortgage insurance  FHA's market share tends to fluctuate in response to economic conditions and other factors  Between calendar years 1996 and 2002, FHA's market share averaged about 14% of the home purchase mortgage market and about 11% of the overall mortgage market (both home purchase mortgages and refinance mortgages), as measured by number of mortgages  However, by 2005 FHA's market share had fallen to less than 5% of home-purchase mortgages and about 3% of the overall mortgage market  Subsequently, as economic conditions worsened and mortgage credit tightened in response to housing market turmoil that began around 2007, FHA's market share rose sharply, peaking at over 30% of home-purchase mortgages in 2009 and 2010, and over 20% of all mortgages (including both home purchases and refinances) in 2009  In 2017, FHA insured 19 5% of new home purchase mortgages and about 16 7% of new mortgages overall, a small decrease compared to its market share in 2016  Figure 1 shows FHA's market share as a percentage of the total number of new mortgages originated for each calendar year between 1996 and 2017  As described, FHA's market share can be measured in a number of different ways  The figure shows FHA's share of (1) all newly originated mortgages, (2) just newly originated purchase mortgages, and (3) just newly originated refinance mortgages  FHA's share of home purchase mortgages tends to be the highest, largely because borrowers who refinance are more likely to have built up a greater amount of equity in their homes and, therefore, might be more likely to obtain conventional mortgages  For the number of mortgages insured by FHA in each year calendar since 1996, see the Appendix   The increase in FHA's market share after 2007 was due to a variety of factors related to the housing market turmoil and broader economic instability that was taking place at the time  Housing and economic conditions led many banks to limit their lending activities, including lending for mortgages  Similarly, private mortgage insurance companies, facing steep losses from past mortgages, began tightening the underwriting criteria for mortgages that they would insure  Furthermore, in 2008 Congress increased the maximum mortgage amounts that FHA can insure, which may have made FHA-insured mortgages a more viable option for some borrowers in certain areas  More recently, FHA's market share has decreased somewhat from its peak during the housing market turmoil, although it generally remains somewhat higher than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s  A number of factors may have contributed to this decrease, including lower loan limits in some high-cost areas, higher mortgage insurance premiums, and greater availability of non-FHA-insured mortgages  While not the focus of this report, the appropriate market share for FHA has been a subject of ongoing debate among policymakers  It is likely to continue to be a topic of debate, both in the context of policies specifically related to FHA as well as part of broader debate about the future of the U S  housing finance system  Table A-1 provides data on the number of mortgages insured by FHA in each calendar year since 1996, along with FHA's overall market share in each calendar year 

ground_truth: Congressional interest in small business access to capital has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to start, continue, or expand operations and create jobs. Some have argued that the federal government should provide additional resources to assist small businesses. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to assist small businesses and create jobs. Several laws were enacted during the 111th Congress to enhance small business access to capital. For example, P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the Small Business Administration (SBA) an additional $730 million, including funding to temporarily subsidize SBA fees and increase the 7(a) loan guaranty program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90%. P.L. 111-240, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF), in which $4.0 billion was issued, to encourage community banks with less than $10 billion in assets to increase their lending to small businesses. It also authorized a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, numerous changes to the SBA's loan guaranty and contracting programs, funding to continue the SBA's fee subsidies and the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses. P.L. 111-322, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue its fee subsidies and the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted, which occurred on January 3, 2011. This report focuses on the SBLF. It opens with a discussion of the supply and demand for small business loans. The SBLF's advocates claimed the SBLF was needed to enhance the supply of small business loans. The report then examines other arguments presented both for and against the program. Advocates argued that the SBLF would increase lending to small businesses and, in turn, create jobs. Opponents contended that the SBLF could lose money, lacked sufficient oversight provisions, did not require lenders to increase their lending to small businesses, could serve as a vehicle for Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients to effectively refinance their TARP loans on more favorable terms with little or no resulting benefit for small businesses, and could encourage a failing lender to make even riskier loans to avoid higher dividend payments. The report concludes with an examination of the program's implementation and a discussion of bills introduced to amend the SBLF. For example, during the 112th Congress, S. 681, the Greater Accountability in the Lending Fund Act of 2011, would have limited the program's authority to 15 years from enactment and prohibited TARP recipients from participating in the program. H.R. 2807, the Small Business Leg-Up Act of 2011, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund "to increase the availability of credit for small businesses." H.R. 3147, the Small Business Lending Extension Act, would have extended the Department of the Treasury's investment authority from one year to two years. During the 113th Congress, H.R. 2474, the Community Lending and Small Business Jobs Act of 2013, would have transferred any unobligated and repaid funds from the SBLF to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.