Office of the Ombudsman

2022 2022 Annual Report of Activities
D “

Mission

Our Core

The Office of the Ombudsman is an 

independent, neutral, and confidential

resource and liaison for the banking 

industry and general public to facilitate 

the resolution of problems and complaints 

against the FDIC in a fair, impartial, and 

timely manner. 

The Office of the Ombudsman provides 

prompt and meaningful feedback to 

influence positive change. 

1 OF 8

In late 2022, the FDIC began a gradual return towards “normalized” operations. This 

included conducting certain examination functions onsite; engaging with industry 

representatives during trade conferences; and hosting in-person training events, 

including Director’s Colleges. While technology will continue to be a valuable tool in 

our examination and other programs, the volume of activities conducted in person with 

bankers, or onsite at banks, will continue to broaden in 2023 and beyond, fulfilling desires 

expressed by a large portion of the industry during meetings with Office of the Ombudsman 

staff, and feedback included in Post-Examination Surveys. 

I am pleased to present our latest annual report, which captures and aggregates the work 

of our Office during 2022. The report shares common themes of stakeholder feedback 

while highlighting the types of assistance and consultation provided to the industry and 

the general public during the year. The positive feedback received on our last report 

has motivated us to again use a dashboard approach to provide information on our 

engagements with the industry, and more importantly, identify major themes or areas of 

regulatory concern expressed by bankers and industry representatives. As always, your 

feedback and suggestions for enhancing future editions are welcome.

M. ANTHONY LOWE

Director

 (312) 382-6777 mlowe@fdic.gov

Thank you, and I hope you find the report useful 

and informative. 

message

director’s

SAN FRANCISCO

DALLAS

KANSAS CITY

ATLANTA

CHICAGO

NEW YORK

Regions
?

The Office of the Ombudsman is a team of highly qualified, tenured, and dedicated staff whose 

mission is to assist anyone affected by the FDIC’s regulatory, resolution, receivership, or 

asset disposition activities. When an FDIC stakeholder has questions or concerns about these 

activities, we act as a liaison to help resolve them in a confidential and informal manner. 

We listen, answer questions, provide options, and help external stakeholders connect with 

the right people and information. We advocate for fair processes, constructive 

communication, and timely results. We solicit and analyze feedback we receive 

from external stakeholders, identify opportunities for positive change, and share 

those opportunities with decision-makers at the FDIC. 

The Office of the Ombudsman reports directly to the Office of the FDIC Chairman. 

FDIC Chairman

FDIC Division / Office Directors

Average tenure of staff

(years)

32 6

Number of regions

Each FDIC-supervised bank 

has a dedicated Regional 

Ombudsman. CLICK HERE to 

find your Regional Ombudsman.

Banking Trade Associations

Bankers

State Banking Authorities

PRIMARY EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS PRIMARY INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

We act as a liaison to resolve issues in an informal manner. 

We facilitate productive communication for mutual 

understanding and cooperation.

We take all reasonable steps to safeguard confidentiality.

We do not take sides. We advocate for fair processes.

We are not part of the supervision, resolution, or 

receivership processes. We report directly to the FDIC 

Chairman’s office.

informal

independent

#Numbers

By the

neutral

confidential

Values

Our Core

2 OF 8

FDIC Staff (Including Examiners)

are we?

who
?

If you have been affected by the FDIC’s regulatory activities, and need assistance working 

with the FDIC, the Ombudsman can help. We support the rights of external stakeholders to 

raise concerns without the fear of retaliation. We cannot make determinations or overturn 

regulatory decisions; however, we can help to ensure the FDIC fully appreciates your 

perspectives and concerns while simultaneously assisting you in understanding regulatory 

expectations and conclusions. We can also connect you with other helpful resources and 

explore multiple options to achieve a fair and equitable outcome.

You disagree with examination findings or ratings.

You believe an examination was not performed in 

accordance with published standards.

You believe supervisory decisions did not appropriately 

consider your institution’s risk profile.

You cannot find FDIC regulatory information. 

You need clarification of regulatory requirements.

You are uncomfortable discussing concerns or posing questions to your 

case manager or other FDIC management. 

You believe your institution has been the subject of retaliation, abuse, or 

retribution after disputing supervisory findings, ratings, or determinations. 

Directory

Ombudsman

3 OF 8

Examples 

include:

having difficulties? 

call an ombudsman! find your regional ombudsman’s contact info

ATLANTA 

REGION Regional Ombudsman

CHARMION HALEY

 (678) 916-2188

chaley@fdic.gov

CHICAGO

REGION

Regional Ombudsman

DAN MARCOTTE

 (312) 382-6908

dmarcotte@fdic.gov

DALLAS

REGION

KANSAS CITY

REGION

SAN FRANCISCO 

REGION

Regional Ombudsman

MARVIN PAYNE

 (972) 761-2301

mpayne@fdic.gov

Regional Ombudsman

BRENT KLANDERUD

 (816) 234-8532

bklanderud@fdic.gov

Regional Ombudsman

SHERRYANN NELSON

 (917) 320-2532

 shnelson@fdic.gov

Regional Ombudsman

KIRK DANIELS

 (415) 808-8175

kdaniels@fdic.gov

NEW YORK 

REGION

Director

M. ANTHONY LOWE

 (312) 382-6777

LEADERSHIP

mlowe@fdic.gov

Associate Ombudsman

AMY BROWN

 (312) 382-6770 ambrown@fdic.gov

can we do for you?

what
Regional Ombudsmen met with 836 external stakeholders during 2022 to:

836

135 Number of Information Requests

Of the bankers 

that responded to

our Customer 

Satisfaction Survey,

98%

would utilize the 

Ombudsman’s 

services if needed

91%

said the services they 

used were Mostly 

or Very Effective

Requests regarding regulatory requirements were 

the most common; 25% of these stakeholders 

wanted to discuss agency policy or regulations 

governing the re-presentment of NSF items. 

A large number of stakeholders also sought 

clarification of other FDIC policies and regulations.

Most Frequent Requests: 

REGULATORY

INFORMATION

NSF

ITEMS

provide awareness 

of our services

initiate or strengthen 

relationships with the Office

share direct 

contact information

? 4 OF 8

what

did we do? HOW WE ACHIEVED OUR MISSION IN 2022

46

Half of the stakeholders who requested confidential consultations 

wanted to discuss a concern with an examination finding or rating. 

The most common concern was a UDAP violation related to the 

re-presentment of NSF items. A majority of the other stakeholders 

wanted to discuss ineffective communication during an 

examination, or the lack of communication regarding a pending 

examination report or application.

Number of Confidential Consultations

Two-thirds of these stakeholders reported receiving limited to 

no communication regarding agency-related delays in finalizing 

an examination, processing an application, or responding to 

correspondence. These stakeholders requested that the OO 

facilitate communication with appropriate FDIC contacts to 

address the delays. The remaining stakeholders disagreed 

with examination findings and requested the OO to facilitate a 

productive discussion with regional management.

12 Number of Requests for Liaison Services

Number of Stakeholder Meetings
NON-SUFFICIENT FUNDS RE-PRESENTMENT

Bankers and trade associations were critical of the FDIC’s determination that certain bank 

practices for charging multiple fees for re-presented NSF items violated Section 5 of the 

FTC Act, were deceptive, and required corrective action. 

Recurring themes from banker feedback, confidential consultations, 

and information requests regarding NSF Re-Presentment are presented below:

?

The confidential nature of our work limits our ability to provide specifics about feedback 

we received or individual case information. However, we can present information on 

trends and commonalities. 

Regional Ombudsmen offer bankers private, confidential 

sessions to provide feedback and observations on FDIC 

operations, including the examination process. This 

candid feedback helps identify opportunities to improve 

FDIC processes. Each month, the Office analyzes feedback 

and reports anonymized common themes and trends to 

the Chairman’s Office, as well as leadership of the Risk 

Management and Consumer Compliance divisions.

607

NUMBER OF BANKER 

FEEDBACK SESSIONS

RECURRING RE-PRESENTMENT THEMES

Long-standing practices and disclosures 

for re-presented items and NSF fees 

were cited as a violation of law.

Limitations in core banking systems 

made the required “look-backs” for 

re-presented transactions costly, timeconsuming, and burdensome.

Insufficient or delayed communication with 

bank management was experienced during 

the FDIC’s examination review process.

what

did we hear?

5 OF 8
?did we hear?

6 OF 8

The Ombudsman administers a Post-Examination Survey (PES) for the divisions of 

Risk Management Supervision (RMS) and Depositor and Consumer Protection (DCP). 

The PES is designed to solicit candid feedback from bankers about a recent examination. 

There was a four-percentage point increase in the response rate year-over-year. To preserve 

the confidentiality of respondents, we consolidated response results and anonymized 

narrative comments before sharing the information with RMS and DCP division directors. 

Ninety-two percent of bankers 

responding to a PES indicated they 

had largely favorable experiences 

during the examination process.

PART 2

POST-EXAMINATION SURVEY

92%

51%

POST-EXAMINATION SURVEY RESPONSE RATE

what
7 OF 8

There was nearly universal appreciation for the return of some onsite presence 

during examinations. Most bankers expressed a preference for onsite loan review 

and discussions but were comfortable with a hybrid approach that allowed more 

collaborative decisions regarding examiner location.

examiners and examinations

By focusing on themes and reporting information on an aggregated basis, we ensure 

confidentiality is preserved. 

During 2022, we received more 

than twice as many favorable 

as unfavorable comments 

about examiners. 

2.5x

FAVORABLE COMMENTS

?

Bankers expressed a variety of concerns regarding IT 

Examinations. Some bankers reported that examiners 

did not sufficiently understand the processes, risks, and 

controls related to their bank’s technology programs. In 

the bankers’ opinions, this led to unwarranted criticisms 

and inappropriate supervisory recommendations. Other 

bankers reported having no opportunity to respond to IT 

criticisms prior to an exit or board meeting.

We received more than twice as many favorable as unfavorable comments about application processing. Many of the 

unfavorable comments related to applications for deposit insurance. Some organizers reported receiving limited to 

no communication, for exceptionally long periods of time, after submitting an application. Also, several organizers 

opined that the FDIC’s policies and practices, with respect to evaluating personal and professional financial 

responsibility and the general character and fitness of proposed directors and officers, were unreasonable.

2x applications

information technology examinations

did we hear? PART 3

what
Contact the Ombudsman

when you need service that is: 

FDIC Processes

Help Improve

Your thoughts and opinions about supervisory or resolution 

processes are important to FDIC leadership. Please contact 

your Regional Ombudsman to share your comments, 

suggestions, or observations. 

?

8 OF 8

OOmbudsman

Office of the

Office of the Ombudsman

E-2022

3501 Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22226

 1-(877)-275-3342

Ombudsman@fdic.gov

Online Form

ACCESS THE ANONYMOUS ONLINE FORM

share your feedback about this report

ACCESS THE ANONYMOUS ONLINE FORM

confidential

neutral

independent

informal

can you respond?

how