After a year of anticipation, The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) officially dies July 21, to be reborn as part of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

Massachusetts’ thrift banks say they’ve chosen to stick it out and see what life is like under a new master – but some warn they’re keeping their options open.

Almost 20 Massachusetts banks are regulated by the OTS. The OCC, in contrast, most notably oversees the largest U.S. banks, including Bank of America, but also oversees about 10 Massachusetts banks, all of which have less than $500 million in assets.

Helpfully, the OCC will likely include a familiar face at the top: Thomas J. Curry, former Commissioner of Banks in Massachusetts, is President Barack Obama’s selection to head the agency.

In the past, mutual banks have expressed worry that the OCC – which has never regulated non-stock institutions – would not understand their interests. To them, Curry’s probable appointment is a good sign.

“Tom completely understands mutuality. He completely gets it,” said William Mayer, partner with Boston law firm Goodwin Procter. With Curry as the likely head and a number of former OTS regulators moving over to the new, combined agency, Mayer said previously OTS-regulated banks are feeling reassured that the transition will go as smoothly as possible.

Voting With Their Feet

The death of the OTS was written into the Dodd-Frank Act after the thrift supervisor drew heat for presiding over some of the financial collapse’s worst failures. Washington Mutual, for example, was an OTS bank, as was the failed $32 billion IndyMac.

“Change is always difficult,” said Joseph Hayes, CEO of Scituate Federal Savings Bank, who acknowledged his bank had some concerns about whether the OCC would do right by mutual institutions like his. Plenty of people in regulatory agencies are clueless about how to deal with mutuals, Hayes said, noting that it took regulators about nine months to come up with a version of the Troubled Asset Relief Program that could apply to intuitions that didn’t deal in stock. He did acknowledge the OCC’s recent actions seemed to indicate it would treat newcomers fairly and intelligently.

Hayes said his bank would keep its eyes peeled for the best options open to it, which might include a change in the future, depending on how things go with the new agency. Don Musso, owner of New Jersey-based consultancy FinPro, said his clients in New England and elsewhere are generally taking a similar “wait and see” approach.

“It’s incumbent on the OCC to dispel the fears and let the mutual world know that they’re a good place to be,” he said.

The initial round of regulatory exams are going to be very telling: If the OCC regulators come in trying to prove they’re meaner and tougher than the OTS, and don’t seem willing to work well with their new charges, banks will flee.

The jury will be out on the matter for the next few months while regulators and banks settle into their new environments, but Musso said he wouldn’t be surprised if banks opted to switch charters afterwards – in essence, they will vote with their feet.

Do The Right Thing

But Musso said Curry’s appointment is a good omen, as the former regulator of a mutual-heavy state like Massachusetts clearly knows a thing or two about mutual banks. In addition, the OCC has done an admirable job in the run-up to the change: “I think the OCC is trying to do the right things – they’re doing as much outreach as they possibly can.”

That outreach to new banks has impressed Michael Butler, CEO of Boston-based First Trade Union Bank, who told Banker & Tradesman that the OCC has kept up frequent communications, including outreach meetings, with its future banks.

“At the end of the day, I feel like those guys have done a pretty good job,” Butler said. And it’s possible that the move will have some positives for First Trade; mutual, mortgage-heavy banks have some understandable concerns, but a public, commercially focused bank such as his might benefit from the OCC’s wider range of expertise.

But in the end, Butler said, regulators’ goals are still safety and soundness, regardless of which one comes knocking on the door.

“While we may have different biases and different tactical approaches periodically, we’re all after the same thing."