Right after one of the debates I found myself knee deep in a debate about Dodd-Frank.  A close personal friend of mine, a very bright bulb who I’ve never found a reason to disagree with brought up Dodd-Frank as an example of horrible legislation that’s crippling banks and contributing to our horrible economic conditions.  Whoa, whoa, whoa…. rail against taxes, complain about government spending, assail the current administration for the dramatic escalation of our national debt.  But leave Dodd-Frank out of it because that’s not one of our bigger problems.  I can offer a five thousand word defense of the best parts of Dodd-Frank without even pausing to organize my thoughts but I don’t need to go that far.  I can sell it’s virtues in a single, simple sentence:  Any legislation that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is instantly more effective than anything that’s come before it in my lifetime.

No, seriously… in my lifetime.

I’ve already screamed from the rooftops about how much I like the CFPB.  In my own geeky, nerdy way I’m proud to admit that I look forward to getting their regular updates and announcements because they always seem either ridiculously relevent or illuminate how they’re hot on the heels of yet another predatory business practice.  In barely a years time they’ve pushed deeper into the heart of the issues that crashed Wall Street in 2008 than anyone could have hoped (that’s my opinion but one I’m willing to defend).  And their examiners appear to be freaky efficient.  I’ve been hearing from our banking clients that they’re drilling in on details and covering more territory than was expected and that they’re discussing issues much closer to protecting customers (and members).   Our practice recently issued a bulletin to our clients alerting them to the fact that CFPB examiners are expecting related oversight to be pushed down to external business parters and vendors.  This is not a new consideration, it’s exactly the same as what’s supposed to happen with regards to GLBA (and one of the reasons we developed our related software and services for same) but still, we anticipated this would take several exam cycles to surface.  CFPB cut right to that chase in a heartbeat, which is stunning for such things.  It’s almost like someone told them where to look and what to look for which to a certain extent is true.

The CFPB didn’t start as most new agencies do.  They didn’t recruit green examiners and place them under the management of a few practiced hands.  What they apparently have done is to hire well seasoned examiners from related regulatory agencies (e.g. FDIC, FRB, OCC) have them contribute to creating the necessary procedures and then send them out to bring it all to life.  So on Day One they already know where the bodies are likely to be buried and what to do about it.  It’s brilliant, it’s efficient and it’s the very best example of  your government doing its job.

Here are some snippets from my in-box:

• Regarding the three main credit reporting agencies, the CFPB released a report that said “Among the key takeaways in the report, which is one of the most comprehensive studies of credit reporting to date, are that credit card history dominates the information in credit reports and that debt collection items  generate the highest rate of disputes”.  This becomes important for consumers who are trying to either establish or repair respectable credit ratings.  The news release further explained about the report that it “will help educate regulators and consumers about how this important industry works,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “If consumers know how these companies handle their credit histories, they can make better decisions on how to handle their financial lives.”
• This was another headline “CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU HALTS ALLEGED NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE LOAN MODIFICATION SCAMS”.  The news release explained that the CFPB is  “taking on schemes that prey on consumers who are struggling to pay their mortgages or facing foreclosure,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We are especially concerned with those who misrepresent government programs or websites to divert distressed homeowners from needed assistance.”
• And even still, another headline “CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU PROPOSES ALLOWING COMPANIES TO RUN TRIAL DISCLOSURE PROGRAMS”.  And while this may seem dry to so many not close to the related issue this is signficant because right now most of us ignore all the small print.  The CFPB is trying to figure out better ways to present disclousre information so that us consumers both think to read it and, more importantly, understand what it’s telling us.  Rather than try and stuff a once-sized-fits-all solution down the industries throat they’re opening it up and authorizing institutions and lenders to explore different approaches.

And the kicker about these three items?  This was all issued this month (December 2012) and we’re not even quite halfway through it.

Which is why I don’t much care for any manner of compliance-based assessments that are self-administered.

Companies have had this crazy notion for more than a decade now that the best way to identify and address risks inherent within the infrastructure is to ask key stakeholders a somewhat generic set of questions and use their responses to figure out what’s what.  Most of the time the people driving these initiatives are either information security professionals or corporate compliance people who either believe they already know where the problems are or are looking for the simplest and easiest way to satisfy some requirement.  But what they often fail to grasp is that it’s almost impossible to draft a common set of questions that either apply to the vast majority or worse, will be interpreted consistently across the stakeholder population.  Plus the perceived benefit of using a self-assessment approach to reduce effort and required support resources is almost always an illusion.  Most of the time saved in not having someone ask the questions and record the answers is instead consumed by needing to explain the format, explain the questions or trying to clarify and clean up the responses.  While supporting one such program recently each assessment required a kick-off meeting, a follow-up meeting to review the status of the assessment, a third meeting to review the initial draft of the questionnaire, a fourth meeting to review the resulting report(s) and a largely untracked number of hours to help generate all of the related support documentation.  Regardless of the size of the entity being assessed each one consumed somewhere close to eight hours.  While that might seem like a scary large number, the really scary part was that based on which risk analyst was responsible for the assessment and the personality/mindset of the stakeholder completing it the results looked very different from one another.  It was almost impossible to generate meaningful metrics across the assessment population because a “Yes” answer for one question might mean the same as an “N/A” in another; there was no way to know that.

Another issue I’ve always had with the self-assessment approach is that while some stakeholders take it seriously and do a remarkably thorough job, others race through it with little hesitation just to fill in the blanks and get it off their desk.  Sometimes you can detect which is which, sometimes you can’t.  Plus the approach fails to capture much of the rich and relevant information related to each question and the underlying risk behind it.  I recall conducting a team-driven risk assessment years ago where one stakeholder after the next covering a very broad sampling of the infrastructure kept lamenting on the lack of a proper disaster recovery plan.  They had something to show auditors/examiners but to a person no one believed it was a truly viable plan.  All but the CIO brought it up as a concern and when pressed a bit about why that was they all shared a common concern: If their main office was closed unexpectedly for twenty-four hours, regardless of the reason, they were likely out of business.  A related self-assessment question would ask “Do you have a current and recently tested DR plan?” – most respondents on that engagement would simply have selected “Yes” and moved on to the next question without ever being challenged to share their concerns.  Where’s the value in having a repository of questions and answers when it fails to capture the true essence or dimension of risk? 

And the biggest issue I’ve always had with self-assessment questionnaires and their related templates is that they’re so often poorly designed.  I can guarantee you that each of them has at least one question which makes zero sense to anyone who reads it.  They either answer it based on what they think it’s asking, answer with an “N/A” or require follow-up with the people managing the process to have it explained.  And you’d be amazed how many times even the author is challenged to provide a meaningful answer (including this guy).  One thing’s for certain, a self-anything needs to be designed and written so that everyone understands what they need to do without having their hand held.  Plus it’s rare that questionnaires are customized so that each stakeholder is only asked those questions that truly make sense.  An application owner should never be asked if their anti-virus solution is current and up-to-date.  A business process owner should never be asked about software change management.  Yet seldom have I encountered a self-assessment process which does anything like this and so the audience is burdened with time consuming yet unnecessary questions.

Really though in the end my overriding problem with the self-assessment approach is that it fails to capture the expertise and guiding hand of true risk and assurance people.  The process is often supported by analysts who don’t really have a feel for conducting assessments and are satisfied that all of the blanks are filled in.  I have a nose for when there’s something beyond a simple answer and know when to scratch at the surface to bring it to light.  By not allowing expert hands to guide the process potentially huge amounts of valuable and possibly critical details are being missed thus undermining any perceived value of the process.  When you consider that all tolled and tallied the self-assessment approach versus the guided assessment approach doesn’t really save you much time (if any) and that it results in a weaker finished product, why would you elect to use it?   One answer is that regulators push for it because perhaps it’s better than nothing (I can’t get any of those I know to comment).  Another is that the people sponsoring these initiatives lack the fundamental comprehension to understand their options and chose what they perceive as the less complicated approach (again, I don’t know for sure it’s just a theory).  What I do know is that when done right a risk assessment is managements best friend, a fundamental belief behind the recent spike in ERM activity.

While recently having my car serviced the mechanic discovered a nest of some sort in the engine block, he thinks it was probably squirrels.  Because of this discovery he went searching for all the wired connections to make sure they weren’t chewed up and destroyed, quite a few were as it turns out (the car had been idle for several months).  The bill only added the cost of the replacement wires but nothing significant for the time it took to first find which were affected and then replace them.  Had I attempted the repair myself I might have noticed the nest and likely would’ve cleared it but know for certain I never would’ve thought to check the wires, where to look for them or what to look for.  I was smart enough to rely on a professional with a nose for that sort of thing and it saved me time, money and best of all the aggravation of having the car break down somewhere unexpectedly.  Good thing I didn’t go the self-repair route.

Things are looking up a bit because I have a new favorite regulatory agency to follow, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  And here’s why:  They focus on things that impact my day-to-day life (and yours as well).

I started tracking what the CFPB was doing about five months ago by accident.  Someone I know who used to be an examiner for the FRB switched over to the newer agency right at its infancy and I noticed this courtesy of a LinkedIn update.  Because I consider the Fed to be the Big Kahuna of the regulatory agencies I was surprised (you don’t leave the Yankees to sign with an expansion team unless you have to, or so I thought).  Compelled a bit by the update I started poking around the CFPB website.  For the first few months of this year it seemed to have potential but was little more than brochure-ware.  But last month that all changed.

The first CFPB update that caught my attention was labeled 12 CFR Part 1070 and it was all about the protection of consumer data, only with a slight twist.  Basically it was all about how any information they received as part of their field work would be protected exactly the same way that any third party vendor would be required to.  Despite their being a Federal agency they weren’t going to hide behind that as a means to simplify their lives.  They spearheaded an update to the underlying regulation that frames their charter so that consumers and their institutions can be assured that all PII and NPPI would be protected.  For me it was a rare win-win topic; protection of PII and NPPI combined with a reference to vendor management (these are a few of my favorite things).  And really for me it was that much more significant because I’ve known of a few situations where representatives of Federal and State regulatory agencies were responsible for the outright loss of confidential and/or restricted data.  Beyond a slap on the wrist there wasn’t much else done to the offending examiner or their agency.  And the affected institution couldn’t really complain too loudly because it’s always a bad idea to challenge your regulators, even when you’re in the right.  So I thought this was all at once a compelling and remarkably sensible update by a regulator, not something I’d expect to see.  That was the first points on the board for the CFPB.

The second set of points were scored almost on the same day.  I wanted to check one of the details related to the aforementioned update and noticed this one “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report finds confusion in reverse mortgage market“.  Because I have a parent who is a senior citizen and who I think might one day soon be open to at least exploring a reverse mortgage I read with great interest.  The report was in plain English, was oriented in such a way that I could share it with my family and have them understand the issues and concerns detailed within and most importantly it made sense.  Reverse mortgages are growing in popularity and its main audience is the senior citizens segment of society.  Seniors tend to be  more easily misled, they’re under greater pressures to find new money sources (courtesy of our recession) at a time in their lives where going back to work is often not an option.  And because a parent would do almost anything rather than turn to their children for financial assistance they see a reverse mortgage as a way out of their predicament.  So for me having this content available was quite the relief.  I can caution and advise all day and night but the risks presented by a reverse mortgage are much more credible coming from an authorized source.  And so I celebrated July 4th this year by declaring the CFPB my new FDIC (the Sheila Bair inspired version, not the current blah one).

Here’s my really bizarro advice to any of you with even the slightest interest in regulatory oversight; if you haven’t already done so visit www.cfpb.gov and take a look around.  It’s oriented towards lay people, not just lawyers and regulators (and practitioners like me) and addresses topics and concerns that affect the majority of our population.  Basically it’s what I would expect from a regulator that still has that new agency smell but nothing like I’ve come to know from those that preceded it.  To those who have had a hand in defining its charter and organizing its content, great job!   Now repay my kind words by going out and getting me some juicy enforcement stories to write about.

Of course the truth is much more complicated.  I don’t just focus on computers, my scope expands to include anything that involves sensitive information.  While that always includes a variety of devices it also includes paper-based and people processes as well.  I frequently share stories about the enormous amount of printed content that’s to be found throughout an institutions physical locations.  I occasionally tell stories about how careless people can be when on the phone or in conversation and sharing all manner of sensitive information.  It’s never just about computers, it is however always about information and how it needs to be protected.

Truthfully though what I really do is search for controls that protect information, identify those that I find and try and measure their effectiveness and more importantly identify where controls are missing and work with my clients to remedy that.  At the heart of the regulatory requirements I focus on it’s all about the risk introduced by the presence of information, from personally identifiable (PII) to non-public personally identifiable (NPPI).  Risk: It’s what drives every single project I work on, it’s what drives every product and process I help develop.  And really, if you take the time to read through the literature, it’s what’s behind just about every piece of regulation known to the banking world.  Risk, risk, risk and risk.

One of the reasons I’ve enjoyed spending so much time working with the community banking and credit union sector over the past few years is that it’s a simple enough argument to make with fewer people to convince; everything you do to comply with the regulations should be risk-based.  It doesn’t really make a difference if it’s complicated to do or time consuming, you prioritize based on where they are found and make decisions accordingly.  But that gets much more difficult to do as the institutions grow in size and complexity.  Over the fifteen years I’ve been building and supporting compliance initiatives I’ve worked with Fortune 50′s, 100′s and 500′s and a whole lot of financial institutions that merely read Fortune magazine.  But while their overall size varies widely risk is still risk and that never changes.

I wish more practitioners embraced this simple concept.  While some do, many still don’t.  There’s often a rush to come up with a standard set of decision criteria to drive the work based on factors not necessarily aligned with risk factors.   Those who have worked with or for me will tell you that when presented with questions about which vendors or applications to assess or what to look for when conducting any type of assessment my first line of logic is to try and figure out where the greatest possible exposures to be found.   Assessing a low risk application yields little value  no matter how complete it may be.  And reviewing a vendor where the dollar spend is high but the risk factors are low does little to protect the institution.

Beware the practitioner who wields a hammer for they only know to look for nails.

Your regulator doesn’t want you to blindly implement compliance programs, they want you to identify and manage risks, real risks.  They want to be able to understand the logic and approach being used and find credible evidence that you’re focusing your efforts on the right things.   Go back and read through the library of FFIEC documentation and pay close attention to the hooks inserted throughout where they talk about conducting assessments and talk about using approaches which are appropriate for the size and complexity of your institution.  Then scan through your related program inventory and figure out if you’ve designed things accordingly.  Are they actually protecting your institution from credible threats and risks or are they just filling binders on your compliance officers shelves?

For me, professionally I’d prefer to always only do meaningful work and in the audit and assurance world meaningful is code for risk-based.

Seriously, it’s a big deal.  And so far it’s much adieu about nothing.

I don’t know what the actual hold-up has been.  A draft of the new guidance was leaked online last year (ironic, don’t you think) and heavily circulated a while back but no one in any position of authority has offered word one as to whether or not that’s close to what the official document will look like.  But here’s my question to stakeholders throughout the banking industry: Why are you waiting for the FFIEC to spell out what you need to do?

I suppose if you’re committed to doing the bare minimum expected by the examiners and not interested in extending your solutions to adequately protect your customers that’s a sound strategy.  But why do you need anyone to tell you what to do?  Shouldn’t you be continually assessing your environment, keeping current with existing and emerging threats and designing controls to reign them in?  That’s not only a solid business practice it’s also heavily implied by, wait for it, FFIEC guidance.  That’s right folks, if you’re supervised by any of the FFIEC sponsoring agencies they’re already expecting you to conduct  periodic assessments and modify your infrastructure to mitigate and manage identified risks.  But that’s really more theory than practice.  All too often management is willing to wait and see what their annual exam reveals and only address those things that the examiner cares about.  And because examiners typically operate under the constraints of limited hours they look at what they can and the rest just has to wait (and sometimes wait and wait and wait).  So while a key requirement may not be satisfied, if the examiner didn’t have time to look into it the gap remains unchanged.  Again, why does that happen?

I recently brought up this very topic during an internal meeting within my practice and one of our subject matter experts laughed at my naivete.  As he pointed out so matter of factly, the only reason most of the FFIEC-centric activities ever really happen is because financial institutions don’t want to fail an exam.  Rare is the management team that builds out their controls in an attempt to address the so-called “industry best practices” and instead does what they believe necessary to keep their examiners happy.  And so if the FFIEC doesn’t spell out minimum requirements to authenticate and protect online banking solutions there’s little chance the industry will move in the right direction.

But what if the guidance falls short of what’s necessary to get the job done?  What if it only frames the problem but doesn’t actually tell you how to solve it?  Remember, the primary purpose of guidance is to raise awareness to the issue but not necessarily how to fix it.

I offer as a for-instance the most recent publication from the PCI folks.  They just released a new document providing guidance for virtualized infrastructures (which is really a fancy term for cloud computing).  I’ve been somewhat outspoken on this very topic because I’m not confidant that in-scope infrastructures have done enough to address traditional PCI guidance in a somewhat homogeneous environment – now these same companies are chomping at the bit to move things into the Cloud.  If you couldn’t properly secure and monitor a configuration where each device could be identified and configured how are you going to be able to do it on a platform where you never really know where your information passes through?  But the leadership atop the PCI council at least decided to try and frame not only the challenge but also provide some direction on what to do about it.  And their guidance boiled down to this: No one can tell you how to secure relevant parts of the Cloud configuration so the only way to be properly compliant is to make the entire configuration compliant.  I’m sure that when the audience first downloaded the document they were hoping to find directions for a clear path to being able to leverage the latest and greatest technology without having to boil the ocean.  Instead they were told that you have to assess the environment and introduce PCI-related controls anywhere there’s a possibility in-scope data might pass.  With that one broad stroke of a digital pen they pretty much made Cloud computing a much more costly investment for those who need to comply.  Their guidance didn’t solve the problem, it just defined it more clearly and delivered the bad news that there would be no shortcuts available in effort or cost.  And while it may not be popular guidance it is, ultimately right.

As for the FFIEC guidance I’d offer this as food for thought: If you have weak or deficient controls around online authentication your examiner is not going to give you a free pass because the new guidance is delayed.  They’re not going to let you off the hook if you’re missing something significant simply because no one told you it was missing.  You’re supposed to figure these things out for yourself, they’ve told you that time and time again.  And while I won’t know for sure until I know for sure, I’m expecting their guidance will be somewhat similar to the PCI Cloud publication where they frame the problem and summarize by telling you that you need to figure things out based on your own unique infrastructure.

Seriously, don’t wait for the industry to tell you what you need to do when you should already know what that is.  As Dr. Seuss advised many years ago in the great childrens book “Oh the Places You’ll Go”; Your mountain is waiting so get on your way!