The Sub S Bank Report – March 2015 (Volume 18, Issue 1)

Background

In 2008, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which manages the registration of internet domain names, approved a program to open up the Internet to thousands of additional top level domains in addition to existing generic domains such as .com, .gov, .edu, .net, and .org, to name a few. Due to cyber security concerns and the overcrowded internet arena, the American Banking Association joined forces with Financial Services Roundtable and other industry members in 2011 to form fTLD Registry Services, LLC (“FRS”) and apply for the authority to operate and govern the .bank and .insurance domain names. On September 25, 2014, ICANN granted the application of FRS to operate .bank along with .insurance. The .bank domain name will only be available for registration to verified members of the banking community. This process will include charter verification through each applicant’s state or national regulatory agency on a first come, first serve basis. The .bank domain combined with verification and other security requirements put in place by FRS will provide a new marketing and branding tool for financial institutions with enhanced security controls that current, generic domain names cannot provide.

Increased Security

The primary benefit of having a .bank domain name is the added security measures that are not included in other generic top level domains (gTLDs) such as .com or .net. With the new domain name several increased security measures have been implemented:

• The use of the .bank domain by verified banksand other financial institutions should reduce spoofing and other malicious email or internet-based scams that prey on bank customers. Because each bank applying for the domain will be verified and authenticated as a bank or financial institution, bank customers will be able to quickly distinguish authentic emails from their financial institution from potentially malicious attempts to obtain personal identifying information (“PII”) or banking information.
• Unlike existing gTLDs, the .bank domain will include an increased level of encryption (NIST Level 3 Encryption), which should decrease the risk of criminals redirecting customers to nonbanking websites, or stealing their PII or banking information. 
• Lastly, the .bank domain will have increased abuse monitoring and compliance enforcement to help ensure that only verified financial institutions will be able to use the domain. An individual from each financial institution must be established as the point of contact to help verify their business status as a member of the banking community and to ensure compliance with the new domain requirements.

Registrants who apply for the .bank domain will also be asked to agree to terms and conditions under the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) and will be responsible for the usage of its domain at all times.

.Bank Availability & Timeline

The .bank domain is estimated to be available to the general public on June 24, 2015. Domains will be assigned on a first come, first serve basis. The multiplicity of banks
across the country that share identical or similar names is likely to create a race to register once this open registration period begins. In addition to this general availability date there are two potential dates during which certain parties may complete earl y registration. Banks that own a federally registered trademark on their name can take advantage of a 30-day “Sunrise Period” beginning on approximately May 18, 2015. During this Sunrise Period, a bank may record their trademarks via ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse and register for their respective .bank domain name early. The cost of registration is $150 per trademark, per year for most banks and will allow banks to obtain .bank domain names only if such names are identical to the trademark owned. Should a bank wish to register a name that deviates from their registered trademark, it must wait until the later general availability period. Immediately after the Sunrise Period, there will also be a brief period during which the founding members of FRS will have early access to register domains (approximately June 17th – June 23rd). All other verified members of the global banking community may register domains beginning on approximately June 24, 2015.

Banks desiring to register domains will do so through various registrars that have been approved by and contract with FRS. The growing list of approved registrars is currently available on the FRS website at https://www.ftld.com/approved-registrars/. These registrars, however, cannot process requests for domain names until the opening of the registration periods set forth above. The cost of a .bank domain registration will vary based on the registrar providing the service. Each registrar determines its own pricing and is responsible for paying a set fee to FRS.

It is anticipated that the .bank domain registration fees will be higher than gTLD domain names to fund the enhanced security measures associated with the .bank domain.

Timeline Summary:

• Sunrise Period ( registered trademark owners): Estimated May 18 – June 16
• Founders (founding members of FRS): Estimated June 17 – June 23
• General Availability (eligible members of banking community): Estimated June 24 – Ongoing

Recommendations

Over the next few months, we recommend that banks desiring to register a .bank domain develop a strategy for registration that best suits each institution’s eligibility and needs. For example, banks should review their federal trademark portfolios to determine eligibility to register a domain early during the Sunrise Period. Note that early registration requires the domain to match the trademark exactly (e.g. a trademark for “ABC BANK” can only be registered as ABCBANK.bank during the Sunrise Period). Due to the proximity of the general availability date, it is unlikely that a new trademark registration can be completed in such a short time.

Banks that have common names should establish several potential options for domain name registration in case the first, second, or third option is already taken. Additionally, community banks that are specific to a geographic region or have a specific customer profile may wish to register a domain geared towards that customer or geographic region. Such a strategy can provide additional visibility for the bank in addition to a traditional domain associated with the bank’s name.

Finally, banks that have not registered names or marks for federal trademark protection should consider doing so. The trademark registration process is relatively simple two-step process. First, a search of the trademark database is conducted for similar marks to ensure the likelihood that an application will be approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Provided no registrations exist that may create a likelihood of confusion with applicant’s mark, a short application describing the mark, owner, and a description of services covered is submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Once submitted, an application will be assigned to an examining attorney within three months and a review of the application should be completed with 6-12 months of initial submission of the application.

Patrick J. Kennedy III is an associate at Kennedy Sutherland LLP. His practice focuses on tax, succession planning and general corporate law. He handles Federal trade names registration for the firm and maintains an office in Los Angeles, California. He can be reached at 210-585-2187 or pjkennedy3@kslawllp.com.

The legislative effort to increase the Subchapter S bank shareholder limit from 100 to 500 and to authorize the issuance of preferred stock continued during the opening
months of the 114th Congress. The Association held Meetings with Congressional staff from the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Financial Services Committee and positive support was registered by all. Particularly enthusiastic support came from the office of Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer, who has become a champion of Subchapter S and community banks. (see related article on Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement Change Mandate).

Representative Luetkemeyer and his capable staff have led the effort to focus the bank regulatory agencies on the inequity Subchapter S banks face regarding limitations on shareholder dividends necessary to satisfy their passthrough tax liability. Thus far, Representative Luetkemeyer has garnered support from over 35 colleagues, urging them to send letters to the bank regulatory agencies to focus their attention on this issue and urge recognition that Subchapter S banks warrant different treatment regarding dividend payment restrictions.

In February, the Association held meetings with senior counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee regarding our legislative proposal, coincident with the timing of the Committee Members’ planning retreat. The staff made it clear that Chairman Paul Ryan and the Committee were still formulating their plans for the 114th Congress but were determined to make significant strides on these issues. Staff suggested that it would be some months before the Committee legislative agenda would be formulated. As such, we believe we have some time to continue to develop and generate support for our proposals. Several technical tax issues were discussed and additional meetings with the Committee staff are planned in the near future.

On the Senate side, discussions were also held during the first quarter with members and staff of the Senate Finance Committee regarding the Subchapter S Capital
Access Initiative. The Committee has been divided into specific “task forces” to allow members to concentrate on particular issues. Staff suggested that the task force work should be concluded by May 2015 with legislative agendas formulated and decided upon at that point. Further discussions were held with Senator Cornyn and his staff, who have submitted a request for scoring to the Joint Committee on Taxation for the Capital Access Initiative.

We continue to reach out to Subchapter S bankers to educate them on the legislative efforts and seek their financial and political assistance. We continue to receive a lot of
positive support and encouragement from the industry and have added another issue to the legislative initiative that was raised by a number of Subchapter S bankers. 

Several Subchapter S banks that successfully used the Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF) initiative in 2011 have suggested that Congress reauthorize the program for community banks. The SBLF program was established by the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and is a dedicated fund that provides capital to qualified community banks to encourage small business lending. To date, Treasury has invested just over $4 billion of the $30 billion authorized in 332 banks and financial institutions, including 281 community banks. The SBLF funds were distributed in exchange for preferred stock or dividend or interestbearing instruments. These banks consistently cite it as a significant positive influence on their institutions’ ability to generate small business loans and increase overall profitability. The Treasury Department periodically reports on the status of the program and in the most recent SBLF cost report issued January 30, 2015, Treasury estimated that the SBLF would return a positive $25 million to the Treasury. Yes, Treasury is reporting that this government program actually generated net income.

The estimated net income to the Treasury does not of course capture or report the millions in net income that the banks who participated in the program generated,
nor does it capture the significant economic benefit of the increase in small business lending. A report issued on January 20, 2015 estimates that the SBLF program has been “highly significant,” and as of September 2013 has led to an average 31.2% increase in business lending among participating institutions. (Small Business Lending Fund Program Impact Evaluation, January 2015). 

Discussions are underway among members of the Capital Access Task Force regarding the possible inclusion of a plan to reauthorize SBLF or a similar program for community banks, and in particular for Subchapter S banks that were not able to utilize the program as originally structured by Treasury due to the single class of stock restriction on Subchapter S banks. Subchapter S banks will recall that the Association worked for over six months with Treasury educating staff about Subchapter S banks’ unique position in the industry and structuring a plan using a special class of subordinated debt for Subchapter S Banks to participate in SBLF. Unfortunately, by the time the “sub S fix” was finalized and announced, the program participation deadline was near and few Subchapter S banks were able to participate.

A related article appears in this issue regarding the SBLF and one banker’s success in utilizing it.

If you desire to participate in the Capital Access Task Force and contribute to these legislative efforts please contact: Patrick Kennedy at pkennedy@ kslawllp.com or 210-228-4431 or Amy Trevino at atrevino@kslawllp.com or 210-551-0094.

Heritage Bancshares Group Inc. is a bank holding company with one subsidiary, Heritage Bank N.A., a $400 million national bank serving communities from West
Central Minnesota to Northwestern Iowa. Our market is made up of small rural communities. The economic vitality of our region depends on agricultural production and processing, relatively small scale manufacturing and the service sector supporting those local businesses.

Heritage received $11 million through the SBLF program in 2011. Placing that investment in the bank as Tier I capital, effectively increased our lending capacity by $110 million. Our ability to find good quality loan demand became the only limiting factor on loan growth, rather than the bank’s capital ratios. Our participation in SBLF gained some positive attention from local media and gave our loan officers a compelling story to tell about our commitment to increase small business lending. We leveraged SBLF’s investment to provide better interestrates to clients and incentive compensation to the lenders who helped put the funds to work in our communities.

In 3 ½ years, with the SBLF program, our qualified small business loan portfolio has grown 60%, from $124.0 million to $198.9 million. This quality growth has been a tremendous boost for the bank, our clients and our communities. To a large extent, the additional loan activity has been re-investment in existing businesses. Examples include, a cyclical business being able to afford a little more debt to weather a downturn; a producer updating equipment for improved efficiency; and a firm acquiring a struggling competitor to form a healthier consolidated operation. The SBLF program has clearly contributed to our success, helping to create and preserve jobs to support our overall communities. Our experience is consistent with other institutions participating in SBLF. According to Treasury, as of June 30, 2014, SBLF participants had in total increased small business lending by $13.5 billion. See Treasury’s SBLF Cost Report (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sb-programs/DocumentsSBLFTransactions/FY2014%20Midyear%20SBLF%20Cost%20Report.pdf ).

In that same report, Treasury estimates that the investments made through the SBLF program will generate a lifetime positive return of $25 million for the Treasury General
Fund. This is truly a win-win proposition, providing both positive outcomes for local economies across the nation and a positive return on the federal government’s investment.

We believe the SBLF is a very successful program and that a reintroduction of SBLF would help to address many of the issues and challenges that community bankers are facing in today’s environment. The American Bankers Association’s Agenda for America’s Hometown Banks (http://www.aba.com/Issues/Index/Documents/2015GRPriorities.pdf) does a good job of outlining the issues, including relief from overly complex capital requirements and addressing the arbitrary disadvantages to S-corp banks resulting from the Basel III and other capital rules. These are good proposals that will help community banks, but I fear they will fall short of creating a level playing field for community banks.

Community Banking declined since the Dodd Frank Act, as is well illustrated in a recent Harvard Kennedy School study (The State and Fate of Community Banking, by Lux
and Greene http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/publications/awp/awp37). The market advantage of ‘too big to fail’ institutions continues to threaten our banking
system. The situation causes particular concern for the vitality of our rural communities the large banks do not serve.

Regulatory burden is a part of the problem, as the Harvard authors suggest, but we believe that access to capital is the major impediment for smaller community banks to
stay competitive and grow. This is borne out by the fact that banks participating in SBLF bucked the trend and have not experienced the market share decline that our peers have suffered. See the Treasury Department Report on SBLF Participants’ Small Business Lending Growth (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sb-programs/Documents/LGR%20January%202015%20FINAL.pdf).

Reintroduction of the SBLF program would help level the playing field by providing a capital injection into community banks. For smaller bank holding companies
that have elected Subchapter S tax treatment, like Heritage, the capital injection came in the form of a subordinated note at the holding company level and the funds were
down streamed to the bank as Tier 1 equity. SBLF created a powerful tool to help address the marketplace disparity between large and small institutions.

SBLF is also superior to other government loan programs in an important way. Heritage Bank has participated in a wide variety of lending programs, such as SBA’s 7(a) and 504 loans, USDA’s B&I loans, and a variety of state and local government grants and loan guarantee programs. There are many great programs, serving different needs and providing incentives for investment in specific areas that benefit our communities and society. We endorse and encourage continued support of those programs. However, where most other programs provide incentive by shifting credit risk away from the financial institution, with SBLF, credit risk remains at the institution that originated the loan. This is a significant difference as it influences the behavior of lenders. SBLF gave us an incentive to make more high quality small business loans rather than an incentive to make riskier loans.

From conversations I have had on this topic, it appears the biggest obstacle to reintroducing SBLF is the banking community’s misunderstanding of the program. When SBLF was originally introduced, many bankers were skeptical of the concept of government investment in their institution, especially after the negative public image created for banks that participated in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). To this day, some in the banking community correlate SBLF to TARP. While it is true that several institutions used the SBLF to repay TARP debt, focusing on that correlation demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the program works. A post on the U.S. Treasury’s website (Fact Check: WSJ and the Small Business Lending Fund http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Fact-Check-WSJ-andthe-SmallBusiness-Lending-Fund.aspx) goes into some depth explaining that point.

Many bankers didn’t have enough time to understand the program, much less consider participation. For S-Corporations like Heritage, the SBLF terms sheet was published on May 9, 2011. We had just over four months to complete the entire process from application to closing, to comply with the September 2011 deadline mandated by Congress. It took a concerted effort for the management team at Heritage and our attorneys to complete the process that quickly. It is no surprise that so many others overlooked the opportunity. Given more time and a clearer understanding of the program, I believeparticipation would have been much greater.

I strongly encourage the banking community to support the reintroduction of SBLF as part of our industry’s legislative agenda.

Tom Geiger is the Chairman & CEO of Heritage Bank, NA. He can be reached at 320.214.5547 or tgeiger@heritagebankna.com.

Editors Note: to Tom Geiger’s article

Treasury originally structured the program with only C Corporation banks in mind by authorizing the issuance of a special preferred stock, which, by law, counted as Tier 1 capital. Due to the single class of stock restriction, S Corporation banks were only permitted to issue subordinated notes, which would only qualify as Tier 2 capital. If, however, the issuing bank holding company was subject to the Federal Reserve’s Small Bank Holding Company Policy, 12 CFR 225, Appendix C, the holding company could issue the subordinated note and downstream the funds as Tier 1 capital to its bank subsidiary. Once the holding company exceeded the total asset size under which it qualified as a small bank holding company and was covered by the Policy Statement (previously $500 million, now $1 billion), the organization would have to consolidate the subordinated debt at the holding company level. This consolidation forced a recharacterization of the subordinated debt from Tier 1 to Tier 2 capital. Mr. Geiger’s excellent article and description of Heritage Bank’s successful use of the program is enlightening and argues strongly its reauthorization. Ninety percent of all Subchapter S Banks are under $1 billion in total assets and would be able to count this capital as Tier 1 under the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement.

Now is the time for Subchapter S banks to move forward with ensuring secure credit card transactions. There have been many security breaches in recent months that can be corrected quickly by taking initiative. The old credit card standard just doesn’t work anymore. It is time to move to the Europay, MasterCard and Visa (“EMV”) process for both the security of your customers’ accounts, as well as the reputation of businesses, including banks, all throughout the world.

Banks have a major role in the move towards having more secure credit card transactions It is essential to understand the change in landscape of the liability and where merchants should be held liable. One of the most important things that a bank can do is to encourage their merchants to update to the EMV standard. In addition, merchants also need to be advised on how to strengthen their security platform. It’s time that merchants understand the need for this change. They must begin implementing the changes immediately, as every day there are more stories about hackers gaining access to consumer information and accounts by taking advantage of weaknesses in the old payment card process.

Why the need for this urgent change? It’s simple, consumers and businesses are under attack by professional retail hackers, and no one is safe. Some of the more
recent hacks have included Target, Staples, Dairy Queen, Jimmy Johns, Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, Michaels and Anthem. Some merchants are already a step ahead of others. In fact, Home Depot announced in a recent press release that the company has implemented the EMV chip and pin technology. New credit cards that are currently being issued with EMV technology will still have the black strip on the back, but will also have a chip. Merchants will need to purchase new card readers to utilize the EMV chip, but that is a small price to pay compared to the cost of continuing security breaches and lost funds.

It is vital to start urging merchants to move as quickly as possible to this new card reader because by October 1, 2015, liability for fraudulent credit card transactions will fall either on the card issuer or the merchant. Hackers become more sophisticated with each passing year. With the traditional credit card with the black stripe, hackers are able to directly copy the unsecure data held in the stripe in order to steal the card. Theft of this unsecured data leads to identity theft, wiped out bank accounts, and maxed out credit cards, just to name a few.

EMV is the standard in Europe, and it is time to make it the standard in the United States. Businesses everywhere need to be prepared for EMV credit and debit cards. Cards that are simply swiped and signed will soon be a thing of the past with the help of the banking industry. With EMV, the new cards will have a secure chip and PIN to enable transactions. This technology will wipe out the ability of hackers to do large scale payment card theft like they have been doing. 

Several lawsuits were filed by numerous banks in the midst of the recent Target hacks. This was one of the largest retail security breaches to date. After the initial investigation, it became apparent that Target ignored security alerts that would have allowed them to stop the attack earlier. Judgments in these cases have ruled that Target should be held financially responsible for the massive breach. Bankers should urge merchants to begin using the EMV standard in order to help protect not only consumers, but their financial institutions. Of course, there will always be hackers looking for a way to find secure data, but this much needed technology will help greatly to offset their efforts. Now is the time to take a stand and protect consumers’ financial information.

Christopher Gerritz is the chief executive officer of Infocyte. Infocyte is a San Antonio-based developer of cyber security solutions designed to identify threats and unauthorized activity on enterprise networks. They have invented the only interactive security platform designed to rapidly scan networks for evidence of intrusion without the burden of complicated equipment or endpoint software installations. Infocyte fills a void left by today’s malware protection systems by focusing detection on post-intrusion activity of attackers and insider threats. Using their unique approach, Infocyte helps organizations take the initiative in defense of their networks and critical information. He canbe reached at: cgerritz@infocyte.com or (210) 901-9635.

In the waning hours of the 113th Congress, a determined Missouri Congressman from a small, rural community with roots in community banking successfully introduced
and passed legislation mandating that the Federal Reserve amend its Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement to increase the applicable bank holding company asset size from $500 million to $1 billion. This is a significant accomplishment particularly in the midst of ongoing congressional gridlock and the incredibly difficult timing
as Congress came to a close.

It nevertheless goes to show that progress for community banks can be achieved with focus, creativity and tenacity. That is what Congressman Blain Luetkemeyer and his staff displayed in achieving an important victory for small, community banks and their bank holding companies. 

The mandate recently enacted by H.R. 3329 (which became P.L. No. 113-250) was an effort to expand and update the original purpose of the Federal Reserve’s Small Bank Holding Company Policy, 12 CFR 225 Appendix C. Bankers and their professional advisors had urged for many years that growing community banks lacked sufficient access to capital and other tools to facilitate their growth, finance acquisitions, and accomplish other stock transfers. For those unfamiliar with the Policy Statement, it permits bank holding companies with $500 million or less in assets avoid having to be judged for regulatory capital purposes on a consolidated basis, that is, including holding company debt. Under the updated Policy Statement, a bank holding company with $1 billion or less in total assets can use holding company leverage to provide bank capital and the adequacy of the organization’s capital is judged for regulatory purposes only at the bank subsidiary level.

This is a significant benefit for bank finance and permits organizations to continue to grow using debt without having to issue potentially dilutive equity or curtail growth due to capital access limitations. It also permits bank holding companies to use debt to finance up to 75% of the purchase price of an acquisition. There are certain specific requirements set forth in the Policy Statement regarding the amount of initial acquisition indebtedness and certain ratios an organization must meet to qualify for this 3:1 debt-to-equity ratio including (i) parent company debt should be retired within 25 years of being incurred, (ii) debt-to-equity ratio must be reduced to 30:1 or less within 12 years of incurring the debt; (iii) each subsidiary institution must be well-capitalized, and (iv) the organization must not pay dividends until the debt-to-equity ratio is reduced to 1.0:1 or less. Bank holding companies are also not allowed to use expedited application procedures or obtain a waiver of stock redemption filing requirements unless the bank holding company pro forma debt-to-equity ratio is 1.0:1 or less.

In response to the legislative mandate, on January 29, 2015, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve issued a proposed rulemaking to increase the applicability
of the Policy to banks with $1 billion or less in total assets. A copy of that rulemaking can be located at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20150129b1.pdf. The comment period for the proposed rules ended March 4, 2015 and the final rules
will likely be made effective later this year.

Congressman Luetkemeyer’s achievement is an important one for many community bankers that were approaching the $500 million total asset mark and many Subchapter S banks, in particular. Ninety percent of all subchapter S banks have total assets below $1 billion and the change should be particularly welcome to those growth and acquisition-minded banks.

Patrick J. Kennedy, Jr. is founder of the Subchapter S Bank Association and Kennedy Sutherland LLP which provides comprehensive legal services to banks, bank holding companies, and directors, officers and shareholders. He can be reached at pkennedy@kslawllp.com or 210-228-4431.

Sub S Banks Announcements

• BankSouth announces the addition of Darren Cantlay as Chief Financial Officer of the BankSouth Enterprise. In this position, Mr. Cantlay will primarily be responsible for sustaining “Best in Class” financial performance within a culture of Excellence through strategic planning, budgeting, and implementation of financial related software and automation. Cantlay brings over 20 years of experience in the financial industry serving in roles ranging from staff accountant at a CPA firm to CFO of a Thrift holding company consisting of 28 subsidiaries.
• Congratulations to Intracoastal Bank on it’s new Volusia branch.
• Check out “Original Kickstarters: 5 Reasons Local Banks are #1 Crowdfunders” http://tinyurl.com/omcz4fn by Jill Castilla of Citizens Bank of Edmond

To further foster community among Sub S banks we would like to solicit news and updates from members to be included in future issues. If you have an annoucement, question, or article you would like to share please email atrevino@kslawllp.com for consideration.

SAVE THE DATE

• We’re coming to you: Join the Subchapter S Bank Association at the Bank Holding Company Association Spring Seminar in Minneapolis on May 4th, 2015 at the Marriott Minneapolis Airport Hotel, across from the Mall of America. For more information visit: http://thebhca.org/Spring-Seminar-Agenda.
• 18th Annual Conference Dates Set – Join the Subchapter S Bank Association at the newly renovated St. Anthony Hotel in downtown San Antonio, Texas on October 27-29, 2015. This year will feature a new Conference layout with our first ever CEO roundtable and industry break out sessions.

LEGISLATIVE WATCH
-H.R. 1233, the CLEAR Relief Act of 2015. The Act includes provisions exempting in-portfolio mortgage loans from CFPB mortgage rules and an allowance for highly rated and well-capitalized banks to file short-form call reports in the first and third quarters, among others.
-H.R. 1259, creates a process in which individuals could petition the CFPB to reassess the rural status of counties. Even with the CFPB’s recent changes in the rural definition, a number of banks in rural areas are still not included.
-H.R. 1266, would replace the single-director governance of the CFPB with a five-member commission.
-H.R. 88, would require U.S. banks with over $500 billion in assets to calculate and accumulate capital equal to the amount of the market subsidy they receive from taxpayers.
-S. 423, bipartisan legislation that would streamline financial privacy notifications that banks provide consumers.