Importance of an Effective Contract Review

/in , , , , , /by

The Interagency Guidance of Third Party Risk Management states that an effective third-party risk management life cycle consists of planning, due diligence and third-party selection, contract negotiation, ongoing monitoring, and termination phase.

One of the most critical aspects of the third-party life cycle is the contract negotiation phase. It is essential to evaluate a vendor’s contract with other parties, including sub-contractors, which might transfer or bring additional risk to the financial institution. A vendor contract, sometimes referred to as a vendor agreement, is a legal document that outlines the terms of an exchange of goods or services for payment between the two parties.  Through this agreement both parties understand their responsibilities and obligations during the transaction.

The primary object of a vendor contract is to ensure that all parties involved are aware of what is expected in terms of deliverables, payment, and other relevant details. In the event of non-compliance, the vendor contract also specifies the consequences. Negotiating vendor contracts at the outset of any vendor partnership assists financial institutions in better managing their risks. Vendor contracts usually contain legal provisions, often in a specific order.

Strunk’s Vendor Manager Software allows you to score individual contracts based on the presence and quality of key provisions. Strunk’s vendor contract review enables financial institutions to identify gaps in their contracts and manage the vendor’s risk appropriately.

How can Strunk’s software help with your vendor management program?

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Regulators take compliance with vendor management regulations seriously due to the critical role third-party vendors play in delivering products and services. Using third-party services can increase the risk of a banking organization, but this does not mean that the organization can neglect its responsibility to perform all activities in a safe and sound manner. It is the responsibility of the organization to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection and security of customer information. What exactly are the Regulators looking for in a Vendor Management program? Regulators will look for your program to have structure, be consistent, and have accountability. Strunk’s software can be your perfect solution to achieve your objectives. Let’s take a closer look at how it can help you.

The first thing that needs to be accomplished is to have the right structure for your program. The financial institution needs to have a well-documented policy describing how your board and senior management intend to execute vendor management. Strunk’s Policy Manager Software can provide your financial institution with a structured, centralized single source of truth for your organization’s policies. You can also use Policy Manager to document all of your procedures, including links to policies, ownership responsibilities, automated change logging, and multiple file attachments. If your financial institution does not currently have a vendor management documented policy, Strunk can start you off with our recommended standard policy.

Next, the financial institution must establish a consistent framework for implementing the policy that was established. Strunk’s Vendor Manager software can streamline and standardize the entire process. The Vendor Manager software is designed to transform a complicated process into a more organized and self-documenting workflow. It helps to streamline and automate the process, making it more efficient and easier to manage.

The financial institution must be accountable for its vendor management program. Strunk’s Risk Assessor software can assist in identifying what risk your organization must consider with your Vendor Management program, while also mapping what controls and procedures are in place for that risk.

Preparing for your next Vendor Management exam is crucial for your financial institution. Strunk offers several tools that can help you in this regard. While regulators do not expect perfection, they do expect progress and performance. By utilizing Strunk’s software and expertise, you can ensure that you are up-to-date and organized for your upcoming exam. This will make exam time much easier.

Save with Strunk’s Effective Risk Management Tools

/in , , , , , , , /by

Strunk is best known for our fee income improvement programs, including Overdraft Privilege, Rewards Checking and Value Checking. Strunk is also well known for assisting community financial institutions with their risk management and compliance processes using our software.

Strunk offers five comprehensive, easy-to-use, and affordable compliance management tools:

Risk Assessor helps prepare comprehensive risk assessments consistent with regulatory or other requirements, in days, not weeks.

Policy Manager organizes all policy documents into a single database, mapped to the relevant standards and control procedures.

Controls Manager schedules tests of policy compliance and tracks test results.

Vendor Manager is a specialized tool for managing vendor risk that standardizes risk assessment methodology and organizes all vendor related documentation.

Issues Manager is a centralized database for tracking all compliance issues and incidents across your entire organization.

According to Dan Roderick, CEO, “Strunk’s Risk Manager solution brings efficiency to the process and allows our clients to focus on their highest areas of risk. The solution is comprehensive but simple to use, which is something I wish I’d had access to in my days as a banker.”

All our tools are securely and reliably hosted with Amazon AWS, making them available on a variety of devices from anywhere. Risk Manager facilitates remote work and will greatly enhance your internal control and risk management processes and save time – all for one low annual fee.

If you are paying another vendor an annual fee for any one of these tools today, invest just 30 minutes to review our solution suite. We can add valuable services – and may be able to SAVE you money as well! Check out our tools today: https://strunkaccess.com/compliance-software/

Use ODP Manager to Inform Customers about Reg E Opt-In

/in , , , , , , , /by

On consumer accounts, ATM and everyday debit card transactions cannot be included in Overdraft Privilege unless the customer has opted in. Customers can opt in for Reg E at account opening but they may also opt in later. The four options to opt in for the ATM and everyday debit card coverage are: in person at a branch, over the phone, by mail, or electronically.

The Consent Form for Overdraft Services (A-9 form) informs customers about what they need to know about overdrafts and overdraft fees. It also reiterates a customer’s options for opting in and provides them the form to submit by mail. ODP Manager allows institutions to provide an account’s Regulation E Opt-in Status in the file that is imported daily. This allows the hosted software to send different letter templates to customers who have opted in or not opted in for the ATM and everyday debit card coverage.

Strunk’s standard letter templates for the Welcome and Reinstatement letters include the A-9 form for customers who have not already opted in. The Reg E Opt-in Followup Letter template is also provided so that customers with OD limits that have not opted in receive information about ATM and everyday debit card coverage opt-in at least once a year. If a customer has already opted in, their letters highlight that they already have the ATM and everyday debit card coverage. By allowing customers the Reg E opt-in information when overdraft limits are assigned, when overdraft limits are reinstated, or annually, ODP Manager may allow customers to have more opportunities to opt in for Reg E.

ODP Manager can also allow customers to submit their Reg E Opt-in election electronically. Strunk would create an online form that mirrors an institution’s A-9 form. This form would then be linked directly from an institution’s website. Email confirmations are generated when forms are submitted. The submissions are tracked in ODP Manager so that users can generate a list of accounts that need an updated Reg E election.

If you have any questions about the Reg E Opt-in form options in hosted ODP Manager, please contact Strunk Support at support@strunkaccess.com to find out more.

Viewing and Exporting Summary Information in ODP Manager

/in , , , , , , /by

Strunk’s hosted ODP Manager software utilizes the information contained in the daily extract file to assist users in the daily tasks of generating Collection and Custom letters and reviewing customer accounts for Overdraft Privilege limit assignment or removal. The software also includes a standard suite of Management Reports that can be used daily, monthly, or quarterly to monitor and review the data important to running a successful Overdraft Privilege program.

There are two important metrics to focus on related to ODP program performance: percent of accounts with an ODP limit and percent of accounts opted in for Regulation E ATM and everyday debit card coverage. When logging in to the hosted software, these metrics show on the Dashboard. There is a comparison between the institution’s benchmark values and other Strunk clients by the 25th, 50th, and 75TH percentiles. The trend for the Percent with Limit and the Percent Opt In is also updated monthly. Both the Dashboard benchmarks and the trend information can be exported as a PDF. More detailed summaries by branch and by product can be reviewed on the Utilization Analysis and the Opt-In Impact management reports.

Some of the management reports include account-level detail: Overdraft Aging, New Accounts, ODP Status Tracking, Fresh Start Tracking, and ODP Heavy Users. When ODP Manager shows a list of accounts in reports or in Account Inquiry, users have the option of using column filters or groups to limit displayed results to specified criteria. These reports can be exported to PDF in Reports or to Excel in Reports and Account Inquiry. The option to filter allows users to leverage the data included in the extract file to monitor a smaller group of accounts – even if there is not an existing report.

In addition to searching results at the account level, ODP Manager also allows users to search events records. Import events such as accounts becoming overdrawn or in good standing, OD Limits assigned or removed, or Reg E opt ins or opt outs can be searched using filter criteria or date ranges. Filtering by event details or date ranges can also be done for user events such as letters generated, comments, or reminders.

If you have any questions about options to view and export your data in hosted ODP Manager, please contact Strunk Support at support@strunkaccess.com to find out more.

Defining Continuous Overdraft Fees

/in , , , , , , /by

What exactly are continuous overdraft fees, and how could they potentially impact your Overdraft Privilege Program? It is important to be aware that certain financial institutions apply continuous overdraft fees, also known as daily overdraft fees. These fees are charged on a periodic or daily basis for as long as the account remains overdrawn. Currently, the financial service industry is actively discussing the problem of continuous overdraft fees. This is mainly due to the numerous lawsuits filed against financial institutions regarding their predatory overdraft practices.

Regulators have found that Overdraft programs which charge a fixed or periodic fee for not resolving a previous overdrawn balance can be unfair and deceptive, according to Section 5 of the FTC Act. This is especially true when the financial institution doesn’t disclose the situations in which customers could incur these fees accurately. These practices make it harder for consumers to avoid the fees by bringing their account balance back to positive if they’re facing cash flow issues.

If a financial institution intends to charge continuous overdraft fees, it must first review the information they provide to its consumers about overdraft services. According to the CFPB’s guidance, if a financial institution’s disclosures state that overdraft fees may be charged “after” a specific number of days, the financial institution should consider whether their system guarantees that such fees will not be charged on or before the indicated day. Therefore, testing transactions is crucial to ensure that the fees charged are clear and understandable to the average consumer. Additionally, the CFPB guidance advises financial institutions to consider how they handle continuous overdraft situations that occur over weekends or holiday periods where the final day to cure an overdraft falls on a non-business day. The guidance explains that if a financial institution assesses a fee based on calendar days but only allows overdrafts to be cured on business days, it could be problematic if the financial institution’s disclosures state that consumers have a certain number of days to cure an overdraft before a fee is assessed.

What happens when financial institutions charge continuous overdraft fees? This practice has faced regulatory scrutiny and lawsuits against financial institutions. Strunk acknowledges the potential risks involved in imposing such fees, and it’s crucial for all institutions to be aware of these issues. If your financial institution is still charging a continuous overdraft fee, it may be beneficial to contact Strunk at info@strunkaccess.com for assistance with our overdraft privilege program.

How Can Strunk Assist with Vendor Management

/in , , , , , /by

When it comes to evaluating third-party risk management, financial institutions can use their own methods to determine the level of risk for each partnership. The regulators understand that not all relationships require the same level of scrutiny, and it is important to recognize vendors with high and critical risks. At Strunk, we have created a vendor risk assessment in our Vendor Manager software that provides financial institutions with a baseline risk level for each vendor. This assessment takes into account the criticality of the vendor’s product and services and the risk associated with them. By analyzing the risk associated with each third-party relationship, financial institutions can maintain consistent monitoring and remediation strategies to prevent risks from occurring.

To effectively manage vendor risk, it is crucial to assess the controls put in place by vendors. Strunk’s Vendor Manager software offers vendor surveys that capture the controls in place for their risk. This tool also helps identify any gaps in the controls, enabling financial institutions to determine the residual risk posed by the vendor to their organization.

Our software aligns with interagency guidance and provides valuable assistance to financial organizations in implementing third-party risk management. It covers planning, due diligence, contract negotiation, ongoing monitoring, and terminating the relationship. With Strunk’s Vendor Manager software, financial institutions can manage the operational, compliance, and strategic risks associated with third-party relationships. For more information on Vendor Manager visit Strunk’s site to request a demo.

Permit Customers to Make Regulation E Elections Online

/in , , , , , , , /by

ODP Manager custom letter templates include the Consent Form for Overdraft Services for customers who have not already opted in for the Reg E ATM and everyday debit card coverage. These letter templates simplify the process for customers who choose to opt in by mail, but ODP Manager can also allow your customers to opt in for Regulation E electronically.

The hosted software can be set up to include a Reg E opt in form and Reg E opt out form that matches the content in your ODP Manager letter templates. The links are then added to the institution website to direct customers to the Reg E opt in and opt out forms. Email confirmations are generated when customers visit the website and complete the form to opt in or opt out of the ATM / everyday debit card coverage. The request is tracked in ODP Manager and can be emailed to a specified email address at your financial institution.

Once a customer request has been made, ODP Manager users perform the following steps: 1.) Review the new responses in ODP Manager, 2.) Export the list of accounts that need an update to the account’s Reg E election, and 3.) Perform the appropriate maintenance in the core system – the user will update the account record in the core to opt in or opt out the account as requested by the customer. The ODP Manager software displays by default any new responses that have not been reviewed and downloaded. Requests that have already been processed are also retained within ODP Manager to allow review of prior responses.

If you would like to implement the electronic consent to opt in for Overdraft Privilege coverage for ATM and everyday debit card transactions in ODP Manager, please contact Strunk Support at support@strunkaccess.com with any questions or to find out more.

How Does a Formal Overdraft Program Benefit Consumers

/in , , , , , , , /by

Formal overdraft programs are prevalent in community banks and consumers have benefited from them for over 30 years. Many articles have been written about the pitfalls and risks that consumers face from overdrafts and some of them are true. In reality, providing a consistent methodology to paying items that create an overdraft benefit both banks and their customers.

Consumers create overdrafts…banks do not. Banks are faced with decisions each morning to either pay a customer’s non-sufficient fund item or return it to the merchant. They also have to decide whether or not to charge a fee or waive the fee. Thirty years ago when formal overdraft programs started, the NSF or Overdraft fee was $15-$20 nationwide. The idea was to charge a fee to deter consumers from writing a check that would overdraw their account. This was a time when debit cards were not used much and checks and ACH items dominated the payments system.

Beginning in 2010, debit card transactions that would overdraw an account could not be authorized at point of sale unless the consumer “opted in” for this service. This was a great idea that came from the Federal Reserve. So, how do formal overdraft programs benefit consumers?

• Allows consumers to decide how they want their bank account handled when it comes to overdrafts
• Reduces returned check charges from merchants
• Allows consumers to take home the groceries or prescription drugs when otherwise their debit card transaction would be denied
• Keeps a bank from discriminating on daily pay and don’t pay decisions
• Keeps a bank for discriminating on waives and refunds

Contact Strunk at 800.728.3116 or email at info@strunkaccess.com to learn more about setting up a formal overdraft process at your bank.

Strunk Overdraft Program Bulletin

/in , , , , , , /by

On April 23, 2023, the OCC issued guidance on debit card transactions that are authorized positive, settled negative (APSN) and on re-presented NSF items. On the same date, the FDIC also issued guidance on APSN. Previously, on August 18, 2022, the FDIC had issued guidance on re-presented NSF items. The OCC and FDIC indicate that institutions following either of these practices risk violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices and Section 1036 of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 which prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The purpose of this bulletin is to summarize that guidance.

OCC Guidance

In terms of guidance related to APSN, the OCC has found that misleading disclosures contribute to findings that the APSN practice was unfair for purposes of Section 5. However, even when disclosures describe the circumstances under which consumers may incur overdraft fees, the OCC has found that overdraft fees charged for APSN transactions are unfair for purposes of Section 5 because consumers are still unlikely to be able to reasonably avoid injury.

With respect to re-presentment of NSF items, the OCC has found that disclosures may be deceptive, for purposes of Section 5, if they do not clearly explain that multiple or additional fees may result from multiple presentments of the same transaction. And again, even when disclosures explain that a single check or ACH transaction may result in more than one fee, a bank’s practice of assessing fees on each re-presentment may also be deemed to be unfair, for purposes of Section 5, if consumers cannot reasonably avoid the harm and the other factors for establishing unfairness under Section 5 are met (there is a representation, omission, act, or practice that is likely to mislead, the act would be deceptive from the perspective of a reasonable consumer, and the representation, omission, act, or practice is material). Their finding is that consumers typically have no control over when a returned ACH transaction or check will be presented again and lack knowledge of whether an intervening deposit will be sufficient to cover the transaction and related fees.

FDIC Guidance

The FDIC guidance is essentially the same as the OCC guidance, they just issued their guidance on re-presented items separately last August. In the April 23rd guidance on APSN the FDIC indicated that failure to take steps to avoid assessing overdraft related fees when transactions are authorized on positive balances but settle on negative balances results in ‘heightened risks” of violations of Section 1036 of the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. An act or practice is unfair when it (1) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, (2) cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers, and (3) is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

In their August 18, 2022, guidance they said violations of law occur when financial institutions charge multiple NSF fees for the re-presentment of unpaid transactions if disclosures do not fully or clearly describe the financial institution’s re-presentment practice, including not explaining that the same unpaid transaction might result in multiple NSF fees if an item was presented more than once. Practices involving the charging of multiple NSF fees arising from the same unpaid transaction results in heightened risks of violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP). Therefore, if a financial institution assesses multiple NSF fees arising from the same transaction, but disclosures do not adequately advise customers of this practice, the misrepresentation and omission of this information from the institution’s disclosures is material and therefore deceptive. Also, a risk of unfairness may be present if multiple NSF fees are assessed for the same transaction in a short period of time without sufficient notice or opportunity for customers to bring their account to a positive balance to avoid the assessment of additional NSF fees. As a result, while revising disclosures may address the risk of deception, doing so may not fully address the unfairness risk.

In addition to the regulatory compliance risk, the FDIC also found that multiple NSF fee practices may result in heightened litigation risk. Numerous financial institutions, including some FDIC supervised institutions, have faced class action lawsuits alleging breach of contract and other claims because of the failure to adequately disclose re-presentment NSF fee practices.

If you would like more information on Strunk’s program, please contact us at info@strunkaccess.com or call 800-728-3116.

An independent certified public accountant has examined Strunk’s operations and found them to be in compliance with the AICPA’s Trust Service Principles. It was determined that Strunk meets the Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy criteria for SOC 2 established by the AICPA.