[Senate Hearing 110-504] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 110-504 SBA LENDER OVERSIGHT: PREVENTING LOAN FRAUD AND IMPROVING REGULATION OF LENDERS ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ NOVEMBER 13, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo/gov/congress/ senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41-658 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, TOM HARKIN, Iowa CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut NORMAN COLEMAN, Minnesota MARY LANDRIEU, Louisiana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina EVAN BAYH, Indiana JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARK PRYOR, Arkansas BOB CORKER, Tennessee BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming JON TESTER, Montana JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia Naomi Baum, Democratic Staff Director Wallace Hsueh, Republican Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Opening Statements Kerry, The Honorable John F., a United States Senator from Massachusetts.................................................. 1 Snowe, The Honorable Olympia J., a United States Senator from Maine.......................................................... 4 Cardin, The Honorable Benjamin, a United States Senator from Maryland....................................................... 6 Witness Testimony Preston, The Honorable Steven C., Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC........................ 7 Thorson, Eric M., Inspector General, U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, DC................................. 32 Tannenhauser, Robert F., chairman, Business Loan Express, LLC, New York, New York............................................. 46 Wilkinson, Anthony R., president and chief executive officer, National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, Inc., Stillwater, Oklahoma........................................... 56 Baird, James, Executive Director, Bay Area Development Company, and vice chairman, Legislative Affairs Committee, National Association of Development Companies, Walnut Creek, California. 68 Alphabetical Listing and Appendix Material Submitted Baird, James Testimony.................................................... 68 Prepared Statement........................................... 70 Brickman, Jim Prepared Statement........................................... 130 Cardin, Hon. Benjamin Opening Statement............................................ 6 Dinsmore, Frank F. Prepared Statement........................................... 146 Einhorn, David Prepared Statement........................................... 133 Isakson, Hon. Johnny Post-hearing questions posed to Hon. Steven C. Preston and subsequent responses....................................... 108 Kerry, Hon. John F. Opening Statement............................................ 1 Post-hearing questions posed to Hon. Steven C. Preston and subsequent responses....................................... 92 Post-hearing questions posed to Eric Thorson and subsequent responses.................................................. 109 Post-hearing questions posed to Robert Tannenhauser and subsequent responses....................................... 124 Preston, Hon. Steven C. Testimony.................................................... 7 Prepared Statement........................................... 10 Response to post-hearing questions from: Senator Kerry............................................ 92 Senator Snowe............................................ 100 Snowe, Hon. Olympia J. Opening Statement............................................ 4 Post-hearing questions posed to Hon. Steven C. Preston and subsequent responses....................................... 100 Post-hearing questions posed to Eric Thorson and subsequent responses.................................................. 116 Tannenhauser, Robert F. Testimony.................................................... 46 Prepared statement........................................... 49 Response to post-hearing questions from Senator Kerry and subsequent responses 124 Thorson, Eric M. Testimony.................................................... 32 Prepared Statement........................................... 34 Response to post-hearing questions from: Senator Kerry............................................ 109 Senator Snowe............................................ 116 Senator John Thune....................................... 123 Thune, Hon. John Post-hearing questions posed to Eric Thorson and subsequent responses.................................................. 123 Wilkinson, Anthony R. Testimony.................................................... 56 Prepared Statement........................................... 59 Comments for the Record Brickman, Jim, real estate developer and investor................ 130 Einhorn, David, president and co-founder, Greenlight Capital, Inc 133 Dinsmore, Frank F., chief executive officer, REsource Capital, Real Estate Financing for Growing Businesse.................... 146 SBA LENDER OVERSIGHT: PREVENTING LOAN FRAUD AND IMPROVING REGULATION OF LENDERS ---------- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 United States Senate, Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m., in room 428-A, Russell Senate Office Building, the Honorable John F. Kerry (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Present: Senators Kerry, Cardin, and Snowe. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KERRY, CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS Chairman Kerry. Good morning. This hearing of the Small Business Committee will come to order. I thank everybody for being here and I thank you for your patience. We had a vote, obviously, but we thought it was more important to begin the hearing after the vote rather than interrupting the hearing, and so I appreciate everybody's indulgence. This way, we will be able to go straight through because there are no more votes until after lunch, and therefore, we can have an uninterrupted hearing, which is what both Senator Snowe and I prefer to do. Let me emphasize a couple of things about this hearing. I know there have been some questions from some parties about why we should have a hearing like this. Senator Snowe and I and all the Members of this Committee manage a Committee that works in a very bipartisan way and try very hard to keep the politics off the table. The bottom line is that the Congress--as a separate and co- equal branch of government, which sometimes people have to be reminded of--has a major responsibility as to how we spend the taxpayers' money, as to what happens to the programs we put into law, and we are often the critical oversight arm in making certain that those laws are carried out, that the intent of Congress is, in fact, the intent of the American people--it is not our intent. It is who we represent, and we have the responsibility to make sure that intent is, in fact, carried out and that we are presenting the American people with the best governance possible. That is what we owe them. And sometimes this city has an ability to get up on an arrogant high horse and forget why we are here and who puts us here and what our obligations are. So the purpose of this hearing is not politics. The purpose of this hearing is not ``gotcha.'' The purpose of this hearing is to figure out how--with the help of the SBA's Office of Inspector General, which was created in order to have transparency and accountability and effectiveness--how the SBA's lending partners and our committee can improve the agency's lender oversight and prevent fraud in the SBA's small business lending programs. No one is here to suggest that this is somehow pervasive or that it is more--we don't know that situation. We are here to explore the one situation that we know and those things that have been talked about by the Inspector General over the course of time. And the timing of this hearing, frankly, couldn't be more important. Everybody is aware of what is happening in the economy. Everybody understands the difficulties with the subprime lending and mortgages and what is happening to credit as a consequence. And the whole purpose of the SBA is to help small businesses access credit and be able to move in the marketplace and get capital. So we see now a credit crunch, somewhat caused by the mortgage subprime crisis and people in the country losing their homes. Small businesses, therefore, feel the impact from that in a lot of different ways, and many get their credit from their homes. At least one in three small business owners say that they are now being adversely impacted by this credit crisis. Secondary market premiums are down 25 percent, so banks are tightening up their loans for everyone, including entrepreneurs. That means that the government-backed loans, the very rationale for the existence of the SBA and the very rationale for 7(a) and 504 programs and so forth are even more important right now, much more important. SBA loans provide capital to small firms that can't access credit through the normal channels, and if all of a sudden people start to have doubts about that marketplace, you can have a problem, a cascading kind of problem, and we want to avoid that. We also want to make sure that we are reaching those people who we have always tried to target, who are the minorities and women and veterans and others for whom the SBA has a particular mission. So we are here today to discuss SBA lender oversight and, you can't avoid some discussion of the fraud scheme that was carried out by a bad actor from Business Loan Express in their Troy, Michigan branch and a small group of people. I emphasize we don't know the depths. It is obviously important because it resulted in $76 million in fraudulent SBA loans. So we need to know what happened. We all need to know this. We need to know how it happened. We need to know what is being done to prevent it in the future. The hearing is not intended to hurt Business Loan Express nor any other entity, but that is not to say also that there isn't a legitimate standard of accountability, because people need to answer for their employees. That is just a normal course of business and this should be no different. We need to understand how no one noticed or reported a high number of bad SBA loans coming out of the branch, and today's hearing is an opportunity for the company to tell its side of the story, including their rationale for cutting back on small business lending, which they announced recently. And let me just say, I greatly regret the loss of jobs that is going to go with the company's announcement. The SBA lending community is a close-knit community, and I know this has created concern within that community, even some regret in some parties. We obviously hope that everybody lands on their feet in this judgment that has been made and what happens. Another aspect of today's hearing is the SBA Inspector General's report generated by its audit of the lender oversight procedures and resources. SBA requested that much of the IG's report be redacted before it was made public, including most of the IG's recommendations. It is hard to understand why those recommendations and the agency's plans to address the IG's findings were redacted. Frankly, this is highly unusual. The SBA and BLX have based their requested redactions on claims of trade secret protections, the deliberative process privilege, and the bank examination privileges, which can be legitimate reasons for redactions if applied correctly. However, even if SBA had the legal right, I question whether all of the information blacked out needs to be redacted. It seems like an overreach and has probably created more problems than it has solved. So I think in the interest of having more transparency of SBA's oversight activities, not less, Mr. Administrator, we have been very complimentary of you throughout the process and very encouraging for the initiatives that you have brought, but I think SBA could have handled this particular issue more effectively. I think the agency needs to improve its oversight with more transparency. Let me also comment, the BLX report is not the only report relevant to the SBA's oversight. In the past 5 years, the SBA IG has issued more than 60 reports on general lender oversight issues and SBA procedures related to justified payments of guarantees on defaulted SBA loans. Also, the IG has examined the transfer of the purchase responsibility from the 69 district offices to the Herndon Center. Now, some of the problems we are going to discuss here today demonstrate that the agency may have been excessive or harsh or even irresponsible in dismantling the loan functions in the district offices so quickly. They didn't have the Herndon Center adequately established to take on centralization and they underestimated the necessary staff and training requirements. It also came at a personal cost to almost 200 people who lost their jobs or were uprooted in haste. From what at least we hear, and I am open to evidence to the contrary, but certainly from what we hear, that has contributed to low morale in some quarters. It has created unnecessary instability over the last couple of years for lenders on liquidation and purchases of loans. Furthermore, the Administration's budget request--and I think this is felt by most Members of, I think unanimously, on the Committee--the budget requests have simply been insufficient and unreasonable for staffing and funding the centralized offices and district offices. Simple logic says that you can't go from a budget of almost $1 billion to $600 million, while nearly doubling your loan portfolio from about 51,000 loans in 2002 to almost 100,000 loans in 2006 and still claim to have the labor-intensive personal oversight necessary to know what those loans are doing, unless you have created some new magical virtual system, which we have yet to understand. You are not saving money, if by scrimping on staff responsible for loan oversight, you end up enabling sloppy lenders to do poor underwriting and allow the agency to make improper and inaccurate payments on defaulted loans. In fact, an audit by the IG, issued in May, states that the SBA's lax review of purchase requests of defaulted loans resulted in $36 million in erroneous payments on unjustified purchases on bad loans. To round out the discussion, we are going to hear from Jim Baird and Tony Wilkinson representing the 504 Certified Development Company lenders and the 7(a) lenders. These lenders have a stake in this process, and they ought to be part of the discussion, and part of that discussion involves information sharing. As the SBA tries to predict and identify problem loans, they should share with the lenders which ones they deem to be at risk, so that they can take action to prevent a default, or even a lapse in currency. Senator Snowe got a lot of these issues right in the lender oversight legislation that she introduced recently, and I very much appreciate her work and her knowledge with respect to this. I was glad to join her in introducing that, and with that, I turn to Senator Snowe. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MAINE Senator Snowe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and also thank you for holding this hearing to conduct oversight over the Small Business Administration's ability to detect and prevent fraudulent loans. Your longstanding leadership is certainly critical at this juncture, and as you said, this hearing couldn't be more timely given the economic situation that we find ourselves in in this country and the degree to which small businesses do depend on the Small Business Administration for loans, and ultimately, the creation of jobs. I also want to thank Administrator Preston and Inspector General Thorson for being here and all the other witnesses. I appreciate their willingness to help us better understand the challenges that the Small Business Administration is confronting with respect to the SBA's loan monitoring and lender oversight activities. As Ranking Member of this Committee, I find the SBA's history of SBA's lender oversight issues unacceptable. It is my hope, this morning, that we will probe how and why the Government has inappropriately allowed loan fraud and poor loan underwriting to occur at the Business Loan Express Corporation, BLX, Innovative Bank, and in 44 out of 45 of the Small Business Express and Community Express loan files reviewed by the Office of Inspector General. These three cases reveal the ineffectiveness of the SBA's current oversight activity. I fear that unless the SBA is able to dramatically improve its lender oversight, escalating losses and fees will drive lenders and borrowers away from these key loan programs. This will seriously hamper and harm the ability of small businesses to access capital to grow, but also-- regrettably--it would reverse the very mission of these programs. Currently, the SBA has $80 billion in outstanding loans issued to small businesses, many of which are new startup companies without longstanding credit histories. When they apply for an SBA loan, the loan officer must determine if the company meets the needs to obtain an SBA loan, including having a sufficient cash-flow to repay the terms of the loan. Unfortunately, as the IG report demonstrates, a number of loan officers have failed to perform their due diligence and have improperly underwritten loans without verifying that loans can be repaid and that borrowers can meet all the criteria necessary to qualify for an SBA loan. It is an irrefutable established truth that poor loan underwriting directly leads to loan defaults, fraud, and other deficiencies. This is a reality that we need to address here at the hearing today. Although the SBA has recently undertaken a number of efforts to improve its lender oversight activities--these are steps in the right direction--they are no substitute for the strides that are absolutely an imperative. Simply put, not enough is being done by the SBA, and that must change. To enhance its oversight in the performance of the 7(a) and the 504 loan portfolios, it is incumbent upon the SBA to improve the quality of lenders' underwriting and to make doing so a fundamental and absolute priority. That progress should begin with three things: First, effectively and thoroughly auditing lenders' loan files during onsite reviews; second, harnessing technology to help lenders meet the SBA's underwriting requirements; and finally, streamlining the initial application loan review process. Mr. Administrator, today I hope we can hear from you about your clear and concise plan to work with the SBA Inspector General and immediately improve the SBA's lender oversight process. As I mentioned earlier, there is a history of problems within the SBA. Now, I know much of it occurred before your tenure, but nevertheless, there has been a long history of lender oversight difficulties. We have had numerous hearings and numerous reports--as the Chairman cited--and yet we still find ourselves at this juncture where we are finding fraudulent loans to the magnitude and degree of millions and millions of dollars. Just with BLX alone, it was more than $200 million. Additionally, the SBA must increase the transparency of its oversight activities and measurements. The SBA has failed to provide participating lenders with much of the criteria the agency uses to determine whether portfolios are sound or substandard. Again, this is an issue that we heard repeatedly from lenders with respect to the failure of the SBA to present the criteria and the standards by which the Agency measured lenders' portfolios. It goes without saying, this lack of transparency hinders the SBA's oversight capability and encourages participating lenders to be justifiably critical of the agency's ability to accurately assess portfolio quality and conduct effective oversight. That is why, earlier this month, Chairman Kerry and I introduced legislation that I hope will codify the SBA's standards for portfolio quality and enhance the transparency of measurements that the SBA must use to evaluate lenders. This is timely legislation. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, we in the Committee can mark this up this year so that we can address these issues as effectively and efficiently as possible. Finally, I am also concerned by the large redactions within the SBA Inspector General's report that were done at the request of the Small Business Administration. It seems to me, at this point, given the amount and the totality of fraudulent loans with BLX--there have been, in fact, 76 fraudulent BLX loans worth $76 million--it underscores the necessity for both SBA and the Inspector General to work in a collaborative fashion. We need a report that doesn't have the kind of redactions that we are facing here today. The SBA cannot stifle the SBA's Inspector General's critical voice, or hide from the public's view suggestions on how to improve lender oversight. Given the history of the SBA on this very question, there has to be an urgency and an imperative on the part of the Small Business Administration to address these issues; more importantly, to correct them and to prevent this kind of catastrophic event from reoccurring. Ultimately, these types of failures can impinge upon the ability of small businesses to access needed loan guarantees. Ultimately, this can hurt our economy as small companies will or will not create jobs, depending on small businesses' ability to secure those loans. If you think about SBA being the net creator of jobs in this country, then clearly the effectiveness of the SBA's lender oversight has a direct consequence and correlation to small businesses' access to loans. I hope we can address all of these issues here today, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Kerry. Absolutely. We hope to and I thank you for that important statement. Thank you very much. Senator Cardin, do you have any opening statement you want to make quickly before we start? I want to try to---- OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MARYLAND Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank you and Ranking Member Snowe for your comments and convening this hearing. I concur with the comments that have been said. Let me just make a very quick point to Administrator Preston. I am not satisfied by the manner in which the agency has conducted oversight or outreach when dealing with the fraudulent loans that we are talking about today, but also outreach to make sure we have the right quality of loans against those groups that have been denied the opportunity historically and the need for capital, the minority businesses, first-generation businesses, and women-owned businesses. So, I think we are not only concerned about the oversight to make sure the fraudulent loans don't have any place, but that the capital is available to help small businesses grow and produce the jobs that are critically important to our economy, and I look forward to today's hearing. Thank you. Chairman Kerry. Thank you, Senator Cardin. As we begin this--and this will apply to each of the panels--I mentioned the issue of the redactions and the question of the assertion of a legal privilege with respect to them. While we are looking at and examining thoroughly the question of their appropriateness, I nevertheless will respect if somebody here feels that some answer is going to tread on the assertion of those privileges, and declines to respond. We certainly will respect that here, and I simply ask you to tell us what you believe the basis of your claim is, and we will proceed forward from there. So Administrator Preston, thank you for being here. You have served in your role since July of 2006, and you have come to this job with about 25 years of experience in financial operational leadership, so we look forward to your observations and hopefully continued progress. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVEN C. PRESTON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Preston. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kerry. Thank you for setting that context for the hearing, Ranking Member Snowe, as well, Senator Cardin. Obviously, we are here to talk about a very important---- Chairman Kerry. Let me just say, if I may interrupt you for a minute---- Mr. Preston. Yes. Chairman Kerry.I know you had asked maybe to testify afterwards, et cetera. What I would like to do--and I put the others on notice, because we are here to get information and facts, not to provide just a platform for everybody--so after Administrator Preston testifies, I asked him if he would stay around, listen to the other testimony; and I am going to give him the privilege of inserting himself into the dialog at any point that he deems it necessary, and we will have a good discussion. Mr. Preston. Well, what I plan to do is leave my head of Capital Access, as well as our General Counsel here, who are much more familiar with the details of the redactions and those sorts of things than I am. Chairman Kerry. Is your microphone on? Mr. Preston. Yes, it is. Can you hear me OK? Chairman Kerry. Yes. Mr. Preston. All right. Well, thank you very much. Obviously, this is an important topic. We have about $67 billion worth of 7(a) and 504 loans in the marketplace. Our guarantee represents about $53 billion. Obviously, that number has grown significantly, especially just in the last 5 or 6 years. A I listened to your comments, I think it is very important for us to look at the historical context in terms of the issues we are talking about, when they occurred, and the progress the agency has made. I hope we will be able to make some progress in talking about that because, I think we have made a lot of progress, although I do think we have a lot more to make. As you are aware, we administer our 7(a) loan guarantee program through participating banks, credit unions, and through other lenders, many of whom get varying levels of delegated authority to make those loans. We are responsible for oversight of about 5,000 lenders, but about 674 have preferred lender authority. In 2003, the GAO reported that the SBA had made significant progress in developing lender oversight, but that much more was necessary. In particular, the GAO recommended that SBA measure the financial risk of lenders' portfolios, qualitatively assess the lenders' performance, and clarify its enforcement authority. Since that report, SBA has established extensive credit risk management programs that cover both onsite and offsite portfolio review. Those are a very significant change from our prior review process. The offsite review and monitoring program features sophisticated risk rating measurements developed by a nationally recognized provider of commercial credit scores and performance models. The information allows SBA to compare lenders within a peer group, while helping lenders monitor their performance within our portfolio. SBA also provides a risk rating based on the consolidation of individual loan credit quality and overall portfolio performance information, which is an indicator that allows the lenders to take corrective action where necessary. The onsite process is qualitative analysis of credit administration, policies, procedures, and controls that relate to the SBA loans, as well as portfolio performance conducted to provide more in-depth reviews of individual loans and verify the lender adherence to our policies. For our supervised lenders, we contract with an independent examiner, the Farm Credit Administration, for detailed safety and soundness and portfolio performance evaluations. These reviews are just part of our increased oversight activities. In addition, we conduct post-purchase reviews to inspect loan files after SBA has honored its guarantee to ensure all procedures and documentation are correct. SBA has developed a more independent supervision and enforcement process. A new lender oversight board, which includes the Deputy Administrator, the CFO, as well as the AA for Capital Access, regularly review our enforcement actions to make sure that they follow our guidelines and that performance standards are being met. The Office of Credit Risk Management also has numerous tools available to enforce its performance standards. It can reduce the length of the PLP and other delegated authorities to mitigate risk. It has the ability to conduct more frequent onsite reviews. We work with management to resolve deficiencies through correction action plans, through required quarterly monitoring, and obviously in the more severe circumstances, we can pull their PLP status or their authority to make SBA loans at all. I think our progress shows that we are taking responsibility seriously. We appreciate our responsibility for portfolio performance and also our desire to reduce fraud. Fraud usually occurs by exception, but we nonetheless are taking measures to prevent that occurrence. We are working cooperatively with our lending partners to ensure that they have in place policies and procedures to identify and prevent fraud. We are also considering other analytical tools that will support our ability to detect it and refer it more effectively. With respect to the proposed regulation, we are certainly not resting on our efforts to improve oversight. On October 31, we published in the Federal Register a proposed comprehensive lender oversight rule to enhance the roles and responsibility of our Office of Credit Risk Management. The rule would codify many of the existing processes for on- and offsite reviews as well as risk ratings. It also provides new enforcement actions, oversight processes, controls, especially for SBA supervised lenders. The proposed rule addresses recommendations from the GAO report and Inspector General on clear policies and procedures for enforcement and will specify how lenders have to maintain satisfactory portfolio performance. In addition, the proposed rule will enhance reporting for SBA lenders to aid SBA in monitoring and assessing their performance. Recently, the IG issued a report regarding SBA's credit risk practices focused on BLX. We appreciate the efforts of the IG to help SBA continue to improve its processes and procedures with regard to credit risk management and to reduce fraud. My written testimony submitted for the record and my letter to you, Mr. Chairman, fully detail our concerns regarding that report. The Committee is likely to hear some issues relating to our lender review and examination fee from the industry partners today. I do want to point out that those fees enable us to perform onsite and offsite risk management of the portfolio. The amount is charged at a reasonable progressive--based on a reasonable progressive system linked to the size and relative risk of those portfolios. In addition, the fees simply cover the cost of the reviews. As such, many of our lenders will not be charged any fee, and when assessed, the fees are modest compared to other financial regulators. We would be happy to provide you with analysis to show that. For offsite reviews, we will be charging a simple annual fee of $73 per million in the portfolio. These reviews provide information on portfolio performance and the bulk of the information is shared with the lender. We also provide lenders with the factors that comprise the risk rating calculation and their individual component ratings, as well as their peer group ratings and their portfolio averages of the components. That is one of the many tools that we use to oversee the portfolio. We are particularly sensitive to the need to minimize fees whenever practical. The fees are fully detailed in our notices that reflects the actual cost of the agencies and do not substitute for administrative costs. We have made significant progress to improve and increase lender oversight. As I mentioned before, I think that will continue to improve. It is an evolving process. That oversight will support a strong portfolio and I believe it will increase our ability to reach more small businesses. We believe that a strengthened management is crucial to the operation of our portfolio in an evolving marketplace. So thank you for the opportunity to discuss our oversight and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Preston follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.005 Chairman Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Why don't we start with a 7-minute round and we will obviously probably go around a couple of times. Let me start with the larger picture first. I mentioned in my opening statement the issue of the overall budget and manpower, which concerns the Committee a lot. Is it not a handicap to have a doubling of your loan capacity and a reduction in oversight personnel? Mr. Preston. Well, I think the reduction in personnel primarily occurred in the field at the SBA, and many of those resources were moved to centralized activities---- Chairman Kerry. Right, but isn't the field where you get an opportunity to be able to interact and really take a group of loans at the local level and get a sense of what is happening to them? Mr. Preston. I think at the field level, we do a lot in outreach. We can get a sense of local lenders. But people in field offices were actually processing loans and making credit decisions which basically left us in a situation where we had a broadly dispersed set of credit activities taking place around the country, rather than having them be located in a single facility or a single set of facilities, which provide for much more standardization of practices, much greater ability to audit those standards, and a much better ability to institute quality standards. Chairman Kerry. What about--I mean, that might in theory work, but what about the complaints and the observations that it has never been adequately staffed and has not been able to deal with a centralized burden? Mr. Preston. Well, I think those are very valid criticisms of the agency. Chairman Kerry. Isn't that personnel related and budget related? Mr. Preston. Senator, I think it is--the challenges in that operation are well beyond just personnel issues. I think when the agency centralized those activities, the standards were not put in place. I don't think the processes were efficient to the degree that they need to be. And I don't believe that we put in place metrics, performance standards, or communication back to other lenders to help them understand what was happening. That is all stuff we are in the process of doing, and in fact, I spoke in front of hundreds of lenders at the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders Conference last month, and I have spoken with hundreds across the country directly to talk specifically about the challenges we have in that operation. We have a very clear pathway forward that hits on--I won't bore you with the details, but a number of issues that we think will dramatically improve the responsiveness, the speed of execution, the support of lenders, and the interaction with our field network. Chairman Kerry. Well, that is welcome news, and I think it is terrific that you have that kind of a comprehensive---- Mr. Preston. We would be happy to come by and brief you all on the details of that. Chairman Kerry. I think it would be good for the staff to get a sense of exactly where that implementation process is. In the meantime, let us assume you had those standards and you have the sort of centralized operational initiatives in place that you just listed. I think there were three or four of them. Do you have enough personnel to carry that out? Mr. Preston. Yes, I believe we will have enough personnel to carry that out. Chairman Kerry. You believe you do? Mr. Preston. I believe we do. We have looked at our staffing levels. You all were good enough to increase our budget last year. We have hired people in our processing centers with the additional budget we received from Congress, and at this point, we believe it is adequate. But certainly, this is not an area that I am interested in skimping in at all. Chairman Kerry. Well, also you mentioned in your testimony--it just caught my ear--the issue of pulling the authority from a lender in circumstances. Have you ever pulled the authority completely? Mr. Preston. Oh, yes. I think last year, somewhere between 6 and 7 percent of our PLP lenders did not have their authority reviewed. Chairman Kerry. Can you give us, maybe in writing, we can get a little background on those---- Mr. Preston. Yes. Chairman Kerry [continuing]. Circumstances and numbers. And in your testimony, you talk about the SBA's oversight as a whole, and we have just been discussing it a little bit. You described implementing the offsite monitoring through Dun and Bradstreet that forecasts whether a loan is at risk of default. Witnesses on the third panel will testify that that program collects data already available from the lenders and the agency's loan servicing contractor, and it arrives at currency and default rates that differ greatly from the lender's actual performance, and that is not transparent. And then once it predicts that loans will go bad, SBA doesn't tell the lenders which loans could be in trouble so that they could proactively move on those and try to mitigate against the potential of default. So when you say the system, and this is your quote, ``enables the SBA to take corrective action,'' it is a corrective action that reacts to the default rather than proactively moving to prevent it. I wonder, don't you think SBA would be better off moving proactively and altering that? Mr. Preston. Well, yes, I think it is important to understand that the decisionmaking process and the rating criteria is much more complex than any one score we get from one place. We look at a handful of things. We look at predictive scores based on widely available information on individual lenders, and we kind of look at that in an aggregated basis and that sort of provides a predictive quality. In addition, we look at historically what is happening in people's purchase rates. We look at changes in those rates to see if there are more recent trending issues to face. All that information is provided to people, to lenders, on a portal called the Lender Portal. They get information on all of those areas so they understand how they are doing, not only in a vacuum, but how they are doing relative to similar institutions. So they get a significant amount of information. I think the issue with the lending community right now is primarily that we don't go down and actually pull individual credit scores on their individual loans and then give it to them. Those are widely available tools in the industry. Contractually, we don't have the ability to do that with a third party. We would certainly look at potentially providing that for people in the future. Chairman Kerry. Is that really the heart of what I asked? I mean, isn't the question more, if you have been given a very specific prediction that a loan is going to go bad through this loan contracting, loan servicing entity, why would you not then have the transparency that relays that to the lender so the lender could get involved directly? Mr. Preston. Yes. I think the way it works is if you have hundreds of loans in your portfolio, based on the relative weighting of different credit qualities in that portfolio, it comes out with a macro estimate of the percentage of loans that are likely to go bad, given how many loans are kind of in a lower tier or a higher tier or middle tier. So I don't think we would go down to the individual level and say, these four loans are expected to go bad. It more looks at the blend of credit scores. Chairman Kerry. Is that a warning bell? I mean, can you segregate those that are at the lower end? Mr. Preston. Oh, absolutely. I mean, you could get a list of companies--yes. This is what I was saying, you could get a list of companies in that lower credit tier and those are just based on, like I said, there are many kind of firms out there that do these types of ratings, most of which may not very dramatically. We don't have the ability right now to provide that detailed data to the lenders. Chairman Kerry. Why? Mr. Preston. We don't have the ability to do it contractually right now, but we would look at doing that in the future if they would like those lists. Chairman Kerry. Isn't that what you would want to do with an onsite review? Mr. Preston. Well, an onsite review, I think, you know, we really are---- Chairman Kerry. That is a more in-depth review, correct? Mr. Preston. Yes. We are pulling credit files. I know some people don't think we do that. Under the new processes, we pull credit files. We look at their management practices, whether or not they are complying with policies, so that is a different kind of review. Chairman Kerry. Why has the IG suggested and others, even the lenders have suggested that that, quote, ``in-depth review'' is actually nothing more than a kind of paper check- off process? That is their perception from---- Mr. Preston. Well, I think there are a couple of things. Number one, I think this process has evolved over time. I am not aware of the IG making that claim, but if he has, I would be happy to understand that better. I would also be happy to have our head of Capital Access come up and walk you through fully what we do on the onsite process. Chairman Kerry. Well, there is a contention here, and I think it will be stated here today, that the SBA has a need to verify the borrowers' financial claims and to make sure the collateral is legitimate and the equity injection is legitimate and so forth. Mr. Preston. Yes. Those things all contribute to credit quality, obviously. They have made those injections. If we look at the collateral, if we look at the credit quality. Now, that having been said, Senator, I would be the first one to say, especially if it is coming from the industry, if people are coming forward and saying, we are looking at your new process, what you are doing onsite, and we think you should bolster it in one way or another. We would love to understand that in more detail, and so I think we welcome that kind of input. Chairman Kerry. Senator Snowe. Senator Snowe. Thank you, Administrator Preston, for your comments here this morning. I think it is a real question of, a sense of urgency about implementing an oversight strategy. This has been a historical problem with the Small Business Administration and ultimately can have such negative consequences for both the SBA and those small firms who depend on SBA loans guarantees. After reading the IG's report, I think it is important to make sure that their recommendations are implemented. If they are not implanted, we need to know why in a timely fashion. Mr. Preston. Yes. Senator Snowe. I am concerned. We objected to the Herndon Center consolidation. I did as Chair of this Committee and Senator Kerry did, as well. I think all of us did because of the concern that it was going to lead to serious problems, which it did. At that time, we objected to the understaffing of SBA that has ultimately led to many of these problems. Another pressing issue has been that the Small Business Administration has placed an emphasis on loan growth and not overseeing the quality of those loans. I realize why this is all being done, because obviously we want to help small businesses. Yet at the same time, we have a public interest obligation that we must uphold here. BLX underscores one of the questions and issues that I have. Why didn't you take remedial steps with respect to BLX? I mean, why weren't there any remedies or any penalties? Why didn't you revoke their preferred lender status, for example? Because as the Inspector General's report indicates, there doesn't seem to be very few terminations or revocations. This enables lenders to essentially ignore SBA's delegated lending authority requirements because they do not suffer any material consequences. What are the SBA policies for imposing penalties? Where is the accountability? What is the standard for accountability when we have the magnitude of the failures we are talking about? They are broad with respect to BLX. The fact that the SBA would repurchase more than $270 million of potentially bad loans from BLX, on top of everything else, I think is serious and consequential. So why aren't you setting forth policies on the issue of what penalties for lenders who fail to meet specific and clear requirements? These types of policies would clearly be a disincentive for bad behavior. Mr. Preston. Yes. Let me just make one comment before I jump into that. You should know that I am very directly personally engaged in the Herndon issues we have and the reengineering. I am personally on calls every week, going through the project plans, going through the progress, talking to lenders about it. So this is something, I think is going to be a good news story for us in the coming months, and I feel very good about that. On the BLX, you are asking more of a question about policy, and so let me take a step back and say when we have an issue with a lender, we have a lot of things that we can do. First of all, obviously, we look at credit quality. If credit quality goes down, we take a very hard look at the policies in place, the practices, the credit administration, what they are doing onsite. The kinds of things we can do over time, first of all, I think we begin to do more frequent, more intensive reviews when we see these situations. Number two, we put in place very specific corrective action plans. We try to look at what the root causes at a lender and put in place corrective action plans. Then at some point, if things don't work out, we have the ability to pull the PLP status. The other thing we can do is at the back end. If we are looking at the loans that we purchase, because of our guarantee if a loan has gone delinquent. We look at those loans to ensure that they have followed our policies and our procedures and that those loans have been done correctly. And if they haven't, we can withhold all or a portion of that guarantee. What the new regulations do, and it gets right to your point because I think you are onto something very important, is we have to have clear standards in place. We have to have clear enforcement opportunities in place. And in Herndon and in those facilities where we purchase those loans, we also have to have clear policies and practices and procedures in place that are enforced and get those things to work together. I think that a lot of what we saw with this particular lender happened, you know, a few years ago. I think even during that period of time, since then, we have made a good deal of progress and I think we have made a good deal of progress in the last year. I really think in the next year to 18 months, we will make a good deal more progress. Senator Snowe. Why can't it be sooner than that? I just don't understand why it can't be sooner. Mr. Preston. Well, let me just give you an example. I know one of the criticisms of the industry has been that we haven't done enough onsite reviews, which I think is valid. A few years ago, we had the ability--the lenders paid for those reviews. We went a couple of years where there were no charges and that was a budgetary issue. Now that we can charge again, we will be going through onsite reviews every 2 years. So what we will see--and we have already kicked that up so that the engines are kind of geared up to do those more intensive reviews to provide that better oversight. The analytical information is better, and then the enforcement actions will be clearer under the new regulations. Senator Snowe. Well, so how many lenders have had their status revoked? Mr. Preston. Last year, it was about 7 percent--between 6 and 7 percent of the lenders that had that delegated authority. In reference to Senator Kerry's request, we would be happy to provide you a list and you can get the numbers. Senator Snowe. Well, no, I think it is important to revoke preferred status because it provides a disincentive, you know, for this kind of behavior. When you look at the extent of problems with BLX--and BLX was over a period of time, I mean, it wasn't a limited period of time, it was over many years, between 2001 through 2006--there were $76 million worth of fraudulent loans, 27 arrests, multiple convictions, and SBA purchase of up to $272 million worth of questionable loans. Mr. Preston. Yes, let me comment on a couple of those things. I think it is real important for us to understand the difference as well as the connection between broad loan portfolio quality, which just has to do with the ongoing quality of the credit decisions you are making, and fraud. Certainly in the case of BLX there was a highly sophisticated group of people within that institution, in a bank among borrowers. Obviously, high levels of fraud can affect credit quality, but those are two very different sets of activities and need to be treated as such. Senator Snowe. Well, I understand that, but on the repurchases, why isn't the SBA documenting and verifying the information prior to the loans being made? I mean, that is one of the critical issues here. I mean, we have heard too much of it. We have had 15 reports over this last year-and-a-half regarding many issues, and I would like to have the Committee be informed in exactly how many of those recommendations in those SBA IG reports the SBA has followed. I think that is absolutely critical. Mr. Preston. Yes. Senator Snowe. We need to know. These IG reports are done for a reason. Now, I am not saying that every recommendation is essential and there may be some problems with some of the recommendations. But clearly, they have got to be considered in a manner that is more than lip service. Mr. Preston. We would look forward to coming up and working on that. Senator Snowe. And so that is the concern. We have 15 reports--I just think it is important to understand that--in this last year-and-a-half, with a number of recommendations that have, I think, yet to be implemented on lender oversight activities by the Small Business Administration. So I think it is important. So I would like to see exactly what the SBA has done to follow up on those recommendations. And the last issue, because I know my time is running out, is on the projected repurchase rate, the rate of defaults the SBA projects will occur in lenders' portfolios over the next year. Now, for this last quarter that ended in September, the SBA projects that repurchases in lenders' portfolios will increase by as much as 167 percent, potentially. Now, that 167 percent is a decrease from the previous quarter where the SBA projected that defaults would increase within lenders' portfolio by 240 percent. How does the SBA justify those predictions? Mr. Preston. I am not sure what you are referring to, Senator. Is that--are you talking about a particular lender, or---- Senator Snowe. No, the SBA's analysis of predicted loan repurchase rate. Mr. Preston. OK. I am not---- Senator Snowe. This last quarter, the SBA projected that repurchase rates would increase between 9 to 167 percent---- Mr. Preston. Yes. I would have to look at that. We have generally, in the last several years, seen our credit performance actually much better. We are beginning to see some trends come out of the current credit markets which are a little concerning, but generally over the last several years, our credit performance has been pretty good. Senator Snowe. OK. Again, this is based on the SBA's projected default rate. If loan default increased dramaatically, what will you do to address the defaults on this high number of loans that could be in this category? So we would like to have an answer to that, as well. Mr. Preston. Great. Senator Snowe. OK. Thank you. Chairman Kerry. Thank you, Senator Snowe. Senator Cardin. Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Preston, your response to Senator Kerry's question about having adequate resources in order to conduct oversight review of loans seems to be at odds with the Inspector General's testimony, and I just really want to give you a chance to respond. I know you said that you will stay here during the hearing, but the Inspector General states that SBA has had a 25 percent reduction in personnel since 2001, while loan production has increased by more than 100 percent over that same period. SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management, formerly the Office of Lender Oversight, has not had a significant staff increase and is currently operating with less than its authorized number of personnel. As a result, it cannot perform the type of analysis that might detect fraud schemes and isolate high-risk situations, or investigate lenders with high default rates, and the Inspector General goes on to state the sheer volume of guaranteed purchase requests that the agency must process with current staffing levels, combined with the agency's goal of paying lenders in a timely manner, has resulted in the careless purchase reviews that fail to identify loan deficiencies. Now, Senator Kerry asked you specifically as to whether you had the staff necessary, and your---- Mr. Preston. I think I said yes, right? Didn't I say yes? Senator Cardin. You disagree with the Inspector General? Mr. Preston. Well, I think the Inspector General is looking at a historical set of events. I can comment on any of those statements that you would like. We had a 25 percent reduction that primarily hit the field offices. We are talking about centralized loan purchasing activities. So some of those people were moved from the field to a centralized activity. I think that is what Senator Snowe was talking about. The process of moving them from the field to the center and setting up that center provided the agency with a tremendous number of challenges. That was done 4 or 5 years ago. That has led, in part, to the backlog and some of the challenges in these purchasing activities. Senator Cardin. Would you take issue with the fact that you cannot detect fraud schemes because of personnel shortages and that you have a careless purchase review system to identify loan deficiencies because of staff deficiencies? Mr. Preston. Yes. I think the careless purchase review issue gets to the same issue of that centralization process and that is what we are addressing right now. Where you had loan review activities having taken place around the country, those are being brought into a centralized facility. The process of that centralization, a number of years ago, was not done in a way--I believe, and I am sure our IG believes--that provided the right kind of oversight practices, policies, training, all the stuff you need to do to make sure it is a tight process. That is very much what we are all about addressing right now. So I think the IG is current on some very important issues, but I also believe they are the issues we are addressing. The other thing I would mention is our reviews. Our onsite reviews of these banks, are performed through a third party, so they are not dependent on our personnel levels. For example, the Farm Credit Administration does the onsite reviews for small business lending institutions. So that is not dependent on our staffing level. The staffing issue has to do with when we get all these purchases in and all these loans get sent to us for review; we need to review them at the back end. I think we have made a tremendous amount of progress in addressing that, but we are not there yet. I think it is going to take us another 6 to 8 months to get there. Chairman Kerry. Senator Cardin, if you will permit---- Senator Cardin. Sure. Chairman Kerry [continuing]. This will not come out of your time, but while we are on the topic, I just want to come back. The Inspector General's report of May 8, 2007, specifically says, ``Staffing problems and an overly aggressive emphasis on expediting and increasing purchase production at the (Herndon) center''--now we are talking about the center--``has adversely impacted the quality of purchase decisions. For example, the high rate of staff turnover in 2006 left the center with unfilled vacancies and largely inexperienced loan officers to review purchase requests. Because supervisor vacancies were not filled, the center had 3 individuals to perform supervisory oversight of nearly 3,000 purchase reviews. Consequently, supervisors either did not review purchase requests performed by inexperienced loan officers or did not identify deficiencies the officers missed. The level of erroneous payments will likely increase given that SBA has not fully resolved staffing issues at the center and has launched a major initiative to grow the 7(a) portfolio by 15 percent in 2007. Increasing the loan guarantee portfolio without identifying how the existing and additional workloads will be accommodated places Government funds at increased risks.'' Mr. Preston. Yes. Chairman Kerry. It seems to---- Mr. Preston. I think there are either some mistakes--yes, there are some mistakes in those comments. First of all, there is no 15 percent goal for 2007. We, with concurrence in the field, provided a 15 percent goal for a 2-year period, 2007 and 2008, which was later reduced to roughly 10 percent, working through it with the field. Chairman Kerry. So it is a 10-percent increase, not 15? Mr. Preston. It was originally 15 percent over 2 years---- Chairman Kerry. Right. Now it is---- Mr. Preston. Now it is about 10 percent over 2 years, roughly speaking. Chairman Kerry. I think the same---- Mr. Preston. In addition---- Chairman Kerry [continuing]. Issue still applies, and we can quibble on the percentage of the increase---- Mr. Preston. But you know, Senator, it is so important in looking at this to understand where the breakdowns were and why. I think we have had some real challenges, and I think the IG has noted these in that Herndon operation. It has not been functioning well. There are backlogs out there and it is something that---- Chairman Kerry. But you have been asked if you have adequate staff. I mean, I am not trying to have a---- Mr. Preston. It is not a staffing--we have added staff. Chairman Kerry. You had adequate staffing levels? Mr. Preston. We have added--we are hiring staff. We will have adequate staff. It is much more an issue of process efficiency, consistent standards, good communication with our banks, which we have not had in that facility. In addition, most of the purchases--and I think this is the issue the IG was looking at--most of those packages that come in from banks come in wrong. There is a tremendous amount of rework. We don't have the paperwork. We have not done our job in going to banks and communicating to them how they need to do these packages, getting them right at the front end, and turning that around quickly. So there are a lot of--that is why I hesitate to get into the detail here because we went into a lot of issues. There are a lot of very classical--I hate to say it that way--business sort of engineering challenges that have been in place here and I think we are addressing them. But like I said, I would be happy to get up here periodically. We can come up every month and show you the progress. The other thing I do want to say is we have been very transparent about this issue. I have spoken to the industry. I have spoken widely to our people about it. We have gotten the numbers out there as sort of a rallying cry to get this thing fixed. Chairman Kerry. Let me yield back to Senator Cardin. I appreciate---- Senator Cardin. No, that was very helpful, Mr. Chairman. I just point out that the Inspector General indicates that because of staffing deficiencies, the backup to analyze whether these purchases of guarantees were proper or not is not there. So it seems like you don't have the information necessary to make the right judgments because of the personnel levels, at least that is what the conclusion of the Inspector General is. I would feel more comfortable with your response if I just hadn't completed a hearing in Maryland where we were going over your outreach efforts, your personnel that you have in the field that you now say you are bringing back. When you look at the procurement center representatives, and I understand you are going to increase those numbers modestly, but we need a significant increase in services in the field if SBA is going to be able to carry out its principal function to facilitate small businesses in dealing with Government procurement and elsewhere because we are not meeting our goals. We haven't met any one of our goals, as your reports point out, on Government procurement. So if you are taking resources away from the field, I am not exactly sure we are going to be able to meet the needs there. I can tell you, by the additional procurement offices, centers that you are scheduled to open, if every one of them opened in Maryland, I would be satisfied. But I understand that is for nationwide. We are in desperate need of help in our small business community from SBA, and I have been told over and over again that a significant part of the problem is the resources that you have within your agency, and it seems to me I would like to have the Administrator advocating for the type of services needed to our small business community and I am concerned as to whether you have the adequate resources to carry out and correct the failure of our agencies to meet procurement goals, let alone oversight of the loan activities. It seems like this is a continuing problem within the agency. Mr. Preston. Right. Well, there are a couple of things, I think, to mention here. The reduction in staff that I think Senators Snowe and Kerry were talking about was a centralization process that ended a couple of years ago. I have increased our staff in the field by 50 people in this past year. We promoted another 50 people. We have accelerated the hiring of PCRs in the field by 15 to 18 percent. Unfortunately, we have had some retirements and movements that have kind of moved us in the other direction. But what I would tell you is my allocation of resources to the field last year and this year have, for the first time in a while, turned us toward that growth trajectory now in the field. The field has reacted very, very favorably toward it. The other thing we are doing is, which we haven't done, is we are significantly increasing training, specifically in procurement to support our ability to be effective in helping those small businesses in the contracting picture, providing greater tools to other Federal agencies to find those small businesses. And I will also say--a little advertisement here-- the scorecard we put out there, the new recertification rule we had issued, and a number of the other measures we have taken are raising the bar for Federal agencies and they are reacting by coming our way saying, how can we meet our goals? It has been very helpful for us. So I think we are seeing a higher degree of interest across the Government to engage with small business and we have--there is a little bit of a lag when you authorize these positions and you get them in the field, but we have begun adding those positions in the field. Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Kerry. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. I appreciate it. In relation to the BLX case, Mr. Administrator, the Committee has been told that the SBA paid about $28.4 million on guarantees, loans underwritten by one loan officer. Is that unusual? Is that a red flag in and of itself in any way, that one loan officer in one branch in Detroit, Michigan--it seems like a lot of money for one loan officer in a branch---- Mr. Preston. I don't know. That authority was delegated to them as a PLP lender, so the credit decisions---- Chairman Kerry. Do you know what the average is or what the expectation would be per loan officer? Is there any kind of measurement or metric on that? Mr. Preston. That would be within the bank institution if there were a metric. Chairman Kerry. SBA wouldn't have an oversight? I mean, aren't there some red flags for irregularities? Mr. Preston. I think there are red flags for irregularities. The number of loans made by a loan officer, I don't know if that would be an irregularity. Especially in a lot of these lending institutions, people are very active in obviously extending capital. So I don't know. Chairman Kerry. Maybe that is something you might want to look at and make some judgment about. I mean, I think it would be interesting to know what that norm is or whether that is, in fact, a red flag that ought to be established. But can you tell the Committee what value Dun and Bradstreet provides that can't be obtained by the SBA working with the FDIC, or the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the National Credit Union Administration, or Federal Reserve Board? Mr. Preston. Yes. First of all, we would love to be working with those agencies more. Chairman Kerry. Say that again? Mr. Preston. We would love to be working with those agencies more. We would love to partner with them more effectively. I think it would reduce some of the burden to the lenders. What I would tell you is most--when a bank regulator comes into a large institution with a broad portfolio, they are looking at safety and soundness, they are looking at capital adequacy. Obviously, they do look at the loan portfolio. Typically, we are a relatively small subset of that portfolio. We go in, we specifically look much more deeply at the SBA loan portfolio, their adherence to our regulations, and their practices and procedures specifically relating to eligibility and those types of things. So there is both the issue of our concentrating more heavily on our pool of loans, as well as making sure that they comply with unique standards as a Government guarantor rather than them as an independent lender. Chairman Kerry. With respect to the BLX situation, I mean, obviously both BLX and SBA consider themselves victims of the fraud, and on some levels that is obvious and true. But to what degree might there have been signs that BLX should have picked up on and/or SBA? I mean, can you sort of share with us what the SBA knew and when it began to know it and what action it took? Mr. Preston. There were loans that our people in Detroit referred to the IG. Ultimately, I know the IG worked with the U.S. Attorney based on work the U.S. Attorney was doing, I believe based on---- Chairman Kerry. Do you know what first flagged it within the SBA in terms of the referral? Mr. Preston. Senator, I don't specifically recall. I personally know some of the people who told me about it, but I don't recall what they said were the indicators. But I think the overwhelming indicator that now, in the cold light of day, is many of these loans were to a particular industry, which doesn't always mean something negative. It can mean that a particular lender has expertise and is doing a good job reaching out to a particular industry. But that was done--that is before a lot of these activities were centralized, so I think it was primarily based on that, but we can get back to you on it. Chairman Kerry. OK. I would appreciate that. Mr. Preston. Now ultimately, when it was found, it was based on, I think, Secret Service out there doing a different investigation--the IG can comment on this. Chairman Kerry. What specific steps have you taken to prevent it from happening? Please share with us some of what you learned from it. Mr. Preston. Well first of all, I think it is important, for all of us to understand that generally, when fraud is perpetrated of this type, although it is bad for all of us and none of us like it, the one who ends up losing financially is the lending institution. You know, in cases of negligence like this, we don't cover it. So BLX is paid to cover initial losses that were detected, has set up additional funding to cover future losses, and is reviewing all loans going into the secondary market and coming out of it before we make any purchases to ensure that they are not part of this scheme. So I think it is important to understand that from a taxpayer perspective, we are protected to the extent that we don't cover those types of fraudulent activities. Now, what we have begun to do is to work with other regulators to see the types of analytical tools they use, whether they look at industry concentrations and other types of factors to improve our ability to refer those loans to the IG and highlight them back to the lending institutions. Chairman Kerry. Well, when you found out about the scheme, staff from the agency came to brief the Committee, which we appreciate, but ultimately--but you talked at that time about the tough disciplinary measures that were going to be taken against BLX, and then ultimately the agency entered into closed negotiations with the companies and really kept the details of any disciplinary actions confidential. What happened between that briefing and sort of the tough stance and then the private negotiations and the privacy with respect to---- Mr. Preston. I am not aware of the chronology, and unfortunately, I can't comment on that. Perhaps one of my colleagues can. What I would tell you is I didn't really view this as a negotiation, as much as our coming in as a regulator and an oversight body, providing our view on what we thought we needed to do. The other thing is--my understanding is that you had a pretty full briefing on the decisions we made. Certainly I know, in the IG report, you all received a fully unredacted copy. So if there is any lack of transparency between the agency and the Committee, I would like to understand kind of where you thought that was. Chairman Kerry. Well, we are happy to share that with you, and I think there may be a little bit here. But coming back to this initial question, I mean, you said Secret Service or somebody related part of another investigation, et cetera. I think the question sort of hanging over the Committee a little bit--and potentially it ought to be hanging over the SBA--is sort of why didn't the SBA discover this? What is the mechanism in place for knowing that these kinds of loans don't take place? Mr. Preston. Yes. Chairman Kerry. I mean, how do we get a sufficient of scrutiny within the system---- Mr. Preston. Yes. The mechanisms that should be in place that I think are increasingly in place and will even more increasingly be in place are the following: I think, first of all, as we do onsite reviews, as we begin to look at practices and procedures, look at some individual loans, that match with portfolio performance that should be able to give us some indicators if there is a widespread ring of fraud. Second, as we purchase those loans in Herndon and elsewhere, when we do the reviews of the actual files, that should also provide us insight. I would highlight here, though, that this was a pretty sophisticated ring of people. You had people in the institution, people in a bank falsifying equity injections, cashiers' checks--individual borrowers part of this scheme. Roughly 15 people were involved, and I think it is very difficult for a regulator to be able to get ahead of that type of sophistication. I think it is very important for us to look at the internal practices of those lenders to make sure that they get caught. Like I said, once again, I do take some comfort in the fact---- Chairman Kerry. Are you not involved in the remedy component of this with respect to BLX, that you are not sure of the chronology and you are---- Chairman Kerry. I mean, as Administrator, are you directly going to be involved in determining what the---- Mr. Preston. In most cases, I wouldn't sit on the committee that determines remedies and issues for our lenders. In the BLX case, I have been---- Chairman Kerry. Well, isn't it unusual to have a $70-plus- million-dollar fraud? Mr. Preston. Right. In the BLX case--early on, I was actively involved in the discussions on what I thought the next step should be. My view was a couple of things. Number one, I wanted to absolutely ensure that the taxpayer was protected and that to the extent that these issues--that we protected ourselves from that perspective. Let us leave it at that. I think the other issue--this is where I think we continue to rely on trying to balance our judgment--is when you look at something like this. At what point is the issue behind you, and at what point is the issue continuing, and how do you weigh that against whether or not you want to in any way restrict capital to small businesses? Those are the kinds of factors we consider. Chairman Kerry. Mr. Administrator, I do have a number of other questions, but the time is pushing us here and we have two other panels, so I am going to leave the record open and we are going to submit some questions to you in writing, if we may. We are not trying to burden you or anything, but we do want the record to be complete and appropriate. Let me turn to Senator Snowe. Senator Snowe. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman---- Chairman Kerry. No, take your time. Senator Snowe I will be short because of time, but it really does get back to the fundamental responsibility of the Small Business Administration to conduct oversight activities and to do so aggressively. Mr. Preston. Yes. Senator Snowe. Are you suggesting that there is no way to set in place procedures to detect fraud, for example? Mr. Preston. No. I think what I am saying is we are a couple steps removed from the process by virtue of what we do as an external guarantor. So what we need to do is look for indicators where then we can take those loans and find patterns to pursue. Then in the purchase process look for individual loans to highlight and then refer those to the IG. So no, there are certainly things we can do to be a more effective referrer of concerns to the IG, but ultimately, I think the most important thing we can do is make sure that the institutions involved in the processes and our programs have processes in place to catch that on their end since ultimately, that is where it happens. Ultimately, they are the ones that suffer the loss. I think we all obviously are impacted by it. It is a terrible thing. So no, Senator, I think there are ways that we can improve it and ways to address it. I just think it is important that each player in this process understands how they can be effective, given what they have access to and what their roles are. Senator Snowe. But you have a number of remedies at your disposal to take action, do you not? I mean, you have a number of remedies, corrective measures---- Mr. Preston. Oh, absolutely. Senator Snowe [continuing]. Legally and otherwise, I mean, in terms of---- Mr. Preston. Absolutely. Senator Snowe [continuing]. Either the review process and taking legal actions against someone or an entity---- Mr. Preston. Actions, working with them on their plans to improve their internal processes, working--yes, any number of actions. Senator Snowe. Well, but it gets back to where you can be preemptive and preventive. Obviously, one of the issues is verifying the documentation of many of these loans at the outset---- Mr. Preston. Exactly. Senator Snowe [continuing]. And then looking at this repurchasing rate. That is a huge predictor of potential problems, and I don't think I understand if any corrective measures are taken to avert that. Mr. Preston. Well, I think a couple of things. I think, first of all, getting the purchase process as tight as possible so that we have a standardized review process. We have a standardized process for getting things referred, and then secondarily it really is in the broader oversight process. The only thing I do want to say, though, before I leave, and this may be opening up a bit of a Pandora's box, but one of the things we do not do is we do not--we obviously have a portfolio of risk. All lenders are not created equal in terms of what they do. We may have some lenders that look primarily at startup companies. Other large lenders have heavily diversified portfolios. And I think it is also important as we look at performance in these portfolios to understand whether or not these lenders are taking our mission forward and what that implies for credit risk. That is a very complex set of issues that I don't think we fully understand at this point. I am not sure that everybody should be subjected to the exact same rating system, because ultimately, we are trying to reach people in this country who have a hard time getting access to credit. And so what I would expect to do in the coming months, as we look at this regulation, is to build our understanding of that issue as well. Senator Snowe. But I think you have a number of road maps, including the Inspector General's report, this one and the 15 others along the way in the last year and a half. I mean, there are road maps to taking corrective measures immediately and putting in place certain procedures that are predictable and provide certainty. Mr. Preston. Right---- Senator Snowe. Just going back, in the Herndon situation, you have roughly 4,000 unprocessed loans? That would mean someone would be required to review over 20 repurchase requests a day. So you have to resolve that backlog, which is what you had to do---- Mr. Preston. Which is what we are working on---- Senator Snowe [continuing]. In post-Hurricane Katrina and so on. Mr. Preston. Right. Senator Snowe. But here we go again. And so this tells me-- -- Mr. Preston. This is a problem that has been building for 5 or 6 years---- Senator Snowe. I know. That is the problem. Mr. Preston. So I just want you to---- Senator Snowe. That is why you sense the frustration here, because it has got to be either something is not working and we have got to find out what it is. I agree with you, and I have been sitting here for---- Mr. Preston. Right. No. I think the Herndon backlog issue has been building for many years and now it is coming down to-- -- Senator Snowe. We objected to it. Mr. Preston. Based on the corrective measures we are taking, so---- Senator Snowe. I know, so---- Mr. Preston. I don't want anyone to leave here with the view that we are going in the wrong direction. I do think these are complicated, big issues, and I think addressing them requires some real work. I think we are making a lot of progress, and we already have, and I think when you look at our proposed regulations, a lot of those do incorporate the GAO and the IG recommendations. Senator Snowe. According to a 2006 report, again by the Inspector General, the SBA improperly repurchased 44 of the 45 Small Business Express and Community Loans sampled because the SBA did not obtain the required lender to submit all necessary documentation required to make proper purchase decisions. That is a high rate of deficiency in that group, there is no question. The Inspector General estimates that roughly $130 million in disbursements on 2,729 loans purchased before February 1, 2005 were not properly reviewed by the SBA. Senator Snowe. Are we avoiding that now? Mr. Preston. That is really part and parcel of the Herndon issue. The thing I would say is that doesn't mean that those were loans that ultimately we shouldn't have purchased. It implies that---- Senator Snowe. They were all part of the Herndon Center---- Mr. Preston. Well, it says that you might not have had all the documentation you were supposed to get. Senator Snowe. Are we avoiding it for the future? I know what we are going through. Are we avoiding it for the future? Mr. Preston. No. We are doing a lot of heavy lifting right now to fix this, and frankly, we would be, like I said, happy to take your staff through the detail of any of this stuff, because like I said, I think this is going to be a very positive story. Senator Snowe. I think for the Committee, I think we need it for the Committee. Mr. Preston. Yes. Senator Snowe. I think we need to know where we stand. Mr. Preston. Yes. We will---- Senator Snowe. I think we have to have some time lines here, because---- Mr. Preston. We have got time lines---- Senator Snowe [continuing]. With the volume of what SBA does, it has got to be loan quality, as well as loan volume. We understand some of the risks inherent---- Mr. Preston. But Senator, as anyone in my row behind me will tell you, we have time lines, deliverables, metrics, and milestones on virtually everything at the agency right now. So we will be happy to do that for you. Senator Snowe. One other question that I have. It is on the Women Procurement Program---- Mr. Preston. Yes. Senator Snowe [continuing]. For women-owned businesses. You said it would be implemented by the end of the fiscal year. It has been more than 2,500 days now. In 2000, this was established and it remains unimplemented---- Mr. Preston. Right. Senator Snowe [continuing]. By the Small Business Administration, and you said by the end of the fiscal year. That is coming along---- Mr. Preston. I said I would do everything I could. Yes. It has been a very frustrating process. I know it has been more frustrating for you because you preceded me, and we are in interagency process once again. I am very hopeful that by the end of the year, we will have something to go public with. But---- Chairman Kerry. Actually, Mr. Administrator, if you recall, we have a January 18 commitment on that, remember? We had a specific--you weren't here. Who made that? It was--I am trying to remember who made--your Associate Administrator for Entrepreneurial Development was here, Mr. Prakash, is that it? Mr. Preston. Oh, OK. Chairman Kerry. He guaranteed this Committee in open testimony that this will be implemented and done by January 18 in its entirety, and we agreed to have an oversight hearing here at the end of January, after the 18th, in order to review that to make sure it has been met. What I would like to do is add this other stuff to that and have an agreement, and I would like your agreement that you would personally be here with whomever you think is important from the agency so we can have an update on all of these issues, the disaster program---- Mr. Preston. Right. Chairman Kerry [continuing]. And the 7(a) reforms that you are putting in place, and, of course, the Women's Procurement program which we have been waiting 6\1/2\ years for. Mr. Preston. Yes. I would like to come over here when we have something to announce on Women's Procurement. I am pretty hopeful by that time we will have something to announce on Herndon and on---- Chairman Kerry. He made a commitment to this Committee. We will get the language to you. If accountability is going to mean anything, we will get the language to you. Mr. Preston. OK. Yes. On disaster, we can come over tomorrow. We have got everything you could ever want on that right now. Chairman Kerry. Seven years on the procurement program. Senator Snowe. Two thousand five hundred and seventeen days, to be exact. Chairman Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Administrator. Mr. Preston. All right. Thank you. Chairman Kerry. We appreciate it. Senator Snowe. Thank you. Chairman Kerry. Can I ask the Inspector General, please, Eric Thorson, if you would come for the panel. Mr. Thorson, you have previously served as the Chief Investigator for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the Senate Committee on Finance and we are grateful for your observations and reports and we welcome your testimony. If you could try to summarize, we have questions and obviously we are very familiar with it, so if you could summarize and move on. Mr. Thorson. Yes, sir. Chairman Kerry. Thanks. STATEMENT OF ERIC M. THORSON, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. Thorson. Chairman Kerry and Ranking Member Snowe, I appreciate being here this morning. On the morning of January 9, 2007, as a result of a lengthy investigation, special agents from the Office of Inspector General, with the help of the Secret Service, began a sweep in Detroit, Michigan, resulting in the arrest of 18 individuals. Among those arrested were former BLX executive vice president Patrick Harrington and former Huntington National Bank vice president Deborah Lazenby. Mr. Harrington was charged with making at least 76 fraudulent SBA guaranteed loans totaling about $76 million. We believe this is the largest 7(a) loan fraud scheme in SBA history. Both Mr. Harrington and Ms. Lazenby have plead guilty. So far, our investigation has resulted in the indictment of 27 individuals, of which 3 are currently international fugitives. This criminal investigation is continuing with further indictments expected. These rather dramatic events raise questions about SBA's oversight of its lenders and led our auditors to review SBA's oversight of BLX from 2001 to 2006. This audit focused on how SBA monitored BLX during this period and whether SBA took effective actions. It was not an audit of BLX. In summary, we found that SBA was aware of recurring performance and compliance issues, but there were few consequences for its performance problems. We believe that the high rate of default and other problems with BLX loans presented undue financial risk to SBA and therefore merited in- depth reviews of the defaulted loans as well as possible suspension of SBA's preferred lender status, which allows BLX to approve loans with virtually no prior review by SBA. Despite problems with BLX's loans, however, SBA continued to renew the delegated PLP lending authority and to honor guaranteed purchase requests without taking any additional precautions, paying out $272.1 million in guarantees between 2001 and 2006. Quite simply, SBA did not hold the lender accountable for its performance problems. While SBA has been slow to develop its lender oversight program, we acknowledge that they have taken significant steps, which are identified in my written statement. Despite these efforts, we believe the deficiencies we observed in SBA's handling of BLX are symptomatic of systemic issues that have restricted the effectiveness of SBA's oversight. These issues fall into five categories. First, SBA has focused on the quantity of loans, not the quality. SBA sets goals for loan production, but not for loan quality or lender performance. This emphasis on production has created an environment where it may be difficult to take corrective action against the large lenders when doing so might jeopardize the attainment of SBA's goals. We believe SBA may have been reluctant to take enforcement action against BLX because it is among SBA's top ten lenders in the value of loans dispersed. Second, SBA has delegated broad loan-making authority to lenders without making corresponding increases in its monitoring and oversight efforts. Currently, more than 87 percent of SBA loans are made using delegations of authority with minimal oversight by SBA. While SBA has assumed more risk and has taken some important measures to monitor lender performance, it has not fully implemented compensating controls to mitigate that risk. Third, reductions in personnel over the past 5 years have diminished the agency's capacity to provide oversight at a time when it is growing its loan portfolio. SBA personnel have been reduced by 25 percent since 2001, while loan production has increased more than 100 percent during this time. SBA has not adequately staffed its lender oversight office and does not analyze loans to detect fraud schemes or identify high-risk situations. Also, significant backlogs exist involving thousands of lender requests for SBA payments on defaulted loans, some going back 6 years. An inadequate review of these defaulted loans have failed to identify loan deficiencies. Although SBA is taking steps to revamp the purchase review process, it recently determined that more than 50 percent of all backlogged 7(a) purchase packages were missing significant documents. In addition, untimely reviews by SBA limit the OIG's ability to effectively investigate and prosecute criminal fraud. Fourth, a conflict of interest exists between SBA's lender advocacy and oversight roles. The Office of Capital Access is responsible for promoting loan growth and lender participation, but at the same time, is also conducting lender oversight and enforcement. These functions are incompatible and should be separated to preclude organizational conflicts of interest. Fifth, SBA has not focused on fraud detection. Although the size of SBA's loan portfolio and its reliance on lenders for loan making has made SBA's loan programs vulnerable to fraud, SBA has made only limited efforts to detect fraud. OIG investigations have found that loan agents, or packagers, perpetrate schemes on multiple loans causing losses of tens-of- millions of dollars. This was evident in the above-mentioned arrest. OIG has for years recommended that the agency track loan agent involvement so that quick action can be taken to prevent losses if fraud is detected. However, agency efforts to track loan agents have thus far been ineffectual. Finally, let me briefly address questions regarding our audit report and the numerous redactions it contains. This report is a rather unusual circumstance because it necessarily discusses the actions of a private sector company and agency deliberations. I have great respect for Mr. Borchert, the SBA General Counsel, so when his office asserted that the redactions were needed to protect agency privileges and agency operational practices, we accepted those concerns. Simply put, we do not wish to cause any harm to the agency and, in fact, strongly desire to make it better. Although we do not necessarily agree with the legal explanation for some of the redactions, the safest path was to post the report with SBA's requested redactions. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about our report today, and I also want to acknowledge the presence today of Mr. James Hudson and Debra Ritt who were responsible for the excellent report that you have in front of you. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Thorson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.011 Chairman Kerry. Thank you very much, Mr. Thorson. First of all, let me thank you for keeping your promise to this Committee, which we don't take lightly, which was the notion that you would fulfill these responsibilities with independence and to the best of your ability to protect the public interest, and I think you really have done that and are doing that, and so we welcome the report. We certainly welcome any explanation the SBA may have to the contrary. We are here to find facts, not to pick winners, and so we would love to hear some of those things to the contrary. But I think the observations that you have made are not insignificant, and they are certainly important to understanding what is and isn't happening. Let me just ask you up front if you could perhaps share with us, for a moment, on this issue of staffing and personnel and the questions Senator Cardin asked and I asked--can you just share with the Committee what your perception is about where the SBA is at this point in its ability to track fraud? Mr. Thorson. In the area of staffing, obviously the fact that there is a backlog would address that question---- Chairman Kerry. I was struck by that. You just said a very significant backlog. Mr. Thorson. Right. You have two different aspects here that you could address, and one, of course, is the effect of having this backlog exist and being able to deal with it and get rid of it. The other is to detect fraud, and those are really two very different issues. One of our concerns is that, in the desire to get rid of the backlog, it is almost human nature to do a more cursory review---- Chairman Kerry. Push things through rapidly---- Mr. Thorson [continuing]. Of the files in order to move them out, and we understand that. We don't expect--this office certainly does not expect SBA to do an in-depth review of every single loan file. That is not practical. But where you can target, where you can find problems, there are a number of parameters that we could throw out here and discuss about how to identify the targets where you need to focus your efforts-- -- Chairman Kerry. Have you memoed the various responsible parties to that effect? Mr. Thorson. There was a report done in February, among others. Chairman Kerry. February of this year? Mr. Thorson. Yes. But what we want to do is to get people to focus on where the effort needs to be made, and occasionally--not always, not in every case--do an in-depth review and look at what is there. We don't expect, for instance, the auditors to identify that in the case that I mentioned to you, there were phony cashier's checks creating evidence of equity injection, that these were phony checks. We don't expect that. But what we do expect is for there to be elements to alert people to possible fraud and, therefore, we can then take it from there and investigate it. But it all comes down to the idea of staffing the purchase reviews so that you do get a good look at what has gone on with these loans. It may not involve fraud. It just may be that they didn't really fulfill all the requirements that were required of them when they granted that loan. They are making credit decisions on behalf of the U.S. Government. The Government is backing those credit decisions and we need to make sure that we are living up to--or that the lenders are living up to their responsibilities. Chairman Kerry. Do you have perhaps a two most important change list, or three, whatever it is, that you think the SBA ought to undertake in order to improve the oversight and prevention of future fraud? Mr. Thorson. Rather than two, I would probably say there are four. The two that I just mentioned were: identify where your problems are and target those problems; second of all, devote the amount of resources to it that is necessary to do a timely review. The third one would be to do occasional in-depth reviews in that target area so that you can--not every case, but where you can really find out what kind of product these lenders are giving you. And then the fourth one is accountability, that is to take some action based on what you are finding. When you find that there are problems here with any lender, whether it is BLX or anybody else, be prepared to take some sort of action against that lender to, not to put them out of business, but to bring them around so that they will begin to improve their process. Chairman Kerry. Now, your report said that since 2001, the SBA has identified recurring problems in the performance of BLX, is that correct? Mr. Thorson. Yes, sir. Chairman Kerry. Can you relate what those recurring problems identified were? Mr. Thorson. I think they range anywhere from credit issues, how they administer credit, to analyzing the ability to repay. Is the package complete, were the elements that were required by SBA, were they complied with? Then, of course, you have any issue of fraud that may be present. Chairman Kerry. Why was the investigation of BLX initiated? Mr. Thorson. You mean the criminal investigation, or the audit? Chairman Kerry. The criminal. Mr. Thorson. The criminal investigation was actually started back around 2002 by allegations that were made from a number of sources, some of which I believe you have statements from, that are commonly referred to as short-sellers. The SBA did investigate a lot of those issues, but didn't find that there were enough specifics there to be able to bring a criminal case. There were other issues that developed along the way on the non-fraud side of it, which was an issue in 2002, which suggested that there were problems with loans; and then in 2005, the OIG issued a Management Advisory Report detailing, I think it was seven loans in violation of SBA procedures and material misstatements to SBA. In fact, to their credit, BLX offered to repay one of those loans, but for some reason, SBA sent them an e-mail stating that they were being too hard on themselves; and they didn't need to do that. The criminal investigation was pretty much---- Chairman Kerry. You have got to come again with that one. Mr. Thorson. I am sorry? Chairman Kerry. You have got to hit me again with that one. Mr. Thorson. OK. Chairman Kerry. The SBA did what? They wrote them back and said, don't worry? Mr. Thorson. That is the information--neither myself nor Mr. Preston was with SBA at that time, but that is the information I have, yes. Chairman Kerry. It is my understanding that you have a second report underway now. Is that because your judgment is that non-bank lenders and their oversight warrant additional concern from your office? Mr. Thorson. Yes, also the fact that we are not--this audit report was not really on BLX. We used it as sort of a case study because of the criminal case, but what we wanted to do was to focus on the SBLCs, Small Business Lending Companies, and make a determination, is this widespread--are these problems as big as we may think they are, or is this an isolated incident? It seemed only natural that we would expand the report to look at other SBLCs, as well. Chairman Kerry. And as you know better than anybody, the public version of your July 11, 2007 report was only released this past month. Why did it take so long after the official completion of the report for it to be released? Mr. Thorson. Why did it take so long until what? Chairman Kerry. For it to be released publicly. Mr. Thorson. Primarily because of the debate on the redactions. We were dealing with both the attorneys for BLX, as well as the General Counsel of the agency---- Chairman Kerry. Who insisted on those redactions? Did you insist on them? Did the SBA---- Mr. Thorson. I am the one who made the decision to go ahead and put it out with the redactions that you see before you. Chairman Kerry. Who insisted on the redactions? Mr. Thorson. The General Counsel's Office was one. The BLX attorneys did. Chairman Kerry. The General Counsel---- Mr. Thorson. We rejected the claims of the company, but I did accept the redactions from the General Counsel's Office. Chairman Kerry. In your opinion, are all of the redactions legally supportable? Mr. Thorson. No, but in fairness to their office--I am not an attorney--I used common sense when I looked at some of these and made my decisions on that. Chairman Kerry. Was there any reason---- Mr. Thorson. We also have our own counsel, though---- Chairman Kerry. Can you explain why three of your recommendations would be redacted? Mr. Thorson. I am still having a hard time with that one. They gave a legal reason for each of the redactions and I accepted those because of---- Chairman Kerry. Did your recommendations specifically mention any potential trade secret or anything specific to a company or anything specific that would fall under---- Mr. Thorson. No. Chairman Kerry [continuing]. The three exclusions stated? Mr. Thorson. No. Actually, they are--after you read it, I think you would pretty much come to the conclusions of what those recommendations would be just simply from reading the report. I think it is pretty common knowledge that we have taken--in fact, in my own statement, we have taken issue with the PLP status of BLX as it progressed. I mean, things like that would be a pretty normal situation for the office to recommend. Chairman Kerry. Senator Snowe. Senator Snowe. Thank you again, Mr. Thorson, for your very sensitive and thorough work with respect to these critical issues and troubling ones, frankly. As you know, these longstanding issues are my deepest concern. I know that Chairman Kerry shares the same concerns as to whether or not the Small Business Administration is in a position to take the corrective measures that are essential to preventing similar problems in the future. I guess while there may be some distinctions obviously between fraudulent actions, and just having measures in place to make sure that they are following correct procedures; nevertheless, there is an ability to establish procedures that would ultimately detect fraud, a potential risk for fraud---- Mr. Thorson. Right. Senator Snowe [continuing]. And when you talk about 50 percent of some of the loans, is that what you are reviewing now? Are you saying that 50 percent of these loans don't have accurate documentation at the Herndon Center? Mr. Thorson. Yes. Senator Snowe. Fifty percent? Mr. Thorson. The problem with that is not only can we not really get a good feel for what some of these packages contain as we may look at them, but it also prevents the agency from really understanding whether or not the package was complete at the time it was made, whether or not they can, if they see problems to go back against the lender and get the money back in an improper payment--recovery of an improper payment. Senator Snowe. Well, what you heard this morning from Administrator Preston in response to questions, do you feel that the Small Business Administration is in a position of taking the measures necessary to begin to address many of these issues? You have obviously issued a number of reports over the last year-and-a-half. Have any of these recommendations been implemented or adopted by the SBA? Finally, what is your response to what you heard here today with respect to the responses by the Administrator to your report? Mr. Thorson. In my written statement, we outlined the steps that the agency was taking, and we certainly applaud that. I guess it falls to the normal task of an IG to look at those as they progress through time and make sure that they work and that they accomplish what they were designed to do. It is going to take a little bit of time. Most of these are new. So we want to take a look at these over time to make sure that these steps are effective and doing what they were designed to do. But we certainly admire the fact that they have put these steps in place and are making these efforts. Senator Snowe. Do you think in both verifying the loans at the outset, as well as addressing the issues I mentioned, the repurchase rate as a predictor of the potential for loan default becomes a critical indicator? Mr. Thorson. Absolutely, yes. You obviously have two types of reviews here, the pre-reviews which are done before--in this case--before BLX can sell the loan on the secondary market, and then you have the post-purchase reviews which are done after the money is paid out on a defaulted loan. So in each of those cases, what you really want to do is to learn what you can about--you can learn obviously about the package individually, but you can also learn a great deal about the lender and the way they are operating in the SBA guaranteed environment. Senator Snowe. Could you understand why they continued to renew the status of BLX? I mean---- Mr. Thorson. No. It is---- Senator Snowe [continuing]. In reading the report here, it really truly is mystifying and disconcerting. Mr. Thorson. It is really one of the things that we had a hard time with, and I understand the agency's concern about affecting their business, and the argument was made, I believe, by BLX that it would put them out of business. I personally don't believe that is true, but then again, I haven't seen all that was presented to them; so there is a legitimate concern for that as I do understand it. But the other concern that they have to have is to make sure that when you have given a company--in this case--or a bank, or anybody, the right to make credit decisions on behalf of the Government because that is who is backing these loans, we expect the money to come back. We need to get that money back. And therefore when you do that, the primary concern has got to be that we have trusted that lender to use good judgment, to use good banking procedures, and to make good loans, and therefore we shouldn't have these kind of problems. How many ways can you hold them accountable? There are not many, but one of them is that big one. That is the PLP status. Senator Snowe. I couldn't agree more. That is something that we are going to have to clearly focus on, as you are recommending, established policies for penalties--that has to be abundantly clear and evident. The Small Business Administration must be prepared to invoke those penalties and consequences---- Mr. Thorson. Right. Senator Snowe [continuing]. On troubled lenders---- Mr. Thorson. And in fairness to the agency---- Senator Snowe. We gave the preferred lender status to expedite the loan approval process, to make it easier, remove barriers, so on and so forth, but commensurate with that was a fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer, and that hasn't happened and---- Mr. Thorson. Right. In fairness to them, one of the things the Agency points out is that they will shorten the time span for the PLP renewal. But if it is always renewed, that doesn't really seem to have any effect. If you can count on the fact-- and in one case we notice it was even renewed retroactively--it really has no effect. You can pretty well count on the fact that you have got it. But it is one of the very few ways to really hold the lender accountable and to force them to move more toward compliance with your policies and procedures. Senator Snowe. You have mentioned, I understand, that SBA does not treat all lenders with troubled portfolios the same; the small lenders with poor performance often have the renewal of their preferred lending authority denied, but in other cases, large lenders with the same problems do not. Is that true? I mean, do you see that? Mr. Thorson. Yes. Senator Snowe. You do? So there is a disparate approach to small lenders versus large, and it is all due to volume, again---- Mr. Thorson. It would probably be good to be able to try and provide you some exact numbers which I honestly don't have today. But that is the case. And in fact, I think one of the questions asked earlier of the Administrator was how many did you revoke, and if that is true, then what happened here? This was--I have got to believe--a pretty bad example of what can happen, and if this didn't result in revocation, then why did the others? Or another question is, how many of those that were revoked were due to other Federal regulatory agency actions, and not exclusively because SBA took action? Senator Snowe. Finally, in your estimation, given the analysis and investigations that you have conducted, do you believe that BLX is the norm, potentially the norm, or the exception? Mr. Thorson. No, I don't think this is a normal situation. I think what it is right now is we don't know where this is going. I will tell you the Troy, Michigan office is closed, but the investigation is ongoing. So as far as the criminal case, that is about all we can really tell you. But this has been an interesting situation. Senator Snowe. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thorson. Chairman Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Thorson. Thank you, Senator Snowe. It is an interesting situation. Obviously, all of us hope it is merely a singular individual situation and that it doesn't point to a larger issue. It obviously is incumbent on a whole bunch of folks to make certain of that---- Mr. Thorson. Right. Chairman Kerry [continuing]. And that is the job of--your job, to some degree, Mr. Thorson, but it is particularly the job of the SBA itself and the lending institutions. They are going to have to take a look at their own processes to guarantee that an awfully important program doesn't get jeopardized as a consequence of what we all hope is a singular individual, a sort of aberration, and that is obviously our hope. So I thank you for testifying today. As I said, the record will remain open. We may have a few more questions in writing, but we thank you very much for being here today. Mr. Thorson. Thank you. Chairman Kerry. Could I invite the third panel, please, Mr. Bob Tannenhauser, chairman of Business Loan Express; Anthony Wilkinson, president of the National Association of Guaranteed Government Lenders; and Jim Baird, executive director of the Bay Area Development Company and vice chairman of the Legislative Affairs Committee, National Association of Development Companies, all of whom are involved in and are deeply affected by the testimonies of the prior two panels and what we are talking about. Thank you, folks. I appreciate you being here. Before we begin, let me just emphasize something. I want to reiterate. Mr. Tannenhauser, I want to make certain that you understand and the public understands that your invitation here is not intended to put some kind of undue or inappropriate focus on BLX, and personally, I know you take great pride in the leadership of your company and in your effort to help small business owners. I fully want to respect the fact that this Committee exists for the purpose of helping small businesses. Our objective is to expand access to affordable financing for small businesses, and since this story broke, the Committee has taken a very measured approach to the news, asking the questions about the SBA oversight and reaction, but leaving the disciplinary decisions entirely to the SBA, and I think we have refrained from any sort of public bashing sessions. As you know, we have never recommended for or against radical calls for BLX to lose its preferred lender status, delegated loan privileges, or to cease BLX's ability to sell SBA loans on the secondary market. BLX's representatives and employees have stated many times that BLX has been unfairly beaten up in the press as a result of the actions of one of its lending officers and that the SBA's IG report is unbalanced and inaccurate. So this is your opportunity to share with us your perspective and your side of the story and we look forward to having a good, healthy discussion here. Mr. Baird and Mr. Wilkinson, we look forward to your input on this overall situation and the issues that have been discussed here this morning, so thank you very much, each of you, for being here. Mr. Tannenhauser, why don't you lead off and we will go right down the line. If you could all summarize. I want to give you adequate time, but your full testimonies will be placed in the record as if read in full. STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. TANNENHAUSER, CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS LOAN EXPRESS, LLC, NEW YORK, NEW YORK Mr. Tannenhauser. Giving a brief summary. Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Snowe, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today. I am Robert Tannenhauser, chairman of the board and formerly president and CEO of Business Loan Express, LLC, known as BLX, a national non-bank lender. BLX is a leading participant in the SBA's loan programs, having made more than 9,000 SBA loans totaling more than $3.6 billion since 1994. BLX has played a critical role in the SBA's 7(a) program, which is specifically designed to help borrowers who cannot otherwise obtain credit. Since 2001, approximately 77 percent of BLX's SBA loans have been made to minorities, women, veterans, and borrowers in low- to moderate-income areas. Even though SBA lending is inherently higher risk, BLX has a robust performance record. We have consistently maintained loss rates well below SBA industry averages by strong underwriting and collateralizing our loans with real estate. For the past 6 years, BLX has been audited annually by the Farm Credit Administration. SBA has taken into account the results of those audits in renewing BLX's PLP status. BLX has no financial incentive to condone fraud and every incentive to avoid it. BLX generally retains at least a 25 percent stake in each loan and remains liable to the SBA for the remaining 75 percent if fraud or mistakes occur in our loan processes. In January 2007, indictments were unsealed charging five individuals, including a former BLX office employee with fraud in originating SBA guaranteed loans. Last month, that employee--former employee, Pat Harrington--pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of perjury. It is an understatement to say that this has been a difficult chapter in BLX's history, and I am personally saddened and disappointed by the misconduct of our former employee. I wish we had become aware of his activities earlier. Our records indicate that Farm Credit Administration reviewed several of these loans going back almost 4 years with no indication to us of fraud. Obviously, such wrongdoings are difficult to detect. Well before the indictments, a nationally known law firm was engaged to conduct an internal investigation of our Detroit office. BLX also made a business decision to stop originating gas station loans in Detroit and removed Mr. Harrington as head of the office and from loan originations. By September 2006, we had closed the Detroit office and severed our relationship with Mr. Harrington. BLX is a victim, not a perpetrator, of this fraudulent scheme. When the indictments were announced, before any findings of wrongdoing were made, BLX pledged to reimburse the SBA for any losses incurred as a result of the fraudulent activities by current or former BLX employees. BLX paid more than $8 million to the SBA and placed another $10 million in escrow. BLX has incurred significant losses of its own, writing off $9.8 million on loans that the Government asserts were fraudulent originated by our former employee in Detroit. BLX is a very different company today than it was when these fraudulent activities began many years ago. We have invested millions of dollars and countless hours enhancing our internal controls. I would now like to comment on the OIG report, which I believe is fundamentally flawed. The OIG did not itself audit BLX, but rather, relied on audits conducted by the Farm Credit Administration. The OIG report paints an inaccurate picture by excluding the Farm Credit auditors' ultimate findings and conclusions which strongly support the SBA's decision to renew BLX's PLP status. Instead, the OIG simply cited a few subsidiary comments in the Farm Credit audits to support an apparently preconceived conclusion. Unfortunately, I cannot provide more detail because criminal laws prohibit lenders from disseminating the contents of Farm Credit audits. I urge you to request copies of the audit reports. I am confident that after reviewing them, as well as BLX's written response to the OIG, you will conclude that the OIG report is replete with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I want to state in the strongest terms that BLX is committed to preventing fraud in the loan process. We welcome engagement with the Congress and our regulators in this endeavor. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Tannenhauser follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.018 Chairman Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Tannenhauser. I appreciate it. Mr. Wilkinson. STATEMENT OF ANTHONY R. WILKINSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT GUARANTEED LENDERS, INC., STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Snowe. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on SBA's lender oversight efforts. We recognize the benefit of quality lender oversight and support its implementation. Since the introduction of Federal credit reform, our member institutions have witnessed the impact that portfolio performance has on subsidy rates and program fees. We are acutely aware that when individual lenders do not engage in appropriate loan underwriting, servicing, and internal control practices, the results to the program can be detrimental in terms of the future costs to borrowers and lenders. Therefore, it is in my members' individual and collective interests that SBA engages in a sustained, effective lender oversight program. That said, a quality lender oversight program cannot guarantee that it will detect or prevent all fraudulent activities. In regards to BLX, I would like to just throw out a couple of numbers to put the information today in perspective. Since the start of credit reform, lenders and borrowers have paid in excess of $1 billion in fees more than were necessary to offset the cost of this program. During the time period that Mr. Tannenhauser referenced, over 500,000 loans have been made for something like $61 billion, which leads me to the conclusion that this has been a statistically insignificant event in terms of the entire portfolio. We applaud Mr. Tannenhauser for his attention to this fraud issue and his willingness to minimize the agency's losses, and it is unfortunate that small business has lost a staunch minority advocate and the industry has lost a corporate partner that has historically supported SBA's goal of reaching underserved markets. A quality lender oversight program should provide a cost effective, statistically valid means of detecting increased risk in the overall SBA portfolio, as well as in individual lender portfolios. Initially, this is typically accomplished with a properly functioning offsite monitoring program. Upon detection of adverse trends, the oversight program should direct an onsite review of the institution's asset quality and lending practices to validate concerns, provide corrective actions, or issue enforcement direction. We do not believe the current offsite monitoring program being developed by the SBA will meet its intended objective. The SBA already has access to significant amounts of data relating to historical loan performance, delinquencies, and lender activity. However, it does not appear that this information is routinely utilized as part of an early warning risk assessment system. The SBA is instead relying upon a Dun and Bradstreet computer program that forecasts a percentage of loans in a lender's portfolio at high, moderate, and low risk of default. Unfortunately, the forecast criteria, as well as the specific loans identified as high-risk are never shared with the lender. The lender is unable to determine whether it agrees with the analysis; and if it does agree, to take appropriate action. Our desire is not to know the precise formula for determining a lender's rating. However, we do expect sufficient detailed information that will help us implement corrective action and reduce the portfolio risk. In addition, the SBA is requiring the participating lenders to pay for this Dun and Bradstreet program through separate fees. Lenders were not provided sufficient information to determine if they are receiving any value for this cost. Moreover, portfolio performance forecasts by the Dun and Bradstreet model are highly questionable and appear unreliable. The results of the ongoing offsite analysis should be supplemented with onsite reviews for any participating lenders deemed to be high risk. It is imperative that the onsite activity provides timely feedback and meaningful analysis to the participating banks and the SBA. It is an established fact that the bank and credit union industries already have substantial lender oversight from its respective regulators. NAGGL believes that before initiating its own onsite lender activities, the SBA should be required to demonstrate that it is adding value to current Federal and State oversight efforts and not just duplicating existing efforts and costs. It would appear reasonable for the SBA to work with the existing regulatory agencies to accomplish its onsite examination objectives and ensure consistent application of examination procedures by regulatory experts to provide safety and soundness testing of SBA portfolios. Under the current fee structure for the lender oversight program, the SBA has based the monitoring costs on a lender's outstanding guaranteed balance versus a proper risk-based fee structure. SBA's evidence reflects the greatest risk in low- volume lenders and non-federally regulated lenders. The SBA should reassess its fee structure under a risk-based allocation and not have the most active participants bear the cost of under-performing high-risk lenders. Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate you and Senator Snowe on the introduction of S. 2288, a bill that would significantly improve SBA's lender oversight function without unduly increasing the regulatory burden on lenders. We believe that S. 2288 is a major step forward in improving lender oversight. Also, the SBA has just published a 35-page proposed rule on lender oversight. The primary focus appears to be enforcement actions and not safety and soundness standards and we will submit a formal letter of comment on the proposed rule at a later date. Despite the need for adequate lender oversight, the performance of the SBA portfolio has been good. If standardized banking calculations are applied to the SBA loss data, the annual net loss rate in the SBA 7(a) program would be in range of 0.4 to 0.5 percent. And looking at the FDIC Web site this week, their quarterly banking profile shows that in the second quarter of 2007, the conventional bank loss rate was 0.5 percent. Given the high-risk nature of the SBA loans, this loss rate reflects the lending community's desire and ability to effectively minimize the program's taxpayer cost while meeting its public policy objective of making credit available to the small business community. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.027 Chairman Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson. That was important testimony and we appreciate it. Mr. Baird. STATEMENT OF JAMES BAIRD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BAY AREA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AND VICE CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA Mr. Baird. Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Snowe, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to talk about this important subject. I am Jim Baird, the executive director of Bay Area Employment and Development Company of Walnut Creek, California, and the vice chair of Legislative Affairs for NADCO, the National Association of Development Companies for Legislative Affairs. Our industry has a significant and ongoing interest in maintaining the highest standards of industry oversight and loan program performance. The purpose of my remarks today are not to tear down the efforts that SBA has made to date, but to try to add comments to strengthen the oversight program of the SBA. Obviously, over the last 4 years, there have been dramatic program changes and dramatic growth in the 504 program. This has been growth in both number of loans, dollars of loans, and economic development impacts of the program. But this growth magnifies the importance and also the danger of growing a program without optimal oversight in place. The 504 oversight program has evolved and is evolving, but it is still lacking in several important ways. For example, the Office of Credit Risk Management reviews the credit and eligibility of all the loans that they audit in their routine onsite audits. However, they review these factors independent of one another. I can't overstate the importance of taking a look at the whole, the adequacy of the overall project structure. To me, it is analogous to analyzing all the separate parts of a car without taking the time to ask if the car runs. In PCLP, there are also significant lost oversight opportunities. PCLP has grown dramatically, but it has grown in only a few markets of the country and only by a small portion of CDCs participating in the program. There are rampant rumors of PCLP lenders doing 504 loans that are not properly underwritten. PCLP lenders are routinely providing 100-percent loan-to-value financing without any reasonable basis for doing so and rumored to be and obtaining SBA approval with incomplete information, incomplete analysis, and incomplete underwriting. So how do we improve PCLP oversight? I would suggest we take a look at some of the processes in place at the Sacramento Loan Processing Center. They have been operating in an environment of substantially increasing volume while having substantially decreasing staff. They have developed a very efficient method of loan program overview called the Abridged Submission Method, or ASM. In this process, CDCs submit limited packages rather than whole packages, but are required on 48 hours' notice and on a random basis to submit complete packages to Sacramento for review and audit. This is a proactive, real-time program that heads off problems before they occur, and lenders never know which loans are going to be chosen, so they are always acting diligent in order to preserve their status, whether it is ALP or ASM, or whatever their CDC status is. However, the chronic staff shortages that have occurred in the Sacramento Loan Processing Center have caused, even for ALP lenders, the ASM program to be suspended. Somehow, we need to find the resources to fully staff the Sacramento Loan Processing Center. We need to fully staff the center so that it can reinstate the ASM program and so that it can, for the first time, apply the ASM audit process to PCLP lenders. Comments have already been made on the D&B model, which in my opinion, looking at the big picture, represents an agency attempt to use modern technology and apply it to portfolio management, which is a good thing. It is a good direction, but there are issues with it, and we have already gone through. I would suffice it to say that we need disclosure and daylight, number one, to see if the model actually works; and number two, to allow lenders and CDCs to put the data to productive use. We need the passage of S. 1256 and S. 2288. After 27 years, for the first time, S. 1256 defines the structure and expectations for the 504 program and its participants, and it is a critical foundation to establish proper 504 loan oversight. S. 2288, as introduced by the Ranking Minority Member and Chair, will also dramatically improve loan oversight. It also authorizes oversight fees, and we are concerned about the effect of those fees, particularly on small and rural CDCs. We would like to work with the Committee on this provision, but in our opinion, both bills need to be adopted in this session to strengthen oversight and NADCO endorses both bills. The newly proposed loan oversight regulation is something that we are going to need some time to go through, given its recent introduction and its length, frankly. Our preliminary concerns are that it seems to identify the D&B system as the sole system of CDC initial oversight and it also requires compliance of CDC audits, with OMB Circular A-133, which would have substantial cost effects for all CDCs, and again, particularly small and rural CDCs. We believe it would drive many of them out of the program. The regulatory finding of no significant impact on CDCs or on small business is, frankly, in error. In summary, there is currently no liquidation or default crisis whatsoever in the 504 program. We are here today to try to offer suggestions to improve oversight and enforcement, and we hope to continue to work closely with the Committee and the agency to obtain the best possible practices. I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member for holding this hearing and we would be happy to answer any questions you have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Baird follows w/attachment:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.038 Chairman Kerry. Thank you, Mr. Baird. We certainly appreciate the testimony and the observation, obviously, that you think that the program is fundamentally sound and not in any kind of liquidation crisis, and I think that is very important news for people to know and understand. Mr. Wilkinson, I want to cut to the sort of heart of this thing, in a way, if we can a little bit. I think your observation about the default rate relative to the total portfolio measured against the commercial industry is an important one. So let me ask you sort of a summary question, in a sense, about that. Are you satisfied that the procedures in place within the SBA itself and/or the lender structure are sufficient to protect the taxpayer dollar with respect to these loans? Mr. Wilkinson. Well, one of the benefits that we have in the---- Chairman Kerry. You gave some recommendations. Maybe you want to highlight the most important ones that would either guarantee that, if you don't, or---- Mr. Wilkinson. We have the benefit in the 7(a) program in that almost all of our members are regulated institutions who have to deal with OCC, FDIC, NCUA, so they already have systems in place for their entire institutions. So that is a benefit that we get in the 7(a) program. Chairman Kerry. How do you feel--what about the non-bank lenders? Mr. Wilkinson. Not having been through each of their institutions, that would be a tough call, but it does look like that could be where the SBA is trying to put in place some of the regulations that we as bankers have been subjected to for quite some time. Chairman Kerry. Is it your judgment that the program would be advantaged by having some additional oversight in that regard? I mean, you have heard the testimony today. You have obviously followed this issue. What is your judgment as to procedures already in place? Mr. Wilkinson. Again, having gone through a good part of my career in the commercial banking world, when we get an onsite review from a bank examiner, it is a very detailed loan- specific report that is also a management tool, so that we get an independent look at the loans and they come through and really make a judgment on the asset quality and it puts us in a position to then take actions to correct what they might see as a deficiency that we hadn't seen before. So it is a very useful tool and that is not something we get with the Dun and Bradstreet model that gives us a score that we don't know how it was derived, or what it means, and it does not provide a management tool, yet we get the privilege of paying for it. Chairman Kerry. But specifically with respect to the SBA, your written testimony says that in the current onsite review process, the SBA is essentially looking for the completeness of the file---- Mr. Wilkinson. The bulk of the---- Chairman Kerry [continuing]. Not for the---- Mr. Wilkinson. Quality of the asset. Chairman Kerry [continuing]. The quality of the asset. Mr. Wilkinson. That would be correct. The bulk of the onsite review---- Chairman Kerry. Is that a problem? Mr. Wilkinson. Well, it is---- Chairman Kerry. I mean, is that the extent of SBA's job? Does the other fall to somebody else? Are we missing something? Are we going down the wrong track here? Mr. Wilkinson. Well, we would prefer to see more review of the asset. Is it a quality asset? What problems do you see, as opposed to, do we have this certain form in the file? I mean, that is something that if there is documentation missing, should the loan ever go into default, that SBA would say, hey, you didn't get a mortgage. You didn't get a UCC. You caused us harm. We will repair the guarantee. Chairman Kerry. And you also believe--I think you asserted that there ought to be better coordination between the SBA oversight and the other oversight entities? Mr. Wilkinson. Absolutely. The bank examiners are already in the bulk of 7(a) lenders. We would like to see the SBA work with the agencies and perhaps come up with a cooperative way that perhaps the banking agencies could expand their reviews to cover what SBA would need. Chairman Kerry. Mr. Tannenhauser, I appreciate your testimony. I know that BLX and the SBA both consider themselves essentially to have been victims of a fraud here, and obviously, you were in the sense that one of your employees took a flyer. But the question is, where do you believe--what judgment do you make about the company's own sort of processes? You have spent a lot of money, and you have talked about the things you have done to try to correct that. Were there some signs that you believe that BLX should have picked up on [such] as $28 million in repurchases of loans originating out of one branch, all for the same kind of industry, i.e., gas stations? Was there something here that you think might have been done more effectively, or do you just think this was so hard to peg that somehow it escaped scrutiny? Mr. Tannenhauser. Well, Senator, the issue of the performance in the Detroit office is something that we had looked at early on, and they did specialize in making loans to borrowers in the gas station/convenience store industry, and primarily these borrowers were of Middle Eastern descent. We looked at the performance of these loans and especially we were concerned after 9/11. Was there any impact as a result of that? And we did monitor the performance pretty clearly. And as a result of that, we did shut down the gas station operations well before any indication of fraud or wrongdoing came to light. Also, prior to that, we conducted a--had an independent investigation of the Detroit office, which we utilized in making our decisions. We also removed Mr. Harrington as head of the office and from loan originations. Chairman Kerry. What prompted that? What was the---- Mr. Tannenhauser. That was strictly loan performance. We historically do close down offices and terminate business development officers on a performance basis, again, with no indication of fraud, but we are in business to make good loans and if people are giving us loans that don't perform well, that doesn't serve us very well, nor the program. Chairman Kerry. But you nevertheless kept him on? Mr. Tannenhauser. We kept him on--well, he had a contract and there was no reason under his contract to terminate him, but we did keep him on in a role which took him out of the loan origination process. Chairman Kerry. Does BLX monitor the performance of loans by branch? Mr. Tannenhauser. Yes, we do. We monitor it by branch. We monitor it by underwriter. We monitor it by closer. We monitor it by referral sources. And, in fact, we keep a blacklist of referral sources that we no longer do business with, some of which were involved in this fraud. Chairman Kerry. So in other words, you break them out, your loans from other loans, such as USDA and other non-Government guaranteed loans? Mr. Tannenhauser. Yes. Well, we slice and dice in every possible way we can. We have been dedicated to process improving since 2000---- Chairman Kerry. Were the SBA loans the bulk of the Troy office loans? Mr. Tannenhauser. Yes, they were, but there were conventional loans, also, which I believe were alleged to be involved in the fraud and which we take the full loss. Chairman Kerry. When did BLX first notice that they were one-industry focused? Mr. Tannenhauser. We knew that right away. The Troy office---- Chairman Kerry. Did you also know they were linked to one specific employee? Mr. Tannenhauser. Well, he was head of the office. The Troy office came to us as a merger. BLX is really an amalgamation of four different companies and the Troy office came to us in a merger of one of these companies that we integrated and their primary focus was gas station/c-store loans. Mr. Harrington was really the rain maker for that office. Chairman Kerry. With respect to the settlement agreement between you and the SBA, it requires you, number one, to cover any losses to the SBA related to the Troy, Michigan fraud, and two, to repurchase the guaranteed portion of BLX loans that default after being sold in the secondary market if they are related to the fraud scheme. So you have to repurchase---- Mr. Tannenhauser. No, actually, I believe it requires us to repurchase any loans that default after March 6 in the secondary market. Chairman Kerry. So in effect, was this obligation an obligation that you assumed under the law, or was it an obligation that was required of you as part of the settlement with the SBA itself? Mr. Tannenhauser. No, this was not required in the law. This was negotiated in connection with the settlement agreement. Chairman Kerry. Now, initially, when the fraud was first discovered, BLX hired a law firm to look into the lending of that branch. What were the findings of that and what prompted you to do that? Mr. Tannenhauser. Well, the independent investigation by this law firm occurred prior to any indication of fraud. The reason we did that is there were several--we had been foreclosing on several loans and several of the borrowers had, over the course of, I think, 2 or 3 years, several of the borrowers had put in counter-claims alleging wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Harrington. So we engaged a nationally known law firm to conduct an independent investigation of the office. Chairman Kerry. Did they find at that point any fraudulence in those loans? Mr. Tannenhauser. No, they didn't. They found no evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, in the lawsuits, they were disposed of with no finding of wrongdoing, either. But that did not stop us from shutting down the Detroit gas station operations because of performance. Chairman Kerry. What did you see that caused you to move in and to shut it down? What was it that you saw? Mr. Tannenhauser. Well, we do gas station/convenience store loans all over the country and the performance of the loans from the Detroit office was well below the performance levels we had been seeing elsewhere, so---- Chairman Kerry. So this was a performance-related return on investment decision? Mr. Tannenhauser. That is correct. I mean, I believe as late as December 2005, we were under the impression that Mr. Harrington was a witness on behalf of the prosecution investigating certain of the loans, not a target of the investigation. Chairman Kerry. Now, here you are. What is the total business that you have been doing with the SBA? Mr. Tannenhauser. We have done over $3.6 billion worth of loans. Chairman Kerry. And what percentage of your business is that? Mr. Tannenhauser. I am sorry? Chairman Kerry. Of the overall business you do. Mr. Tannenhauser. Oh, that is the bulk of the business, although lately we have been moving more toward a conventional loan product, and that is becoming the majority of our---- Chairman Kerry. Now, here you are, sort of an important player in a small family of--this will be my last question; I just want to get to you, Senator Snowe--you have been the key player in this effort and this is an aberration, according to you and other folks. So the question I think looms large, why have you effectively said you are going to get out of the 7(a) business? Mr. Tannenhauser. The problem, Senator, is really the confluence of several events over this past year which have really made it extremely expensive for us to remain in the business. One of the events is obviously the impact of the Detroit indictments and the plea, the cost of us complying with the March 6 agreement with the SBA, the delay in our ability to securitize our SBA unguaranteed portions, which we didn't get permission until the end of August, and of course as you are obviously aware, the capital markets disintegrated by then, so we couldn't get those off. Our obligation to repurchase loans, which we will continue even if we are in the business or out of the business, creates a situation where we keep these loans on our balance sheet now at the highest possible cost of funds to us. We are not a bank, so we have to borrow to make loans. The delay in selling the guaranteed portion of the loans until after reviews by Deloitte and others keeps these loans on our balance sheet longer. Again, we are paying the highest possible rate that we can. And, of course, the increased cost of credit to us as a lender that needs to access the credit markets have all really caused us to think about scaling down, at least temporarily, our operations in the SBA business. We regret having to do this because we are dedicated to serving this community and we have been servicing minority borrowers throughout our existence, and I think we are one of the larger members---- Chairman Kerry. Well, we are certainly very sensitive to that and we certainly want to acknowledge that. I think there is a component of this that if this is a narrow and singular individual kind of event, one hates to see an entire operation diminished as a consequence of that and we ought to try to be smart about how we go forward with that. Let me cede to Senator Snowe. Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will just ask a few questions. Mr. Tannenhauser, just to follow up, I notice in your testimony that you felt that the Inspector General's report was inaccurate and incomplete. Am I right in saying that? Mr. Tannenhauser. Yes, that is what I testified to. Senator Snowe. OK. You raised your eyebrows and I thought maybe---- Mr. Tannenhauser. No, no. That is correct. Senator Snowe. And because they excluded the Farm Credit Administration's analysis, I gather, of your operation, as well? Mr. Tannenhauser. Yes, and---- Senator Snowe. And also obviously for the confidential information that has been redacted from the report, and we understand all that. But in the IG's report, it did indicate that there were recommendations to not renew the preferred lender status for BLX. Mr. Tannenhauser. Again---- Senator Snowe. So it wasn't an indiscriminate analysis, I don't think, from that standpoint. Mr. Tannenhauser. If I may, Senator, again, this is one of the issues that I take with the report as far as the inaccuracy and the incomplete presentation, and I will go back to maybe a little bit of that to correct what I believe is a misconception in what Tony said. Farm Credit does a very, very complete review when they come into a non-bank lender. They spend approximately 6 weeks, seven or eight people going through our files who safety and soundness audit review our files for loans for credit quality, make recommendations. The reports that they issue over this 5 to 6-year period consistently supported renewal of our PLP status. Yes, we do- make mistakes. There are human errors. But in these reports, I believe if you review them, you will see that they acknowledge that we address the issues that are presented, that we consistently take steps to improve the quality of our loans and our processes. Now, with respect to what the IG set forth about guidelines in the Sacramento Center, those are at odds with what were the benchmarks in place under the lender oversight SOP and those were not generally the benchmarks that we used. For some reason, they used these benchmarks, which are not the ones used for PLP renewal, and applied it against BLX when with other lenders they used different benchmarks. So I believe that perhaps they may have been confused about what the actual benchmarks were, and if they had used the real lender oversight benchmarks, they would find that we did comply with them and were entitled to renewal of our PLP status. If I can further state, that is not all that we went through when our PLP status was renewed. We spent countless hours with the SBA going over our portfolio performance, reconciling our numbers with them, showing them the improvements that we have made over the years. This was not just an idle rubber stamp. They spent time and effort, and believe me, after the year we had, I am no great fan of the SBA, but they did their job in overseeing us. So I can't criticize them for that. Senator Snowe. Well, would the Farm Credit Administration have done anything any different, I mean, in terms of evaluating something that raised a real concern? I mean, you can understand from a public interest standpoint---- Mr. Tannenhauser. Well, again, Senator, I urge you to read the Farm Credit report---- Senator Snowe. I will. Mr. Tannenhauser [continuing]. And read the conclusions and they will--I believe you will find that they support our contention that our lending practices were safe and sound and that we were one of the lenders in the industry that deserved to have PLP status---- Senator Snowe. The IG report raises significant issues that had surfaced with BLX. I mean, wouldn't you say from the standpoint of the Government that those would be legitimate interests to be concerned about? Mr. Tannenhauser. Well, there will always be issues raised because when you do the volume of loans that we do, there will always be human error--excuse me, there will always be mistakes. We do take the steps necessary to address those mistakes when we become aware of them and we do constantly try and improve our processes. That was discussed at length with the SBA during our renewal process and they took that into account and---- Senator Snowe. No, I understand that they might have taken it into account. What I am saying is that you understand from a public perspective, I mean, representing the public's interest and the American taxpayers, that there would be some serious issues. Would you not view those issues that manifested itself back then on the part of BLX might have been a precursor, a predictor for some of the problems that emerged ultimately? Did you see that as a bad sign, or did people in your organization see it as a bad sign in any way, or just that? Mr. Tannenhauser. We are always concerned with a high purchase rate, but we make loans to a segment of the population that is higher risk. However, our loss rate is significantly lower than the industry averages, so that is the real risk to the Government and we have maintained that over the 10 to 14 years that we have been doing this, and that is really--no one has taken that into account and everybody seems to ignore that fact. What is the risk to the Government? How much money are you going to lose on the loan? Well, guess what. On BLX's loans, the loss rates are below the industry averages. So you can pick a particular statistic and say, oh, this company is doing terribly, but you have to take the overall picture and I believe that is what Farm Credit did and I believe that is what SBA did, and I don't believe that is what the Inspector General did. And I don't say they did it with malice or for any reason other than perhaps they didn't have access to those facts and records. Senator Snowe. Again, you can understand what is at risk here, ultimately. We have a public obligation to the American taxpayer to explore those issues, to have the Inspector General provide an independent evaluation. Consequently, we have to make sure that we are doing our jobs in pursuing these negative activities. Obviously, when you have fraudulent activities emerge, it is certainly going to garner attention in addition to everything else to making sure that we have got appropriate procedures in place. That is our public obligation. I thought it was interesting that you said the IG report was incomplete. We will look at the Farm Credit Administration report. But I think you should know that others at the SBA saw serious issues emerging with BLX. That is what I need to bring to your attention based on the IG report now---- Mr. Tannenhauser. Absolutely. Again---- Senator Snowe. That is what I am saying---- Mr. Tannenhauser. There is no question, but you have to look---- Senator Snowe. Reservations within the SBA were not indiscriminate. They were based on the factors that they were considering at the time. Mr. Tannenhauser. Well, some areas we do less loans. You may have a higher repurchase rate in that area. I mean, there are different aspects. But if you take our portfolio performance as a whole, I think you will find that it is quite satisfactory. Senator Snowe. I appreciate that, and I know that you are taking remedial measures and hiring an independent party to evaluate all of your procedures. You also mentioned in your testimony that BLX agrees to make SBA whole. Where does that stand now? Mr. Tannenhauser. Well, where it stands now is we have paid them over $8 million. I believe there was one loan which Mr. Harrington pleaded to which was not in the original eight. We will be making them whole on that. And to the extent that there are any other loans in which fraud is found, there is a $10- million escrow plus we are obligated beyond that. So the SBA will not lose money as a result of fraud by any of our employees. We will lose that money. Senator Snowe. Thank you, and I think that is important, as well, in all of that. So you stand prepared to reimburse the Government for any losses that occur---- Mr. Tannenhauser. Absolutely, and that obligation is there whether we continue to make loans in the program or not. Senator Snowe. OK. Well, I think that is an important issue. Thank you. Mr. Wilkinson, you mentioned in your testimony about SBA's projected repurchase rates, between the actual and projected. I gather from what you are saying is that the SBA consistently provides inaccurate projected repurchase rates compared to what is actual and in reality? Mr. Wilkinson. SBA issues what is called a portal report, and I was able to get the portal reports on the entire 7(a) portfolio going back in time for 18 months and was able to go back and look--and I forget the exact date, but say at 3/31/06 where they predicted that defaults, or there would be a repurchase rate of X over the next 12 months, well, when 3/31/ 07 rolled around, we went and said, OK, what was our actual repurchase rate, and it was 25 percent less than what had been predicted, and that has now happened quarter and quarter. So it appears that whatever is in this Dun and Bradstreet predictive model, it is overestimating defaults. Senator Snowe. So what would be the basis? They are using a Dun and Bradstreet model. Mr. Wilkinson. That is where that number comes from. Senator Snowe. So it becomes less, in your estimation, less reliable? Mr. Wilkinson. I don't know what we could rely on out of that number. I mean, we just--I don't know what is in the model, don't know how that number is derived, and thus far, comparing actual performance to their previous predictions, they are at least 25 percent off. Senator Snowe. Well, it is interesting because of what I mentioned earlier in the question to Administrator Preston that there are projected increases from 9 to 167 percent by the SBA's lender monitoring system. Mr. Wilkinson. I don't have the actual numbers in front of me, but the Dun and Bradstreet model had predicted about a 2.3 percent repurchase rate, and I believe our actual number came in around 1.6, quite a bit less than what had been predicted. Senator Snowe. So obviously, if that is the case as you are saying, that---- Mr. Wilkinson. And that would be a gross repurchase rate. You would net out from that any recoveries we would get from liquidation of collateral. Senator Snowe. From what you heard here this morning in terms of the questions and answers in Administrator Preston's and Inspector General Thorson's responses, where do you think the SBA stands in terms of being prepared and able to provide effective oversight and monitoring? Mr. Wilkinson. They are a lot better today than they were just a few short years ago. So there has been improvement. One of our concerns is that the agency's budget is continually cut, and they now continue to rely on an outsource function and then try to pass those fees along to the lending community. So our fees have gone up dramatically, and rather than SBA staff handling the review functions, they now outsource that, which some would argue leads to inconsistent application. Senator Snowe. So we have argued for years about the staffing. Mr. Wilkinson. Absolutely. Senator Snowe. Ultimately, this lack of staffing will produce consequences. Mr. Wilkinson. They can only cut so far. Senator Snowe. I know. Exactly. One of the issues that emerges consistently is underwriting. I want Mr. Baird to comment on underwriting. Is the SBA's underwriting sufficient? Is there enough guidance or standards or criteria? If not, what can be done to improve it? Mr. Baird. I think that what we can do first and foremost to affect and improve 504 underwriting is to fully staff the Sacramento Loan Processing Center. I hate to sound like a broken record here, but that is really critical. We have taken the 200 processing loan officers and support staff in 69 district offices and compressed them into about 15 people in Sacramento, and they are 15 of the hardest-working people that you will find in Government, but they have had problems keeping that office staffed, I think in part because of the workload, perhaps in part because the positions may be rated at lower levels than they need to be rated to retain staff. Then there have been issues replacing staff who have left. The result is trying to do so much more with so much less that it just can't be done. Senator Snowe. OK. Well, thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Kerry. Thank you so much, Senator Snowe. So in other words, something is wrong here. There is either a gap in the Administrator's understanding of what he needs, or there is a gap in the availability of people out there, one or the other. Mr. Baird. Mr. Baird. Yes. [Laughter.] Chairman Kerry. I respect your reluctance to comment. Just a last question, Mr. Baird. You say lenders are not adhering to SBA guidelines? Mr. Baird. Yes. I think that with all of the changes that the 504 program has gone through, opening up all the markets to Statewide competition, CDCs going into contiguous States, the centralization of the processing, and just basically competitive pressures, I think that all those have contributed to--caused CDCs and to some extent their lending partners to start competing against one another with credit criteria and underwriting criteria, and that is not really the proper role of the CDC. The proper role of the CDC for a, let us say a more challenging small business credit, part of our role is to put credit where the private sector alone won't provide it. But for, let us say a tougher project, rather than providing 95 or 100, or even 90 percent financing without additional collateral, one of the critical roles of the CDC is to balance the interest of the small business concern and the community and the SBA in a fiscally responsible manner and it takes the right policy and it takes, in my opinion, optimal oversight in order to make sure that abuses in underwriting aren't happening for the competitive advantages of certain CDCs. Chairman Kerry. Very important observation, and the Committee will take note of it. What I would like to do is ask the SBA and IG to respond to these observations in writing for the Committee as part of this record. We will leave the record open in order to submit additional questions in writing so that this record is complete. We have just run out of time. Both Senator Snowe and I have to be at our respective caucuses, but I do want to emphasize the need in these next days to complete this record and get some responses to some of the comments that have been made and various specifics so we can kind of chase down the hard facts here. So we thank you, all of you. Mr. Baird, Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Tannenhauser, I know this is not the most pleasant experience in the world, going over some of this stuff, but on the other hand, it is very important for the Committee and very important to the taxpayers and to all of us to understand how the SBA can do a better job and we need to do that. Thank you. We stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.054 Additional Snowe Questions Question In April 2007, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) issued a cease and desist order to Oakland-based Innovative Bank, which makes SBA Express and Community Express loans, among other services. The FDIC order directed Innovative Bank to cease following ``unsafe and unsound'' banking practices. Though there are numerous media reports about the FDIC's efforts to reign in Innovative Bank's questionable lending practices, none of the reports mentioned any oversight activity by SBA. Did SBA's oversight mechanism detect a problem with Innovative Bank's loan practices? If so, what was SBA's response? SBA Response As you know, SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management monitors the SBA loan program performance of SBA Lenders and responds as needed. In general, financial institution examination information is confidential in accordance with law. Accordingly, SBA's actions with respect to Innovative Bank cannot be disclosed publicly. However, to assist the Committee in their oversight function, SBA is forwarding the financial institution examination information that you requested under separate letter to facilitate its confidential treatment together with a confidential explanation of the Agency's information and actions. Ouestion What has the SBA done to coordinate with FDIC, or the other bank regulators, to otherwise improve its oversight strategy in situations like these? SBA Response SBA has discussed the need to share information about regulated SBA lenders with FDIC and other regulators, and we continue to work with them in an effort to improve . communications between SBA and the regulators in matters concerning our lenders. ---------- Questions for the Record Lender Oversight Hearing Senator Johnny Isakson Question Administrator Preston, would you please clarify what action(s) the Associate Administrator of the Office of Entrepreneurial Development stated to the U.S. Small Business Committee would be completed by 1/18/08? Response Not available at time of printing. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.073 COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1658.090