The Office of Inspector General issued a report dated January 28, 2019 with recommendations designed to improve the Bureau Division of Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending’s (SEFL) Matters Requiring Attention (MRA) follow-up process.
These are related directly to corrective actions that result from examination findings that require the attention of a supervised institution’s board of directors or principals.
The report summarized the key findings as follows:
For example, we found that the Bureau’s approach for measuring how timely it resolves MRAs is prone to misinterpretation and therefore appeared to overstate the agency’s progress toward closing these actions. We also determined that some of the underlying data used to calculate the measurement were not reliable. Additionally, we observed inconsistent MRA follow-up documentation and workpaper retention practices in the following areas: (1) posting MRA documentation to the Bureau’s system of record for examination activities in a timely manner, (2) documenting the request for and approval of extensions, and (3) documenting and communicating the closure status of MRAs.
The report contained (2) general findings. These have been taken from the report and are summarized below:
Finding 1: The Bureau’s MRA Reporting Measurement Is Prone to Misinterpretation and Some of the Underlying Data Are Not Reliable
- The Lack of Clarity Around the Term Resolved in the Bureau’s MRA Reporting Measurement May Lead to Misinterpretation
- SEFL Employees Used Varying Approaches to Populate the ERC Date Field in SES
- SEFL Does Not Have a Process to Identify Data Entry Errors in SES
Finding 2: The Bureau Has Not Formalized Expectations for Aspects of the MRA Follow-Up Process and Documentation Practices Are Inconsistent
- Procedural Expectations for Posting MRA Documentation Have Not Been Established
- OIG Analysis of Bureau MRAs in SES
- MRA Documentation Is Incomplete or Contains Incorrect Information
- The Documentation of Extension Requests and Approvals Was Inconsistent
- MRA Closure Dates Are Not Documented or Tracked in SES
- MRA Closure Status Is Communicated to Supervised Entities Inconsistently
- The Regions Have Implemented Initiatives to Improve the MRA Follow-Up Process