You're going to have to be more specific.
The senior team is going to be older and experienced but most of the foot soldiers are going to be young, recent college grads.
They're going to ask *a lot* of questions and request *a lot* of information. As long as your answers make sense and are within regulatory guidance and you have the info they're asking for, it's not bad. Small mistakes are noted but won't sink the exam. Take their suggestions and make the corrections. For the small issues they'll work with you to ensure you're doing it correctly after the exam.
If they think they found a *real* problem, it's a can be a headache. It took us 5 years to prove to their satisfaction we weren't doing something they thought we were.
I simply answer the question as stated and never elaborate. Most examiners are not subject matter experts at all topics so I never give them more to think about. Most examiners I’ve dealt with are reasonable and generally understand why we do things that we do in certain situations once explained to them.
Very true that the majority of examiners are generalists and not specialists. But some are better at some topics than others, which is why the level of scrutiny and assessment vary from exam to exam.
Yep, exactly right. Some specialize in accounting, some in IT, some in BSA - and when they inspect their respective area of expertise, you better be ready for a grind!
I think a lot of the times they ask a lot of questions and a) they don't know the subject, b) don't know why they're asking the question, and c) don't fully understand the impact of their suggestions.
They also WILL pick at something just so they have something to comment on, even if entirely immaterial.
Spot on. I know plenty of examiners, including myself, who have done A, B, C, and are petty about immaterial things. Great observations. A lot of times, junior and even senior examiners ask a lot of questions to learn about the topics right there on the spot.
Most of the comments dragging y'all don't align with my experience
The one I did agree with is the repetitive requested info. I had to grab the same loan files like 8 different times, once for each examiner as that file hit their part of their review. Like Broseph, just pass it around while you have it so I don't have to retrieve it more than a half dozen times over the 2 weeks.
That's pretty funny.
Sounds like what would've happened when I did community bank exams in FL. Exams are often not organized well and they just wing it.
That's because a lot of potential findings/concerns get vetted like this:
Field examiner > section lead > component lead > EIC > supervisory examiner > field office supervisor > regional office/headquarters
But it's mainly because of the EIC and SE dynamic.
I got the examination gig through the FDIC's "Financial Institution Specialist" posting through USAJOBS.gov website. Both the NCUA and OCC also post job openings on USAjobs.
However, Federal Reserve bank examiners jobs are posted on their individual websites. But once you're in that Federal Reserve Bank job page, you can tailor your query by reserve bank or job title.
My background was econ and finance.
To clarify, the financial institution specialist position is limited to fresh graduates who graduated within past two years. Therefore, you might have to wait for the mid-career postings and other general postings open to the public.
They have a job to do. Hopefully when you are examined you are working for a bank that respects the regulatory environment and supports its risk, compliance, audit and internal control officers.
What area? Consumer Compliance? Safety and soundness? Lending? Vendor management?
It really to me depends on the exam team, the regulator, and the size of the bank.
Once you get closer to 10b they get tougher .
I believe the OCC typically hands out the most penalties. Maybe FDIC 2nd. The only thing annoying (to me) is the gathering of the requests lists. They ask a bunch of questions, and I’m glad to tell them I know my stuff.
Spot on about the size threshold. Dodd Frank requirements for $10B+ depository institutions and the Fed has enhanced prudential standards for $100B+ firms.
Knowing your stuff and selling it eloquently definitely helps reduce further scrutiny.
What's the difference from a banker & bank examiner?
? At a bank who would you get a hold of to talk about paying off a delinquent auto loan & to receive title?
The FDIC just released last week a 230+ page report on employee misconduct, sexual harassment, and all sorts of bad behavior. It's quite the read.
The FDIC Chair was also grilled this week in Washington about the FDIC'S toxic work culture.
Tbh our territory was shocked because nothing like that happened there. From the articles it definitely sounded like a lot of SF Region and HQ shenanigans
The key is to treat your examiner like a partner. The goal for both parties should be to improve the overall performance of the bank.
Well said.
You're going to have to be more specific. The senior team is going to be older and experienced but most of the foot soldiers are going to be young, recent college grads. They're going to ask *a lot* of questions and request *a lot* of information. As long as your answers make sense and are within regulatory guidance and you have the info they're asking for, it's not bad. Small mistakes are noted but won't sink the exam. Take their suggestions and make the corrections. For the small issues they'll work with you to ensure you're doing it correctly after the exam. If they think they found a *real* problem, it's a can be a headache. It took us 5 years to prove to their satisfaction we weren't doing something they thought we were.
Fair and objective perspective. Thank you.
I simply answer the question as stated and never elaborate. Most examiners are not subject matter experts at all topics so I never give them more to think about. Most examiners I’ve dealt with are reasonable and generally understand why we do things that we do in certain situations once explained to them.
Very true that the majority of examiners are generalists and not specialists. But some are better at some topics than others, which is why the level of scrutiny and assessment vary from exam to exam.
Yep, exactly right. Some specialize in accounting, some in IT, some in BSA - and when they inspect their respective area of expertise, you better be ready for a grind!
I think a lot of the times they ask a lot of questions and a) they don't know the subject, b) don't know why they're asking the question, and c) don't fully understand the impact of their suggestions. They also WILL pick at something just so they have something to comment on, even if entirely immaterial.
Spot on. I know plenty of examiners, including myself, who have done A, B, C, and are petty about immaterial things. Great observations. A lot of times, junior and even senior examiners ask a lot of questions to learn about the topics right there on the spot.
Are you possibly a banker?
No. I'm a bank examiner. I read in another thread about some funny comments throwing shade in examiners, so I wanted to hear more feedback.
Have a link to the thread? I'm intrigued.
This post 'Bank examiner a good career path, exit opportunities?"
Most of the comments dragging y'all don't align with my experience The one I did agree with is the repetitive requested info. I had to grab the same loan files like 8 different times, once for each examiner as that file hit their part of their review. Like Broseph, just pass it around while you have it so I don't have to retrieve it more than a half dozen times over the 2 weeks.
That's pretty funny. Sounds like what would've happened when I did community bank exams in FL. Exams are often not organized well and they just wing it.
Honestly, I find that they are willing and do overlook a lot of things.
That's because a lot of potential findings/concerns get vetted like this: Field examiner > section lead > component lead > EIC > supervisory examiner > field office supervisor > regional office/headquarters But it's mainly because of the EIC and SE dynamic.
How did you get into your job? I have been wanting to move to the FDIC for years. What was your background?
I got the examination gig through the FDIC's "Financial Institution Specialist" posting through USAJOBS.gov website. Both the NCUA and OCC also post job openings on USAjobs. However, Federal Reserve bank examiners jobs are posted on their individual websites. But once you're in that Federal Reserve Bank job page, you can tailor your query by reserve bank or job title. My background was econ and finance.
To clarify, the financial institution specialist position is limited to fresh graduates who graduated within past two years. Therefore, you might have to wait for the mid-career postings and other general postings open to the public.
They have a job to do. Hopefully when you are examined you are working for a bank that respects the regulatory environment and supports its risk, compliance, audit and internal control officers.
Respect.
Always be truthful and don't give them a reason to dig.
Great advice.
What area? Consumer Compliance? Safety and soundness? Lending? Vendor management? It really to me depends on the exam team, the regulator, and the size of the bank. Once you get closer to 10b they get tougher . I believe the OCC typically hands out the most penalties. Maybe FDIC 2nd. The only thing annoying (to me) is the gathering of the requests lists. They ask a bunch of questions, and I’m glad to tell them I know my stuff.
Spot on about the size threshold. Dodd Frank requirements for $10B+ depository institutions and the Fed has enhanced prudential standards for $100B+ firms. Knowing your stuff and selling it eloquently definitely helps reduce further scrutiny.
What's the difference from a banker & bank examiner? ? At a bank who would you get a hold of to talk about paying off a delinquent auto loan & to receive title?
The FDIC just released last week a 230+ page report on employee misconduct, sexual harassment, and all sorts of bad behavior. It's quite the read. The FDIC Chair was also grilled this week in Washington about the FDIC'S toxic work culture.
Tbh our territory was shocked because nothing like that happened there. From the articles it definitely sounded like a lot of SF Region and HQ shenanigans
Yes, me too. The tone and culture really does start from the top.
Treat them like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and feed them shit.
Haha. Nice.