Fair Access to Financial Services (OCC-2020-0042-0001) -

Beavis

Dilweed
kiwifarms.net
I'm not sure we should be celebrating - it looks like the $100 billion asset threshold was passed unmodified.

For reference, Paypal is only worth $50 billion in total and wouldn't be a "covered bank". I'm not sure how many individual Visa/Mastercard issuers would be covered either. Like, Citigroup has over a trillion in assets, but I'm betting whatever sub-entity issues Citibank Visa cards is officially smaller than that. How much smaller, I have no clue.
There are plenty of banks that will take risky money. The problem is visa and master card. Credit cards are the key.
 

Kosher Salt

(((NaCl)))
kiwifarms.net
I'm not sure we should be celebrating - it looks like the $100 billion asset threshold was passed unmodified.

For reference, Paypal is only worth $50 billion in total and wouldn't be a "covered bank". I'm not sure how many individual Visa/Mastercard issuers would be covered either. Like, Citigroup has over a trillion in assets, but I'm betting whatever sub-entity issues Citibank Visa cards is officially smaller than that. How much smaller, I have no clue.
It'd help, though. The real pressure is coming from those big banks at the top - big players like Visa and Mastercard who have a stranglehold on all payment processing everywhere. The really concerning scenario is that the big guys decide to unperson someone and all the little guys are going to have to play along because they can't afford to get on bad terms with a monster like Visa/MC. If some random credit union decided they don't want your business, that'd be much less of a problem; they presumably don't have enough clout to convince all the other banks to go along with them.

It'd be like being on Delta's no fly list vs. being on the TSA's no fly list. Being on Delta's list would be inconvenient, but you'd probably still be able to get flights on other airlines. But if you're on the TSA's list, you're not flying, period.
 

Kosher Dill

Potato Chips
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The really concerning scenario is that the big guys decide to unperson someone and all the little guys are going to have to play along
That is true, it seems like this rule does help with that.
To the extent that such payment processors are either (1) covered banks or (2) payment processors whose refusal to process payments is the result of a covered bank’s refusal to provide fair access to financial services to the payment processor, this rule applies to the bank decision refusing access.
MasterCard is presumably a covered bank, and if a payment processor cuts you off to stay in MC's good graces then the rule does apply.

It looks like the rule is already under attack though, and there are examples of rules that got this far only to be delayed for years and then neutered. So, we still need to keep the pressure on our representatives.
 

A Pox

kiwifarms.net
yougetwhatyoudeserve.jpg


But remember Trump is a powerless faggot that sucks Isreali cock so there's no difference between him and Biden :story:
 

HarblMcDavid

in ur zone, dekin' my harbl
kiwifarms.net
Take a gander at Discovercard's assets if you want to see the major weakness here. I'll be glad to have someone explain why they are covered if I've missed something, but it looks like they are a bit shy of the "covered" requirements.
 

Astral Alley

kiwifarms.net
[Image]

But remember Trump is a powerless faggot that sucks Isreali cock so there's no difference between him and Biden :story:
Not defending Biden, but nowhere in the source did it mention Biden making a statement about the rule. Just house democrats like those led by Rep. Maxine Waters.
As far as I'm aware, Biden himself has made no statement on the issue.
 

Mister Loser

The Man with No Plan
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This is honestly genuinely upsetting. I'm pretty certain what I was asking for (not having to use crypto as the only method of paying for stuff to people like you and numoot) was pretty reasonable...
I'll be honest, what makes me the most upset is that it's clear the reasons they don't want it to pass aren't really in bad faith. I'm all for enviornmentalism, and clearly one of the best ways to attack companies going against it is to attack their funds. But surely there has to be a better way to go about it without having it immediately mean either the capitalist oligarchs are gonna keep doing bad things to the enviornment or the government is pretty easily able to just control funds to fit their will that maybe not everybody agrees with. There's got to be a middle ground to this and I'm sad that nobody's trying to take it.

EDIT: Sent a letter to my local congressmen regarding it. I highly doubt anything will come out of it, but I figured I'd do what I could while we still have the time. I encourage anybody here to do the same— our voice does count!
 
Last edited:

Astral Alley

kiwifarms.net
This is honestly genuinely upsetting. I'm pretty certain what I was asking for (not having to use crypto as the only method of paying for stuff to people like you and numoot) was pretty reasonable...
I'll be honest, what makes me the most upset is that it's clear the reasons they don't want it to pass aren't really in bad faith. I'm all for enviornmentalism, and clearly one of the best ways to attack companies going against it is to attack their funds. But surely there has to be a better way to go about it without having it immediately mean either the capitalist oligarchs are gonna keep doing bad things to the enviornment or the government is pretty easily able to just control funds to fit their will that maybe not everybody agrees with. There's got to be a middle ground to this and I'm sad that nobody's trying to take it.

EDIT: Sent a letter to my local congressmen regarding it. I highly doubt anything will come out of it, but I figured I'd do what I could while we still have the time. I encourage anybody here to do the same— our voice does count!
One of the two men competing for the title of 'Richest man in the world' owns a company whose entire goal is to help 'Transition the world to sustainable energy'. The fight against the fossil fuel industry can be won by out-competition, not discrimination. We simply need to make the demand for oil drop to a point where it is no longer financially viable to drill for it in areas like these wildlife reserves.
 

JohnDoe

Relax frens, the gas is only lethal to cringe.
kiwifarms.net
One of the two men competing for the title of 'Richest man in the world' owns a company whose entire goal is to help 'Transition the world to sustainable energy'. The fight against the fossil fuel industry can be won by out-competition, not discrimination. We simply need to make the demand for oil drop to a point where it is no longer financially viable to drill for it in areas like these wildlife reserves.

You know that oil has many other uses than just energy, right?
 

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid

This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net

WASHINGTON—The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today released its finalized rule to ensure fair access to banking services provided by large national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign bank organizations.

The rule codifies more than a decade of OCC guidance stating that banks should conduct risk assessment of individual customers, rather than make broad-based decisions affecting whole categories or classes of customers, when provisioning access to services, capital, and credit.

"When a large bank decides to cut off access to charities or even embassies serving dangerous parts of the world or companies conducting legal businesses in the United States that support local jobs and the national economy, they need to show their work and the legitimate business reasons for doing so," said Acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian P. Brooks. "As Comptrollers and staff in previous administrations have made clear in speeches, guidance, and testimony, banks should not terminate services to entire categories of customers without conducting individual risk assessments. It is inconsistent with basic principles of prudent risk management to make decisions based solely on conclusory or categorical assertions of risk without actual analysis. Moreover, elected officials should determine what is legal and illegal in our country."

The rule implements language included in Title III of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which charged the OCC with "assuring the safety and soundness of, and compliance with laws and regulations, fair access to financial services, and fair treatment of customers by, the institutions and other persons subject to its jurisdiction." The statute expanded the OCC's mission to include fair access separately from fair treatment following the last financial crisis during which the government had provided substantial public resources to support the banking system.

The rule applies to the largest banks with more than $100 billion in assets that may exert significant pricing power or influence over sectors of the national economy. Under the rule, banks still determine their product lines and geographic markets and are free to make legitimate business decisions about what and whom to serve. The rule requires covered banks to make those products and services they choose to offer available to all customers in the communities they serve, based on consideration of quantitative, impartial, risk-based standards established by the bank. Under the rule, a covered bank's decision to deny services based on such objective assessment would not violate the bank's obligation to provide fair access. However, a covered bank's decision not to offer a specific kind of financial product or service or not to compete in a geographic market is unaffected.

In finalizing the rule, the agency considered more than 35,000 stakeholder comments and suggestions. As a result, the final rule excludes section 55.1(b)(3) of the proposed rule, which would have required that a covered bank not deny any person a financial service the bank offers when the effect of the denial is to prevent, limit, or otherwise disadvantage the person: (1) from entering or competing in a market or business segment; or (2) in such a way that benefits another person or business activity in which the covered bank has a financial interest. The agency determined that the requirement would have resulted in regulatory burden without contributing to the primary objective of the rule. Based on that analysis, the agency eliminated that requirement to focus the rule on the fairness of the covered banks' decisionmaking processes and prudent risk management principles, as well as to facilitate the OCC's administration of this rule. The remainder of the rule is substantially unchanged from the proposal.

The rule takes effect April 1, 2021.
 

Vlinny-kun

There are more Linux commands than there are stars
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
No fucking way! They actually did it!

I'd like to believe that my letter was the one that convinced them to pass this rule. You can all thank me if you'd like. :cunningpepe:


Edit: I guess I spoke too soon. I'll be praying that it survives, ...somehow.
 
Last edited:
Top