BILL ANALYSIS AB 33 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 13, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCE Pedro Nava, Chair AB 33 (Nava) - As Amended: March 24, 2009 SUBJECT : Department of Financial Services. SUMMARY : Creates the California Department of Financial Services (DFS). Specifically, this bill : 1)Abolishes the Department of Corporations (DOC), Department of Real Estate (DRE), Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) and Office of Real Estate Appraisers (OREA). 2)Transfers the powers, duties, purposes, jurisdiction, responsibilities, and functions of the Commissioners of DOC, DRE, DFI and OREA (agencies) to the Commissioner of DFS. 3)Provides that DFS secedes to all rights and property of the agencies, and is subject to their debts and liabilities. 4)States that any action or proceeding by or against the agencies which may be prosecuted to judgment, shall bind DFS and may be proceeded against or substituted in place of the agencies. 5)Specifies that the following funds and accounts shall be under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of DFS: a) The Real Estate Fund; b) The Education and Research Account, of the Real Estate Fund; c) The Recovery Account, of the Real Estate Fund created; d) The Real Estate Appraisers Regulation Fund; e) The Administration Account, of the Real Estate Appraisers Regulation Fund; f) The Recovery Account, of the Real Estate Appraisers Regulation Fund; AB 33 Page 2 g) The Financial Institutions Fund; h) The Credit Union Fund; i) The Guaranty Corporation Fund; j) The State Corporations Fund; and, aa) Any other fund or account subject to the jurisdiction of the former agencies. 6)Specifies that any references in the Constitution or any statute or regulation to the agencies or commissioner's of those agencies shall mean the commissioner of DFS or DFS. 7)Provides that any orders entered into with, and orders and regulations issued by the agencies shall continue in effect as if the agreements were entered into with, and the orders and regulations were issued by DFS. 8)Makes other conforming changes necessary to create DFS. 9)Makes the following Legislative findings and declarations: a) The regulation and oversight of financial services in California are divided among three four regulators, the DFI, DRE, OREA, and the DOC; b) California is one of only a few states that separates the regulation of financial services among different licensing agencies; c) This division of oversight is most apparent in the regulation of home mortgage lending that is split among several licensing schemes, including the California Finance Lenders Law, the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act, the Real Estate Law, and laws governing the operation of state and federally chartered banks or credit unions; d) This partition of regulation dilutes consumer protection and creates confusion and unnecessary administrative difficulties for financial services entities; and, e) The current regulatory system creates licensing arbitrage, with entities seeking out licenses from various AB 33 Page 3 regulators in order to obtain an advantage. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides for the regulation of the following licensees by DOC: a) Broker-dealers and the agents or registered representatives of broker-dealers'; b) Investment advisers and investment adviser representatives or associated persons; c) Capital access companies; d) The Franchise Investment Law; e) Check sellers, bill payers, and proraters; f) Escrow agents; g) The Finance Lenders Law; h) Deferred deposit originators; i) Securities depositories; j) Business and industrial development corporations; and, aa) The California Residential Mortgage Lending Act. 2)Provides for the regulation of the following by DFI: a) Banks and trust companies; b) Foreign Banks; c) Money transmitters; d) Issuers of travelers checks; e) Bank holding companies; f) Credit unions; g) Industrial loan companies; and, AB 33 Page 4 h) Sellers of payment instruments. 3) Empowers DRE to enforce and regulate the following: a) Real estate agents and mortgage brokers; b) Prepaid Rental Listing Services c) The Subdivided Lands Law; and, d) The Vacation Ownership and Time-Share Act of 2004. 4)Provides OREA with the authority to regulate the Real Estate Appraisers' Licensing and Certification Law; FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : Background : The difficulties and crisis associated with the subprime meltdown have highlighted to varying degrees the issues of regulation and enforcement of financial entities. California is the one of the largest and most diversified economies in the world with a gross state product (GSP) of over $1.8 trillion in 2007. For comparison, global gross domestic product (GDP) was $53.3 trillion, with the U.S. ($13.8 trillion) having the highest GDP of any individual nation, followed by Japan ($4.3), Germany ($3.3 trillion), China ($3.2 trillion), United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion), France ($2.5 trillion), Italy ($2.1 trillion), Spain ($1.4 trillion), Canada ($1.4 trillion), and Brazil ($1.3 trillion). Based on these figures from the International Monetary Fund, if California were an independent nation it would rank as the eighth largest economy in the world. As the largest state in the US, California is home to 12.1% of the nation's population and 11.6% of all jobs. In spite of these numbers, and California's rank among nations, the state regulates financial services entities across four regulatory agencies. At a time when even the Federal regulators are considering major regulatory reforms of the financial services industry, California must take the lead in establishing common sense regulations that are good for consumers and good AB 33 Page 5 for licensees. The United State Department of Treasury has also started a review process to examine the myriad of regulatory bodies in a report issued March 2008, The Department of the Treasury Blueprint for Modernized Financial Regulator Structure. This report was primarily concerned with the regulatory framework of federal agencies, however the following passage from that report could just as well describe California's environment: ?the inability of any regulator to take coordinated action throughout the financial system makes it more difficult to address problems related to financial market stability. Second, in the face of increasing convergence of financial services providers and their products, jurisdictional disputes arise between and among the functional regulators, often hindering the introduction of new products, slowing innovation, and compelling migration of financial services and products to more adaptive foreign markets. Finally, a functional system also results in duplication of certain common activities across regulators. While some degree of specialization might be important for the regulation of financial institutions, many aspects of financial regulation and consumer protection regulation have common themes. For example, although key measures of financial health have different terminology in banking and insurance-capital and surplus respectively-they both serve a similar function of ensuring the financial strength and ability of financial institutions to meet their obligations. Similarly, while there are specific differences across institutions, the goal of most consumer protection regulation is to ensure consumers receive adequate information regarding the terms of financial transactions and industry complies with appropriate sales practices AB 33 Page 6 The intent of this bill is to create a one-stop-shop regulator for financial service entities in California. In creating the DFS, the intention is to ensure that the expertise that currently exists at the current agencies is retained by the new agency. It is not the intent of this bill to expand or limit the activities that licensees can carry out under their existing licensing laws. Further, attention has been given to the special funding nature of the agencies and their migration into DFS. The agencies are currently funded through licensing fees and/or special assessments charged to the entities they regulate. These fees are placed in specific funds utilized for the enforcement of that particular licensing law. For example, state chartered banks pay assessments that go into a fund that is used solely for the administration of the banking law, and to ensure the safety and soundness of those institutions. Similarly, residential mortgage lenders under DOC, pay fees and assessments that are used to administer their licensing program. This arrangement would continue to take place under DFS, with each licensee paying into the fund that is used solely for their specific regulation and licensing. This is not a case where banks or credit unions would be paying for the regulation of residential mortgage lenders, or vice versa. The essential example of the unnecessary split of regulation is mortgage lending activity. Currently, state chartered banks and credits unions, regulated by DFI, offer residential mortgage loans. Residential mortgage lenders and finance lenders, regulated by DOC, also engage in mortgage lending. DRE licensed real estate brokers also broker mortgage loans, which may even be funded by the banks, credit unions, residential mortgage lenders or finance lenders. Couple this with overlapping federal regulations and jurisdictions and one arrives at the conclusion that systems to deliver and regulate mortgage loans is inherently baffling and convoluted. The idea of combining regulatory agencies has occurred before. In 2005, the Governors California Performance Review published several reports and documents recommending structural changes to California's agencies, boards and commissions. In particular, the report Form Follows Function: A Framework to Improve the Performance and Productivity of California State Government recommended that DOC and DFI would fall under an Undersecretary of Financial Services Division of a proposed Commerce and Consumer Protection Department. DRE and OREA were also included under this department, but would have remained a distinct entity AB 33 Page 7 separate from the Financial Services Division. DOC: Since 2001, the DOC has compelled finance lenders and mortgage bankers to make over $62.5 Million in refunds to consumers. DOC has authority over finance lenders and brokers who, in 2007, made or assisted in the making of about $202.4 billion in consumer and commercial finance loans. DOC also regulates mortgage bankers who made $103 billion in home loans to Californians in 2007, and who serviced $611 billion in home loans during that year. Since 2001, DOC has brought approximately 5,063 enforcement actions against people or companies perpetrating frauds, making misrepresentations, and pursuing predatory practices. As of January 1, 2009, DOC regulates over 323,150 entities, including: 3,473 broker-dealers, 265,355 agents or registered representatives, 3,023 investment advisers, 45,926 investment adviser representatives or associated persons, 831 independent escrow agents, 3,744 consumer and commercial finance lenders and 6,281 locations, 390 residential mortgage lenders or mortgage bankers, and AB 33 Page 8 414 deferred deposit originators at 2,386 locations DFI : DFI licenses and regulates commercial banks, credit unions, industrial banks, premium finance companies, trust companies, agencies, branches and representative offices of foreign banks, savings and loans associations, money transmitters, issuers of payment instruments and traveler's checks, and business and industrial development corporations. The department was formed by consolidating the divisions of Credit Unions and Industrial Loan Companies from the DOC and the Department of Savings and Loan and the State Banking Department, some of which date back to the mid 19th century. Starting in 1857, banking enterprises in California were granted charters under the General Corporation Laws. Savings banks were authorized under the provisions of an act passed in 1862. The year 1878 marks the advent of actual banking supervision in California. In that year, an act was passed creating a three person Board of Bank Commissioners and placing under its jurisdiction "every savings bank and banking company incorporated under the laws of this state, or any other state or country and doing business in this state". Over time, it became apparent that the Board's regulatory powers and inadequate bank chartering and examination practices were insufficient to properly protect depositors. In 1909, the Bank Act was passed, creating the State Banking Department with the Superintendent of Banks appointed by the Governor to a term of four years. This was changed in 1911 to provide that the Superintendent hold office "at the pleasure of the Governor". The Bank Act was completely revised in 1949 and was codified in 1951 as Division I of the Financial Code. The Banking Law was again extensively revised in 1979 to bring it in line with AB 33 Page 9 General Corporate Law and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As of November 2008, DFI oversees the operation of approximately 700 financial institutions, including about 187 state banks and 208 state credit unions, with combined assets totaling more than $290 billion. It ensures public confidence in financial institutions by protecting the interests of depositors, borrowers, shareholders and consumers through enforcement of applicable state and federal laws. DRE : The revenue necessary to operate the DRE is derived from fees charged for real estate licenses, subdivision public reports, and various other permits issued by the Department. Employees operating from District Offices in five cities (Sacramento, Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Diego) carry out the Department's responsibilities as mandated by the Real Estate Law and the Subdivided Lands Law. The core functions of the DRE are to administer license examinations, issue real estate licenses, regulate real estate licensees, and qualify subdivision offerings. The Department is a special fund agency that derives virtually all its revenues from examination, license and subdivision fees. DRE is divided into various divisions that are managed by program chiefs (Assistant Commissioners). These divisions are as follows: Licensing, Enforcement, Legal, Audits, Subdivisions, Legislation and Public Information, and Administrative Services, which consists of Information Systems, Fiscal and Human Resources. As of November, 2008, DRE has 152,704 brokers (corps/officers/individuals) and 383,116 salespersons for a total of 535,822 licensees REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support None on file. AB 33 Page 10 Opposition California Association of Realtors Analysis Prepared by : Mark Farouk / B. & F. / (916) 319-3081