Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds

Federal RegisterNov 7, 2011

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

12 CFR Part 44

[Docket No. OCC-2011-0014]

RIN 1557-AD44

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 248

[Docket No. R-1432]

RIN 7100 AD 82

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 351

RIN 3064-AD85

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 255

[Release No. 34-65545; File No. S7-41-11]

RIN 3235-AL07

Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds

AGENCY:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (“OCC”); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board”); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”); and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The OCC, Board, FDIC, and SEC (individually, an “Agency,” and collectively, “the Agencies”) are requesting comment on a proposed rule that would implement Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) which contains certain prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of a banking entity and nonbank financial company supervised by the Board to engage in proprietary trading and have certain interests in, or relationships with, a hedge fund or private equity fund.

DATES:

Comments should be received on or before January 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

Interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments jointly to all of the Agencies. Commenters are encouraged to use the title “Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds” to facilitate the organization and distribution of comments among the Agencies. Commenters are also encouraged to identify the number of the specific question for comment to which they are responding.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency:

Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. Please use the title “Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships with Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

•

Federal eRulemaking Portal—“Regulations.gov”:

Go to

http://www.regulations.gov.

Select “Document Type” of “Proposed Rules,” and in the “Enter Keyword or ID Box,” enter Docket ID “OCC-2011-14,” and click “Search.” On “View By Relevance” tab at the bottom of screen, in the “Agency” column, locate the Proposed Rule for the OCC, in the “Action” column, click on “Submit a Comment” or “Open Docket Folder” to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials for this rulemaking action.

• Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting or viewing public comments, viewing other supporting and related materials, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period.

•

Email: regs.comments@occ.treas.gov.

•

Mail:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Mail Stop 2-3, Washington, DC 20219.

•

Fax:

(202) 874-5274.

•

Hand Delivery/Courier:

250 E Street SW., Mail Stop 2-3, Washington, DC 20219.

Instructions:

You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID OCC-2011-14” in your comment. In general, OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them on the Regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this proposed rulemaking by any of the following methods:

•

Viewing Comments Electronically:

Go to

http://www.regulations.gov.

Select “Document Type” of “Public Submissions,” and in the “Enter Keyword or ID Box,” enter Docket ID “OCC-2011-14,” and click “Search.” Comments will be listed under “View By Relevance” tab at the bottom of screen. If comments from more than one agency are listed, the “Agency” column will indicate which comments were received by the OCC.

•

Viewing Comments Personally:

You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 874-4700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

Docket:

You may also view or request available background documents and project summaries using the methods described above.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-1432 and RIN 7100 AD 82, by any of the following methods:

•

Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments at

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm.

•

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•

Email: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov.

Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

•

Fax:

(202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

•

Mail:

Address to Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

All public comments will be made available on the Board's Web site at

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm

as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public

comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper in Room MP-500 of the Board's Martin Building (20th and C Streets NW.,) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:

You may submit comments, identified by RIN number, by any of the following methods:

•

Agency Web site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.

Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

•

Email: Comments@fdic.gov.

Include the RIN 3064-AD85 on the subject line of the message.

•

Mail:

Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

•

Hand Delivery:

Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Public Inspection:

All comments received must include the agency name and RIN 3064-AD85 for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html,

including any personal information provided. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-I002, Arlington, VA 22226 by telephone at 1 (877) 275-3342 or 1 (703) 562-2200.

Securities and Exchange Commission:

You may submit comments by the following method:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml

); or

• Send an email to

rule-comments@sec.gov.

Please include File Number S7-41-11 on the subject line; or

• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (

http://www.regulations.gov

). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Paper Comments

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-41-11. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (

http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml

). Comments are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OCC:

Deborah Katz, Assistant Director, or Ursula Pfeil, Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 874-5090; Roman Goldstein, Senior Attorney, Securities and Corporate Practices Division, (202) 874-5210; Kurt Wilhelm, Director for Financial Markets Group, (202) 874-4660; Stephanie Boccio, Technical Expert for Asset Management Group, or Joel Miller, Group Leader for Asset Management Group, (202) 874-4660, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.

Board:

Jeremy R. Newell, Counsel, (202) 452-3239, or Christopher M. Paridon, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 452-3274; Sean D. Campbell, Deputy Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics, (202) 452-3760; David Lynch, Manager, Division of Bank Supervision and Regulation, (202) 452-2081, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

FDIC:

Bobby R. Bean, Acting Associate Director, Capital Markets (202) 898-6705, or Karl R. Reitz, Senior Capital Markets Specialist, (202) 898-6775, Division of Risk Management Supervision; Michael B. Phillips, Counsel, (202) 898-3581, or Gregory S. Feder, Counsel, (202) 898-8724, Legal Division, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429-0002.

SEC:

Josephine Tao, Assistant Director, Elizabeth Sandoe, Senior Special Counsel, David Bloom, Branch Chief, Anthony Kelly, Special Counsel, Angela Moudy, Attorney Advisor, or Daniel Staroselsky, Attorney Advisor, Office of Trading Practices, Division of Trading and Markets, (202) 551-5720; David Blass, Chief Counsel, or Gregg Berman, Senior Advisor to the Director, Division of Trading and Markets; Daniel S. Kahl, Assistant Director, Tram N. Nguyen, Branch Chief, Michael J. Spratt, Senior Counsel, or Parisa Haghshenas, Law Clerk, Office of Investment Adviser Regulation, Division of Investment Management, (202) 551-6787; David Beaning, Special Counsel, Office of Structured Finance, Division of Corporation Finance, (202) 551-3850; John Harrington, Special Counsel, Office of Capital Market Trends, Division of Corporation Finance, (202) 551-3860; Richard Bookstaber, Senior Policy Advisor, or Jennifer Marietta-Westberg, Assistant Director, Office of the Sell Side; or Adam Yonce, Financial Economist, Division of Risk Strategy and Financial Innovation, (202) 551-6600, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted on July 21, 2010.

Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act added a new section 13 to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (“BHC Act”) (to be codified at 12 U.S.C. 1851) that generally prohibits any banking entity

from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund (“covered fund”), subject to certain exemptions.

New section 13 of the BHC Act also provides for nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board that engage in such activities or have such interests or relationships to be subject to additional capital requirements, quantitative limits, or other restrictions.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

Application of the proposed rule to smaller, less-complex banking entities is discussed below in Part II.F of this Supplemental Information.

The term “banking entity” is defined in section 13(h)(1) of the BHC Act, as amended by section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(h)(1). The statutory definition includes any insured depository institution (other than certain limited purpose trust institutions), any company that controls an insured depository institution, any company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106), and any affiliate or subsidiary of any of the foregoing. Section 13 of the BHC Act defines the terms “hedge fund” and “private equity fund” as an issuer that would be an investment company, as defined under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1

et seq.

), but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act, or any such similar funds as the appropriate Federal banking agencies (i.e., the Board, OCC, and FDIC), the SEC, and the CFTC may, by rule, determine should be treated as a hedge fund or private equity fund.

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(h)(2).

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2) and (f)(4). A “nonbank financial company supervised by the Board” is a nonbank financial company or other company that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“Council”) has determined, under section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, shall be subject to supervision by the Board and prudential standards. The Board is not proposing at this time any additional capital requirements, quantitative limits, or other

restrictions on nonbank financial companies pursuant to section 13 of the BHC Act, as it believes doing so would be premature in light of the fact that the Council has not yet finalized the criteria for designation of, nor yet designated, any nonbank financial company.

A. Rulemaking Framework

Section 13 of the BHC Act requires that implementation of its provisions occur in several stages. First, the Council was required to conduct a study (“Council study”) and make recommendations by January 21, 2011 on the implementation of section 13 of the BHC Act. The Council study was issued on January 18, 2011, and included a detailed discussion of key issues related to implementation of section 13 and recommended that the Agencies consider taking a number of specified actions in issuing rules under section 13 of the BHC Act.

The Council study also recommended that the Agencies adopt a four-part implementation and supervisory framework for identifying and preventing prohibited proprietary trading, which included a programmatic compliance regime requirement for banking entities, analysis and reporting of quantitative metrics by banking entities, supervisory review and oversight by the Agencies, and enforcement procedures for violations.

The Agencies have carefully considered the Council study and its recommendations, and have consulted with staff of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), in formulating this proposal.

See

Financial Stability Oversight Council, Study and Recommendations on Prohibitions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Relationships with Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds (Jan. 18, 2011),

available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/Documents/Volcker%20sec%20619%20study%20final%201%2018%2011%20rg.pdf. See

12 U.S.C. 1851(b)(1). Prior to publishing its study, the Council requested public comment on a number of issues to assist the Council in conducting its study.

See

75 FR 61,758 (Oct. 6, 2010). Approximately 8,000 comments were received from the public, including from members of Congress, trade associations, individual banking entities, consumer groups, and individuals. As noted in the issuing release for the Council Study, these comments were carefully considered by the Council when drafting the Council study.

See

Council study at 5-6. The Agencies have implemented this recommendation through the proposed compliance program requirements contained in Subpart D of this proposal with respect to both proprietary trading and covered fund activities and investments.

The Agencies also received a number of comment letters concerning implementation of section 13 of the BHC Act in advance of this proposal. The Agencies have carefully considered these comments in formulating this proposal.

Authority for developing and adopting regulations to implement the prohibitions and restrictions of section 13 of the BHC Act is divided between the Agencies in the manner provided in section 13(b)(2) of the BHC Act.

The statute also requires the Agencies, in developing and issuing implementing rules, to consult and coordinate with each other, as appropriate, for the purposes of assuring, to the extent possible, that such rules are comparable and provide for consistent application and implementation of the applicable provisions of section 13 of the BHC Act.

Such coordination will assist in ensuring that advantages are not unduly provided to, and that disadvantages are not unduly imposed upon, companies affected by section 13 of the BHC Act and that the safety and soundness of banking entities and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board are protected. The statute requires the Agencies to implement rules under section 13 not later than 9 months after the Council completes its study (i.e., not later than October 18, 2011).

The restrictions and prohibitions of section 13 of the BHC Act become effective 12 months after issuance of final rules by the Agencies, or July 21, 2012, whichever is earlier.

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(b)(2). Under section 13(b)(2)(B) of the BHC Act, rules implementing section 13's prohibitions and restrictions must be issued by: (i) The appropriate Federal banking agencies (i.e., the Board, the OCC, and the FDIC), jointly, with respect to insured depository institutions; (ii) the Board, with respect to any company that controls an insured depository institution, or that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of the International Banking Act, any nonbank financial company supervised by the Board, and any subsidiary of any of the foregoing (other than a subsidiary for which an appropriate Federal banking agency, the SEC, or the CFTC is the primary financial regulatory agency); (iii) the CFTC with respect to any entity for which it is the primary financial regulatory agency, as defined in section 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act; and (iv) the SEC with respect to any entity for which it is the primary financial regulatory agency, as defined in section 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

See id.

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(b)(2)(B)(ii). The Secretary of the Treasury, as Chairperson of the Council, is responsible for coordinating the Agencies' rulemakings under section 13 of the BHC Act.

See id.

at 1851(b)(2)(A).

See id.

at 1851(c)(1).

In addition, the statute required the Board, acting alone, to adopt rules to implement the provisions of section 13 of the BHC Act that provide a banking entity or a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board a period of time

after

the effective date of section 13 of the BHC Act to bring the activities, investments, and relationships of the banking entity into compliance with that section and the Agencies' implementing regulations.

The Board issued its final conformance rule as required under section 13(c)(6) of the BHC Act on February 8, 2011 (“Board's Conformance Rule”).

As noted in the issuing release for the Board's Conformance Rule, this period is intended to give markets and firms an opportunity to adjust to section 13 of the BHC Act.

See id.

at 1851(c)(6).

See Conformance Period for Entities Engaged in Prohibited Proprietary Trading or Private Equity Fund or Hedge Fund Activities,

76 FR 8265 (Feb. 14, 2011).

See id.

(citing 156 Cong. Rec. S5898 (daily ed. July 15, 2010) (statement of Sen. Merkley)).

B. Section 13 of the BHC Act

Section 13 of the BHC Act generally prohibits banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading or from acquiring or retaining any ownership interest in, or sponsoring, a covered fund.

However, section 13(d)(1) of that Act expressly includes exemptions from these prohibitions for certain permitted activities, including:

12 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)(A) and (B).

• Trading in certain government obligations;

• Underwriting and market making-related activities;

• Risk-mitigating hedging activity;

• Trading on behalf of customers;

• Investments in Small Business Investment Companies (“SBICs”) and public interest investments;

• Trading for the general account of insurance companies;

• Organizing and offering a covered fund (including limited investments in such funds);

• Foreign trading by non-U.S. banking entities; and

• Foreign covered fund activities by non-U.S. banking entities.

See id.

at 1851(d)(1). As described in greater detail in Part III.B.4 of this Supplementary Information, the proposed rule applies some of these statutory exemptions only to the proprietary trading prohibition or the covered fund prohibitions and restrictions, but not both, where it appears either by plain language or by implication that the exemption was intended only to apply to one or the other.

For purposes of this Supplementary Information, trading activities subject to section 13 of the BHC Act, including those permitted under a relevant exemption, are sometimes referred to as “covered trading activities.” Similarly, activities and investments with respect to a covered fund that are subject to section 13 of the BHC Act, including those permitted under a relevant exemption, are sometimes referred to as “covered fund activities or investments.”

Additionally, section 13 of the BHC Act permits the Agencies to grant, by rule, other exemptions from the prohibitions on proprietary trading and acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, or acting as sponsor to, a covered fund if the Agencies determine

that the exemption would promote and protect the safety and soundness of the banking entity and the financial stability of the United States.

Furthermore, under the statute, no banking entity may engage in a permitted activity if that activity would (i) involve or result in a material conflict of interest or material exposure of the banking entity to high-risk assets or high-risk trading strategies, or (ii) pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the banking entity or to the financial stability of the United States.

Id.

at 1851(d)(1)(J).

See id.

at 1851(d)(2).

Section 13(f) of the BHC Act separately prohibits a banking entity that serves, directly or indirectly, as the investment manager, investment adviser, or sponsor to a covered fund, and any affiliate of such a banking entity, from entering into any transaction with the fund, or any other covered fund controlled by such fund, that would be a “covered transaction” as defined in section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act (“FR Act”),

as if such banking entity or affiliate were a member bank and the covered fund were an affiliate thereof, subject to certain exceptions.

Section 13(f) also provides that a banking entity may enter into certain prime brokerage transactions with any covered fund in which a covered fund managed, sponsored, or advised by the banking entity has taken an equity, partnership, or other ownership interest, but any such transaction (and any other permitted transaction with such funds) must be on market terms in accordance with the provisions of section 23B of the FR Act.

See

12 U.S.C. 371c.

12 U.S.C. 1851(f).

12 U.S.C. 371c-1.

Section 13 of the BHC Act does not prohibit a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board from engaging in proprietary trading, or from having the types of ownership interests in or relationships with a covered fund that a banking entity is prohibited or restricted from having under section 13 of the BHC Act. However, section 13 of the BHC Act provides for the Board or other appropriate Agency to impose additional capital charges, quantitative limits, or other restrictions on a nonbank financial company supervised by the Board or their subsidiaries and affiliates that are engaged in such activities or maintain such relationships.

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2), (d)(4).

II. Overview of Proposed Rule

A. General Approach

In formulating the proposed rule, the Agencies have attempted to reflect the structure of section 13 of the BHC Act, which is to prohibit a banking entity from engaging in proprietary trading or acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, or having certain relationships with, a covered fund, while permitting such entities to continue to provide client-oriented financial services. However, the delineation of what constitutes a prohibited or permitted activity under section 13 of the BHC Act often involves subtle distinctions that are difficult both to describe comprehensively within regulation and to evaluate in practice. The Agencies appreciate that while it is crucial that rules under section 13 of the BHC Act clearly define and implement its requirements, any rule must also preserve the ability of a banking entity to continue to structure its businesses and manage its risks in a safe and sound manner, as well as to effectively deliver to its clients the types of financial services that section 13 expressly protects and permits. These client-oriented financial services, which include underwriting, market making, and traditional asset management services, are important to the U.S. financial markets and the participants in those markets, and the Agencies have endeavored to develop a proposed rule that does not unduly constrain banking entities in their efforts to safely provide such services. At the same time, providing appropriate latitude to banking entities to provide such client-oriented services need not and should not conflict with clear, robust, and effective implementation of the statute's prohibitions and restrictions. Given these complexities, the Agencies request comment on the potential impacts the proposed approach may have on banking entities and the businesses in which they engage. In particular, and as discussed further in Part VII of this Supplemental Information, the Agencies recognize that there are economic impacts that may arise from the proposed rule and its implementation of section 13 of the BHC Act, and the Agencies request comment on such impacts, including quantitative data, where possible.

In light of these larger challenges and goals, the Agencies' proposal takes a multi-faceted approach to implementing section 13 of the BHC Act. In particular, the proposed rule includes a framework that: (i) Clearly describes the key characteristics of both prohibited and permitted activities; (ii) requires banking entities to establish a comprehensive programmatic compliance regime designed to ensure compliance with the requirements of the statute and rule in a way that takes into account and reflects the unique nature of a banking entity's businesses; and (iii) with respect to proprietary trading, requires certain banking entities to calculate and report meaningful quantitative data that will assist both banking entities and the Agencies in identifying particular activity that warrants additional scrutiny to distinguish prohibited proprietary trading from otherwise permissible activities. This multi-faceted approach, which is consistent with the implementation and supervisory framework recommended in the Council study, is intended to strike an appropriate balance between accommodating prudent risk management and the continued provision of client-oriented financial services by banking entities while ensuring that such entities do not engage in prohibited proprietary trading or restricted covered fund activities or investments.

In recognition of economic impacts that may arise from the proposed rule and its implementation of section 13 of the BHC Act, the Agencies are requesting comment on the relative costs and benefits of the proposal in Part VII of this Supplemental Information.

In addition, and consistent with the statutory requirement that the Agencies' rules under section 13 of the BHC Act be, to the extent possible, comparable and provide for consistent application and implementation, the Agencies have proposed a common rule and appendices. This uniform approach to implementation is intended to provide the maximum degree of clarity to banking entities and market participants and ensure that section 13's prohibitions and restrictions are applied consistently across different types of regulated entities.

Under this uniform approach, each Agency is proposing the same rule provisions under section 13 of the BHC Act. Each Agency's proposed rule would apply only to banking entities for which the Agency has regulatory authority under section 13(b)(2)(B) of the BHC Act.

As a matter of structure, the proposed rule is generally divided into four subparts and contains three appendices, as follows:

• Subpart A of the proposed rule describes the authority, scope, purpose, and relationship to other authorities of the rule and defines terms used commonly throughout the rule;

• Subpart B of the proposed rule prohibits proprietary trading, defines terms relevant to covered trading activity, establishes exemptions from

the prohibition on proprietary trading and limitations on those exemptions, and requires certain banking entities to report quantitative measurements with respect to their trading activities;

• Subpart C of the proposed rule prohibits or restricts acquiring or retaining an ownership interest in, and certain relationships with, a covered fund, defines terms relevant to covered fund activities and investments, as well as establishes exemptions from the restrictions on covered fund activities and investments and limitations on those exemptions;

• Subpart D of the proposed rule generally requires banking entities to establish an enhanced compliance program regarding compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule, including written policies and procedures, internal controls, a management framework, independent testing of the compliance program, training, and recordkeeping;

• Appendix A of the proposed rule details the quantitative measurements that certain banking entities may be required to compute and report with respect to their trading activities;

A banking entity must comply with proposed Appendix A's reporting and recordkeeping requirements only if it has, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, trading assets and liabilities the average gross sum of which (on a worldwide consolidated basis) is, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equal to or greater than $1 billion.

• Appendix B of the proposed rule provides commentary regarding the factors the Agencies propose to use to help distinguish permitted market making-related activities from prohibited proprietary trading; and

• Appendix C of the proposed rule details the minimum requirements and standards that certain banking entities must meet with respect to their compliance program, as required under subpart D.

In particular, a banking entity must comply with the minimum standards specified in Appendix C of the proposed rule (i) with respect to its covered trading activities, if it engages in any covered trading activities and has, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, trading assets and liabilities the average gross sum of which (on a worldwide consolidated basis), as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, (X) is equal to or greater than $1 billion or (Y) equals 10 percent or more of its total assets; and (ii) with respect to its covered fund activities and investments, if it engages in any covered fund activities and investments and either (X) has, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, aggregate investments in covered funds the average value of which is, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equal to or greater than $1 billion or (Y) sponsors and advises, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, covered funds the average total assets of which are, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equal to or greater than $1 billion.

In addition, the Board's proposed rule also contains a subpart E, to which the provisions of the Board's Conformance Rule under section 13 of the BHC Act will be recodified from their current location in the Board's Regulation Y.

B. Proprietary Trading Restrictions

Subpart B of the proposed rule implements the statutory prohibition on proprietary trading and the various exemptions to this prohibition included in the statute. Section _.3 of the proposed rule contains the core prohibition on proprietary trading and defines a number of related terms, including “proprietary trading” and “trading account.” The proposed rule's definition of proprietary trading generally parallels the statutory definition, and includes engaging as principal for the trading account of a banking entity in any transaction to purchase or sell certain types of financial positions.

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(1).

The proposed rule's definition of trading account generally parallels the statutory definition, and provides further guidance regarding the circumstances in which a position will be considered to have been taken principally for the purpose of short-term resale or benefiting from actual or expected short-term price movements, recognizing the importance of providing as much clarity as possible regarding this term, which ultimately defines the scope of accounts subject to the prohibition on proprietary trading.

In particular, the proposed definition of trading account identifies three classes of positions that would cause an account to be a trading account. First, the definition includes positions taken principally for the purpose of short-term resale, benefitting from short-term price movements, realizing short-term arbitrage profits, or hedging another trading account position.

As described in this notice, this language is substantially similar to language for a “trading position” used in the Federal banking agencies' current market risk capital rules, as proposed to be revised (“Market Risk Capital Rules”),

and the Agencies propose to interpret this language in a similar manner. Second, with respect to a banking entity subject to the Federal banking agencies' Market Risk Capital Rules, the definition includes all positions in financial instruments subject to the prohibition on proprietary trading that are treated as “covered positions” under those capital rules, other than certain foreign exchange and commodities positions. Third, the definition includes all positions acquired or taken by certain registered securities and derivatives dealers (or, in the case of financial institutions

that are government securities dealers, that have filed notice with an appropriate regulatory agency) in connection with their activities that require such registration or notice.

The definition of trading account also contains clarifying exclusions for certain positions that do not appear to involve the requisite short-term trading intent, such as positions arising under certain repurchase and reverse repurchase arrangements or securities lending transactions, positions acquired or taken for

bona fide

liquidity management purposes, and certain positions of derivatives clearing organizations or clearing agencies.

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2).

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i)(A).

See

76 FR 1890 (Jan. 11, 2011).

In the context of regulation of government securities dealers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), the term “financial institution” as defined in section 3(a)(46) of the Exchange Act includes a bank (as defined in section 3(a)(36) of the Exchange Act) and a foreign bank (as defined in the International Banking Act of 1978).

See

15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(46).

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i)(B).

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(iii).

Section _.3 of the proposed rule also defines a number of other relevant terms, including the term “covered financial position.” This term is used to define the scope of financial instruments subject to the prohibition on proprietary trading. Consistent with the statutory language, such covered financial positions include positions (including long, short, synthetic and other positions) in securities, derivatives, commodity futures, and options on such instruments, but do not include positions in loans, spot foreign exchange or spot commodities.

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(3).

Section _.4 of the proposed rule implements the statutory exemptions for underwriting and market making-related activities. For each of these permitted activities, the proposed rule provides a number of requirements that must be met in order for a banking entity to rely on the applicable exemption. These requirements are generally designed to ensure that the activities, revenues and other characteristics of the banking entity's trading activity are consistent with underwriting and market making-related activities, respectively, and not prohibited proprietary trading.

These requirements are intended to support and augment other parts of the proposed rule's approach to implementing the prohibition on proprietary trading, including the compliance program

requirement and the reporting of quantitative measurements, in order to assist banking entities and the Agencies in identifying prohibited trading activities that may be conducted in the context of, or mischaracterized as, permitted underwriting or market making-related activities.

See

proposed rule § _.4(a), (b).

Section _.5 of the proposed rule implements the statutory exemption for risk-mitigating hedging. As with the underwriting and market-making exemptions, proposed § _.5 contains a number of requirements that must be met in order for a banking entity to rely on the exemption. These requirements are generally designed to ensure that the banking entity's trading activity is truly risk-mitigating hedging in purpose and effect.

Proposed § _.5 also requires banking entities to document, at the time the transaction is executed, the hedging rationale for certain transactions that present heightened compliance risks.

As with the exemptions for underwriting and market making-related activity, these requirements form part of a broader implementation approach that also includes the compliance program requirement and the reporting of quantitative measurements.

See

proposed rule §§ _.5(b)(1), (2).

See

proposed rule § _.5(b)(3).

Section _.6 of the proposed rule implements statutory exemptions for trading in certain government obligations, trading on behalf of customers, trading by a regulated insurance company, and trading by certain foreign banking entities outside the United States. Section _.6(a) of the proposed rule describes the government obligations in which a banking entity may trade notwithstanding the prohibition on proprietary trading, which include U.S. government and agency obligations, obligations and other instruments of certain government sponsored entities, and State and municipal obligations.

Section _.6(b) of the proposed rule describes permitted trading on behalf of customers and identifies three categories of transactions that would qualify for the exemption.

These categories include: (i) Transactions conducted by a banking entity as investment adviser, commodity trading advisor, trustee, or in a similar fiduciary capacity for the account of a customer where the customer, and not the banking entity, has beneficial ownership of the related positions; (ii) riskless principal transactions; and (iii) transactions conducted by a banking entity that is a regulated insurance company for the separate account of insurance policyholders, subject to certain conditions. Section _.6(c) of the proposed rule describes permitted trading by a regulated insurance company for its general account, and generally parallels the statutory language governing this exemption.

Finally, § _.6(d) of the proposed rule describes permitted trading outside of the United States by a foreign banking entity.

The proposed exemption clarifies when a foreign banking entity will be considered to engage in such trading pursuant to sections 4(c)(9) or 4(c)(13) of the BHC Act, as required by the statute, including with respect to a foreign banking entity not currently subject to section 4 of the BHC Act. The exemption also clarifies when trading will be considered to have occurred solely outside of the United States, as required by the statute, and provides a number of specific criteria for determining whether that standard is met.

See

proposed rule § _.6(a).

See

proposed rule § _.6(b).

See

proposed rule § _.6(c).

See

proposed rule § _.6(d).

Section _.7 of the proposed rule requires certain banking entities with significant covered trading activities to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements specified in Appendix A of the proposed rule. In addition, § _.7 requires that a banking entity comply with the recordkeeping requirements in § _.20 of the proposed rule, including, where applicable, the recordkeeping requirements in Appendix C of the proposed rule. Section _.7 of the proposed rule also requires a banking entity to comply with any other reporting or recordkeeping requirements that an Agency may impose to evaluate the banking entity's compliance with the proposed rule.

Proposed Appendix A requires those banking entities with significant covered trading activities to furnish periodic reports to the relevant Agency regarding a variety of quantitative measurements of its covered trading activities and maintain records documenting the preparation and content of these reports. These proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements vary depending on the scope and size of covered trading activities, and a banking entity must comply with proposed Appendix A's reporting and recordkeeping requirements only if it has, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, trading assets and liabilities the average gross sum of which (on a worldwide consolidated basis) is, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equal to or greater than $1 billion. These thresholds are designed to reduce the burden on smaller, less complex banking entities, which generally engage in limited market-making and other trading activities. Other provisions of the proposal, and in particular the compliance program requirement in § _.20 of the proposed rule, are likely to be less burdensome and equally effective methods for ensuring compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act by smaller, less complex banking entities.

See

proposed rule § _.7.

The quantitative measurements that must be furnished under the proposed rule are generally designed to reflect, and provide meaningful information regarding, certain characteristics of trading activities that appear to be particularly useful to help differentiate permitted market making-related activities from prohibited proprietary trading and to identify whether certain trading activities result in a material exposure to high-risk assets or high-risk trading strategies. In addition, proposed Appendix B contains a detailed commentary regarding identification of permitted market making-related activities and distinguishing such activities from trading activities that constitute prohibited proprietary trading.

As described in Part II.B.5 of the Supplementary Information below, the Agencies expect to utilize the conformance period provided in section 13(c)(2) of the BHC Act to further refine and finalize the reporting requirements, reflecting the substantial public comment, practical experience, and revision that will likely be required to ensure appropriate, effective use of reported quantitative data in practice.

Section _.8 of the proposed rule prohibits a banking entity from relying on any exemption to the prohibition on proprietary trading if the permitted activity would involve or result in a material conflict of interest, result in a material exposure to high-risk assets or high-risk trading strategies, or pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the banking entity or to the financial stability of the United States.

This section also defines material conflict of interest, high-risk asset, and high-risk trading strategy for these purposes.

See

proposed rule § _.8.

C. Covered Fund Activities and Investments

Subpart C of the proposed rule implements the statutory prohibition on, as principal, directly or indirectly, acquiring and retaining an ownership

interest in, or having certain relationships with, a covered fund, as well as the various exemptions to this prohibition included in the statute. Section _.10 of the proposed rule contains the core prohibition on covered fund activities and investments and defines a number of related terms, including “covered fund” and “ownership interest.” The proposed rule's definition of covered fund generally parallels the statutory definition of “hedge fund” and “private equity fund,” and explains the universe of entities that would be considered a “covered fund” (including those entities determined by the Agencies to be “such similar funds”) and, thus, subject to the general prohibition.

See

proposed rule § _.10(b)(1).

The definition of “ownership interest” provides further guidance regarding the types of interests that would be considered to be an ownership interest in a covered fund.

As described in this Supplementary Information, these interests may take various forms. The definition of ownership interest also explicitly

excludes

from the definition “carried interest” whereby a banking entity may share in the profits of the covered fund solely as performance compensation for services provided to the covered fund by the banking entity (or an affiliate, subsidiary, or employee thereof).

See

proposed rule § _.10(b)(3).

See

proposed rule § _.10(b)(3)(ii).

Section _.10 of the proposed rule also defines a number of other relevant terms, including the terms “prime brokerage transaction,” “sponsor,” and “trustee.”

Section _.11 of the proposed rule implements the exemption for organizing and offering a covered fund provided for under section 13(d)(1)(G) of the BHC Act. Section _.11(a) of the proposed rule outlines the conditions that must be met in order for a banking entity to organize and offer a covered fund under this authority. These requirements are contained in the statute and are intended to allow a banking entity to engage in certain traditional asset management and advisory businesses in compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act.

The requirements are discussed in detail in Part III.C.2 of this Supplementary Information.

See

156 Cong. Rec. S5889 (daily ed. July 15, 2010) (statement of Sen. Hagan).

Section _.12 of the proposed rule permits a banking entity to acquire and retain, as an investment in a covered fund, an ownership interest in a covered fund that the banking entity organizes and offers under § _.11.

This section implements section 13(d)(4) of the BHC Act and related provisions. Section 13(d)(4) of the BHC Act permits a banking entity to make an investment in a covered fund that the banking entity organizes and offers pursuant to section 13(d)(1)(G), or for which it acts as sponsor, for the purposes of (i) establishing the covered fund and providing the fund with sufficient initial equity for investment to permit the fund to attract unaffiliated investors, or (ii) making a

de minimis

investment in the covered fund in compliance with applicable requirements. Section _.12 of the proposed rule implements this authority and related limitations, including limitations regarding the amount and value of any individual per-fund investment and the aggregate value of all such permitted investments.

Proposed § _.12 also clarifies how a banking entity must calculate its compliance with these investment limitations (including by deducting such investments from applicable capital, as relevant), as well as sets forth how a banking entity may request an extension of the period of time within which it must conform an investment in a single covered fund.

See

proposed rule § _.12.

See

proposed rule § _.12(a)(2).

See

proposed rule §§ _.12(b), (c), and (d).

Section _.13 of the proposed rule implements the statutory exemptions described in sections 13(d)(1)(C), (E), and (I) of the BHC Act that permit a banking entity: (i) To acquire and retain an ownership interest in, or act as sponsor to, one or more SBICs, a public welfare investment, or certain qualified rehabilitation expenditures; (ii) to acquire and retain an ownership interest in a covered fund as a risk-mitigating hedging activity; and (iii) in the case of a non-U.S. banking entity, to acquire and retain an ownership interest in, or act as sponsor to, a foreign covered fund.

Section _.13(a) of the proposed rule permits a banking entity to acquire and retain an ownership interest in, or act as sponsor to, an SBIC or certain public interest investments, without limitation as to the amount of ownership interests it may own, hold, or control with the power to vote.

See

proposed rule § _.13(a)—(c).

See

proposed rule § _.13(a).

Section _.13(b) of the proposed rule permits a banking entity to use an ownership interest in a covered fund to hedge, but only with respect to individual or aggregated obligations or liabilities of a banking entity that arise from: (i) The banking entity acting as intermediary on behalf of a customer that is not itself a banking entity to facilitate the customer's exposure to the profits and losses of the covered fund (similar to acting as a “riskless principal”); or (ii) a compensation arrangement with an employee of the banking entity that directly provides investment advisory or other services to that fund.

Additionally, § _.13(b) of the proposed rule requires that the hedge represent a substantially similar offsetting exposure to the same covered fund and in the same amount of ownership interest in the covered fund arising out of the transaction that the acquisition or retention of an ownership interest in the covered fund is intended to hedge or otherwise mitigate.

Proposed § _.13(b) also requires a banking entity to document, at the time the transaction is executed, the hedging rationale for all hedging transactions involving an ownership interest in a covered fund.

See

proposed rule § _.13(b)(1).

See

proposed rule §§ _.13(b)(2)(ii)(C) and (D).

See

proposed rule § _.13(b)(3).

Section _.13(c) of the proposed rule implements section 13(d)(1)(I) of the BHC Act and permits certain foreign banking entities to acquire or retain an ownership interest in, or to act as sponsor to, a covered fund so long as such activity occurs solely outside of the United States and the entity meets the requirements of sections 4(c)(9) or 4(c)(13) of the BHC Act. This statutory exemption limits the extraterritorial application of the statutory restrictions on covered fund activities and investments to foreign firms that, in the course of operating outside of the United States, engage in activities permitted under relevant foreign law outside of the United States, while preserving national treatment and competitive equality among U.S. and foreign firms within the United States.

The proposed rule defines both the type of foreign banking entities that are eligible for the exemption and the circumstances in which covered fund activities or investments by such an entity will be considered to have occurred solely outside of the United States (including clarifying when an ownership interest will be considered to have been offered for sale or sold to a resident of the United States). Section _.13(d) of the proposed rule also implements in part the rule of construction contained in section 13(g)(2) of the BHC Act, which permits the sale and securitization of loans.

Proposed § _.13(d) clarifies that a

banking entity may acquire and retain an ownership interest in, or act as sponsor to, a covered fund that is an issuer of asset-backed securities, the assets or holdings of which are solely comprised of: (i) Loans; (ii) contractual rights or assets directly arising from those loans supporting the asset-backed securities; and (iii) a limited amount of interest rate or foreign exchange derivatives that materially relate to such loans and that are used for hedging purposes with respect to the securitization structure.

The authority contained in this section of the proposed rule would therefore allow a banking entity to acquire and retain an ownership interest in a loan securitization vehicle (which would be a covered fund for purposes of section 13(h)(2) of the BHC Act and the proposed rule) that the banking entity organizes and offers, or acts as sponsor to, in excess of the three percent limits specified in section 13(d)(4) of the BHC Act and § _.12 of the proposed rule.

See

156 Cong. Rec. S5897 (daily ed. July 15, 2010) (statement of Sen. Merkley).

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(g)(2).

See

proposed rule § _.13(d).

Section _.14 of the proposed rule implements section 13(d)(1)(J) of the BHC Act

and permits a banking entity to engage in any covered fund activity or investment that the Agencies determine promotes and protects the safety and soundness of banking entities and the financial stability of the United States.

The Agencies have proposed to permit three activities at this time under this authority. These activities involve acquiring and retaining an ownership interest in, or acting as sponsor to, certain bank owned life insurance (“BOLI”) separate accounts, investments in and sponsoring of certain asset-backed securitizations, and investments in and sponsoring of certain entities that rely on the exclusion from the definition of investment company in section 3(c)(1) and/or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1

et seq.

) (“Investment Company Act”) but that are, in fact, common corporate organizational vehicles.

Additionally, the Agencies have proposed to permit a banking entity to acquire and retain an ownership interest in, or act as sponsor to, a covered fund, if such acquisition or retention is done (i) in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted, or (ii) pursuant to and in compliance with the conformance or extended transition periods implemented under section 13(c)(6) of the BHC Act.

Section 13(d)(1)(J) of the BHC Act provides the Agencies discretion to determine that activities not specifically identified by sections 13(d)(1)(A)-(I) of the BHC Act are also exempted from the general prohibitions contained in section 13(a) of that Act, and are thus permitted activities. In order to make such a determination, the Agencies must find that such activity or activities promote and protect the safety and soundness of banking entities, as well as promote and protect the financial stability of the United States.

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(d)(1)(J).

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(d)(1)(J).

See

proposed rule § _.13(a)(1)-(2).

See

proposed rule at § _.14(b).

Section _.15 of the proposed rule, which implements section 13(e)(1) of the BHC Act,

requires a banking entity engaged in covered fund activities and investments to comply with (i) the internal controls, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements required under § _.20 and Appendix C of the proposed rule, as applicable and (ii) such other reporting and recordkeeping requirements as the relevant supervisory Agency may deem necessary to appropriately evaluate the banking entity's compliance with subpart C.

Section 13(e)(1) of the BHC Act requires the Agencies to issue regulations regarding internal controls and recordkeeping to ensure compliance with section 13.

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(e)(1).

See

proposed rule § _.15.

Section _.16 of the proposed rule implements section 13(f) of the BHC Act and generally prohibits a banking entity from entering into certain transactions with a covered fund that would be a covered transaction as defined in section 23A of the FR Act.

Section _.16(a)(2) of the proposed rule clarifies that, for reasons explained in part III.C.7 of this Supplementary Information, certain transactions between a banking entity and a covered fund remain permissible. Section _.16(b) of the proposed rule implements the statute's requirement that any transaction permitted under section 13(f) of the BHC Act (including a prime brokerage transaction) between the banking entity and a covered fund is subject to section 23B of the FR Act,

which, in general, requires that the transaction be on market terms or on terms at least as favorable to the banking entity as a comparable transaction by the banking entity with an unaffiliated third party.

See

proposed rule § _.16.

12 U.S.C. 371c-1.

Section _.17 of the proposed rule prohibits a banking entity from relying on any exemption to the prohibition on acquiring and retaining an ownership interest in, acting as sponsor to, or having certain relationships with, a covered fund, if the permitted activity or investment would involve or result in a material conflict of interest, result in a material exposure to high-risk assets or high-risk trading strategies, or pose a threat to the safety and soundness of the banking entity or to the financial stability of the United States.

This section also defines material conflict of interest, high-risk asset, and high-risk trading strategy for these purposes.

See

proposed rule § _.17.

D. Compliance Program Requirement

Subpart D of the proposed rule requires a banking entity engaged in covered trading activities or covered fund activities to develop and implement a program reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with the prohibitions and restrictions on covered trading activities and covered fund activities and investments set forth in section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule.

Section _.20(b) of the proposed rule specifies six elements that each compliance program established under subpart D must, at a minimum, include:

See

proposed rule § _.20. If a banking entity does not engage in covered trading activities and/or covered fund activities and investments, it need only ensure that its existing compliance policies and procedures include measures that are designed to prevent the banking entity from becoming engaged in such activities and making such investments, and which require the banking entity to develop and provide for the required compliance program prior to engaging in such activities or making such investments.

• Internal written policies and procedures reasonably designed to document, describe, and monitor the covered trading activities and covered fund activities and investments of the banking entity to ensure that such activities comply with section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule;

• A system of internal controls reasonably designed to monitor and identify potential areas of noncompliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule in the banking entity's covered trading and covered fund activities and to prevent the occurrence of activities that are prohibited by section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule;

• A management framework that clearly delineates responsibility and accountability for compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule;

• Independent testing for the effectiveness of the compliance program, conducted by qualified banking entity personnel or a qualified outside party;

• Training for trading personnel and managers, as well as other appropriate personnel, to effectively implement and enforce the compliance program; and

• Making and keeping records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule, which a banking entity must promptly provide to the relevant Agency upon request and retain for a period of no less than 5 years.

For a banking entity with significant covered trading activities or covered fund activities and investments, the compliance program must also meet a number of minimum standards that are specified in Appendix C of the proposed rule.

The application of detailed minimum standards for these types of banking entities is intended to reflect the heightened compliance risks of large covered trading activities and covered fund activities and investments and to provide clear, specific guidance to such banking entities regarding the compliance measures that would be required for purposes of the proposed rule. For banking entities with smaller, less complex covered trading activities and covered fund activities and investments, these detailed minimum standards are not applicable, though the Agencies expect that such smaller entities will consider these minimum standards as guidance in designing an appropriate compliance program.

A banking entity must comply with the minimum standards specified in Appendix C of the proposed rule (i) with respect to its covered trading activities, if it engages in any covered trading activities and has, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, trading assets and liabilities the average gross sum of which (on a worldwide consolidated basis), as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, (X) is equal to or greater than $1 billion or (Y) equals 10 percent or more of its total assets; and (ii) with respect to its covered fund activities and investment, if it engages in any covered fund activities and investments and either (X) has, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, aggregate investments in covered funds the average value of which is, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equal to or greater than $1 billion or (Y) sponsors and advises, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, covered funds the average total assets of which are, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equal to or greater than $1 billion.

E. Conformance Provisions

Subpart E of the Board's proposed rule incorporates, with minor technical and conforming edits, the final rule which the Board, after soliciting and considering public comment, issued regarding the conformance periods for entities engaged in prohibited proprietary trading or covered fund activities and investments.

That rule implements the conformance period and extended transition period, as applicable, during which a banking entity and nonbank financial company supervised by the Board must bring its activities, investments and relationships into compliance with the prohibitions and restrictions on proprietary trading and acquiring an ownership interest in, or having certain relationships with, a covered fund.

See

76 FR 8265 (Feb. 14, 2011).

F. Treatment of Smaller, Less-Complex Banking Entities

In formulating the proposed rule, the Agencies have carefully considered and taken into account the potential impact of the proposed rule on small banking entities and banking entities that engage in little or no covered trading activities or covered fund activities and investments, including the burden and cost that might be associated with such banking entities' compliance with the proposed rule. In particular, the Agencies have proposed to reduce the effect of the proposed rule on such banking entities by limiting the application of certain requirements, such as the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of § _.7 and Appendix A of the proposed rule and the compliance program requirements contained in subpart D and Appendix C of the proposed rule, to those banking entities that engage in little or no covered trading activities or covered fund activities and investments. The Agencies have also requested comment (i) throughout this Supplementary Information on a number of questions related to the costs and burdens associated with particular aspects of the proposal, as well as (ii) in Part VII.B of this Supplementary Information on any significant alternatives that would minimize the impact of the proposal on small banking entities.

G. Application of Section 13 of the BHC Act to Securitization Vehicles or Issuers of Asset-Backed Securities

Many issuers of asset-backed securities may be included within the definition of covered fund since they would be an investment company but for the exclusions contained in section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act.

If an issuer of asset-backed securities is considered to be a covered fund, then a banking entity would not be permitted to acquire or retain any ownership interest issued by such issuer except as otherwise permitted under section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule.

Separately, issuers of asset-backed securities may be included within the definition of banking entity, as noted in Part III.A.2 of this Supplementary information. Although the proposed definition of banking entity would not include any entity that is a covered fund, an issuer of asset-backed securities that is both (i) an affiliate or subsidiary of a banking entity,

and (ii) does not rely on an exclusion contained in section 3(c)(1) of 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act, would be a banking entity and thus subject to the requirements of section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule, including: (i) The prohibition on proprietary trading; (ii) limitations on investments in and relationships with a covered fund; (iii) the establishment and implementation of a compliance program as required under the proposed rule; and (iv) recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Given the breadth of the definition of “affiliate,” these requirements may apply to a significant portion of the outstanding securitization market, including issuers of asset-backed securities that rely on rule 3a-7 or section 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act.

For purposes of the proposed rule, any securitization entity that meets the requirements for an exclusion under Rule 3a-7 or section 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act, or any other exclusion or exemption from the definition of “investment company” under the Investment Company Act (other than sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act), would not be a covered fund under the proposed definition. Additionally, an issuer of asset-backed securities that is subject to legal documents mandating compliance with the conditions of section 3(c)(1) of 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act would not be a covered fund if such issuer also can satisfy all the conditions of an alternative exclusion or exemption for which it is eligible.

For example, under the proposed rule, a banking entity would be able to acquire or retain an interest or security of an issuer of asset-backed securities that is a covered fund if: (i) The interest or security of the issuer does not qualify as an “ownership interest” under § _.10(b)(3) of the proposed rule; (ii) the issuer of asset-backed securities is comprised solely of loans, contractual rights or assets directly arising from those loans, and certain specified interest rate or foreign exchange derivatives used for hedging purposes, as permitted under § _.13(d) or _.14(a)(2)(v) of the proposed rule; (iii) the banking entity is a “securitizer” or “originator” and acquires and retains such interest in compliance with the minimum requirements of section 15G of the Exchange Act and any implementing regulations issued thereunder, as provided under § _.14(a)(2)(iii) of the proposed rule; or (v) the banking entity organizes and offers the issuer and the ownership interest is a permitted investment under § _.12 of the proposed rule. The circumstances where a banking entity may acquire or retain an ownership interest in a covered fund are discussed in detail in Part III.C of this Supplemental Information.

The definitions of “affiliate” and “subsidiary” are discussed in detail in Part III.A.2 of this Supplemental Information.

In recognition of these concerns, the Agencies have requested comment throughout this Supplementary Information on the potential effects of section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule on the securitization industry and issuers of asset-backed securities.

III. Section by Section Summary of Proposed Rule

A. Subpart A—Authority and Definitions

1. Section _.1: Authority, Purpose, Scope, and Relationship to Other Authorities

a. Authority and Scope

Section _.1 of the proposed rule describes the authority under which each Agency is issuing the proposed rule, the purpose of the proposed rule, and the banking entities to which each Agency's rule applies. In addition, § _.1(d) of the proposed rule implements section 13(g)(1) of the BHC Act, which provides that the prohibitions and restrictions of section 13 apply to the activities of a banking entity regardless of whether such activities are authorized for a banking entity under other applicable provisions of law.

See

proposed rule § _.1(d).

b. Effective Date

Section 13(c)(1) of the BHC Act provides that section 13 shall take effect on the earlier of (i) 12 months after the date of issuance of final rules implementing that section, or (ii) 2 years after the date of enactment of section 13, which is July 21, 2012.

Because the Agencies did not issue final rules implementing section 13 of the BHC Act by July 21, 2011, § _.1 of the proposed rule specifies that the effective date for its provisions will be July 21, 2012.

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(c)(1).

The Agencies note that the proposed effective date will impact not only the date on which the proposed rule's prohibitions and restrictions on proprietary trading and covered fund activities and investments go into effect (subject to the conformance period or extended transition period provided by section 13(c) of the BHC Act),

but also the date on which a banking entity must comply with (i) the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of § _.7 and Appendix A of the proposed rule and (ii) the compliance program mandate of § _.20 and Appendix C of the proposed rule. As proposed, § _.1 would require a banking entity subject to either the reporting and recordkeeping or compliance program requirements to begin complying with these requirements as of July 21, 2012.

With respect to the compliance program requirement of the proposed rule, § _.1 would require a banking entity to have developed and implemented the required program by the proposed effective date, though the Agencies note that prohibited activities and investments may not be fully conformed by that date. The Agencies expect a banking entity to fully conform all investments and activities to the requirements of the proposed rule as soon as practicable within the conformance periods provided in section 13 of the BHC Act and the Board's rules thereunder, which define the conformance periods. With respect to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the proposed rule, § _.1 of the proposed rule would require a banking entity to begin furnishing these reports for all trading units or asset management units as of the effective date, though the quantitative measurements furnished for proprietary trading activities that are conducted in reliance on the authority provided by the conformance period would not be used to identify prohibited proprietary trading until such time as the relevant trading activities must be conformed.

See id.

at 1851(c)(2)-(6).

See

proposed rule § _.1.

The Agencies expect that a banking entity may need a period of time to prepare for effectiveness of the proposed rule and, in particular, to implement both the compliance program and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements provided under the proposed rule. Accordingly, in order to help assess the effects and impact of the proposed effective date and any alternative compliance dates, the Agencies request comment on the following questions:

Question 1.

Does the proposed effective date provide banking entities with sufficient time to prepare to comply with the prohibitions and restrictions on proprietary trading and covered fund activities and investments? If not, what other period of time is needed and why?

Question 2.

Does the proposed effective date provide banking entities with sufficient time to implement the proposal's compliance program requirement? If not, what are the impediments to implementing specific elements of the compliance program and what would be a more effective time period for implementing each element and why?

Question 3.

Does the proposed effective date provide banking entities sufficient time to implement the proposal's reporting and recordkeeping requirements? If not, what are the impediments to implementing specific elements of the proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements and what would be a more effective time period for implementing each element and why?

Question 4.

Should the Agencies use a gradual, phased in approach to implement the statute rather than having the implementing rules become effective at one time? If so, what prohibitions and restrictions should be implemented first? Please explain.

2. Section _.2: Definitions

Section _.2 of the proposed rule defines a variety of terms used throughout the proposed rule, including “banking entity,” which defines the scope of entities to which the proposed rule applies. Consistent with the statutory definition of that term, § _.2(e) of the proposed rule provides that a “banking entity” includes: (i) Any insured depository institution; (ii) any company that controls an insured depository institution; (iii) any company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3106); and (iv) any affiliate or subsidiary of any of the foregoing.

In addition, in order to avoid application of section 13 of the BHC Act in a way that appears unintended by the statute and would create internal inconsistencies in the statutory scheme, the proposed rule also clarifies that the term “banking entity” does not include any affiliate or subsidiary of a banking entity, if that affiliate or subsidiary is (i) a covered fund, or (ii) any entity controlled by such a covered fund.

This clarification is proposed because the definition of “affiliate” and “subsidiary” under the BHC Act is broad, and could include a covered fund that a banking entity has permissibly sponsored or made an investment in because, for example, the banking entity acts as general partner or managing member of the covered fund as part of its permitted sponsorship activities.

such a covered fund were considered a “banking entity” for purposes of the proposed rule, the fund itself would become subject to all of the restrictions and limitations of section 13 of the BHC Act and the proposed rule, which would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the statute. For example, such a covered fund would then generally be prohibited from investing in other covered funds, notwithstanding the fact that section 13(f)(3) of the BHC Act specifically contemplates such investments. Accordingly, the proposed rule would exclude from the definition of banking entity any fund that a banking entity may invest in or sponsor as permitted by the proposed rule.

See

proposed rule § _.2(e). Sections _.2(a) and (bb) of the proposed rule clarify that the terms “affiliate” and “subsidiary” have the same meaning as in sections 2(d) and (k) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(d) and (k)).

The Agencies note that since the proposed rule implements section 13 of the BHC Act, it incorporates that Act's definition of “affiliate” and “subsidiary.”

See

proposed rule §§ _.2(a) and (bb). The terms affiliate and subsidiary are generally defined in section 2 of the BHC Act according to whether such entity controls or is controlled by another relevant entity.

See

12 U.S.C. 1841(d), (k). The concept of control under the proposed rule, in turn, is as defined in section 2 of the BHC Act and as implemented by the Board.

See

12 U.S.C. 1841(a)(2); 12 CFR 225.2(e).

Under section 2 of the BHC Act and the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), a banking entity acting as general partner or managing member of another company would be deemed to control that company and, as such, the company would be both

an “affiliate” and “subsidiary” of the banking entity for purposes of the BHC Act.

See

12 U.S.C. 1841(d), (k).

An entity such as a mutual fund would generally not be a subsidiary or affiliate of a banking entity under this definition if the banking entity only provides advisory or administrative services to, has certain limited investments in, or organizes, sponsors, and manages a mutual fund (which includes a registered investment company) in accordance with BHC Act rules.

See, e.g.,

12 U.S.C. 1483(c)(6), (c)(8), and (k); 12 CFR 225.28(b)(6), 225.86(b)(3).

Section _.2(j) of the proposed rule defines the term “covered banking entity,” which is used in each Agency's proposed rule to describe the specific types of banking entities to which that Agency's rule applies. In addition, a number of other definitions contained in § _.2 are discussed in further detail below in connection with the separate sections of the proposed rule in which they are used.

The proposed rule also defines the terms “buy and purchase” and “sell and sale,” which are used throughout the proposed rule to describe the scope of transactions that are subject to subparts B and C of the proposed rule. These definitions are substantially similar to the definitions of the same terms under the Exchange Act, except that the proposed definitions provide additional clarity regarding the types of transactions that would be considered the purchase or sale of a commodity future or derivative or ownership interest in a covered fund.

These definitions are purposefully broad in scope, and are intended to include a wide range of transaction types that would permit a banking entity to gain or eliminate, or increase or reduce, exposure to a covered financial position or ownership interest in a covered fund.

See

proposed rule §§ _.2(g), (v); 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(13), (14).

Request for Comment

The Agencies request comment on the proposed rule's definition of “banking entity.” In particular, the Agencies request comment on the following questions:

Question 5.

Is the proposed rule's definition of banking entity effective? What alternative definitions might be more effective in light of the language and purpose of the statute?

Question 6.

Are there any entities that should not be included within the definition of banking entity since their inclusion would not be consistent with the language or purpose of the statute or could otherwise produce unintended results? Should a registered investment company be expressly excluded from the definition of banking entity? Why or why not?

Question 7.

Is the proposed rule's exclusion of a covered fund that is organized, offered and held by a banking entity from the definition of banking entity effective? Should the definition of banking entity be modified to exclude any covered fund? Why or why not?

Question 8.

Banking entities commonly structure their registered investment company relationships and investments such that the registered investment company is not considered an affiliate or subsidiary of the banking entity. Should a registered investment company be expressly excluded from the definition of banking entity? Why or why not? Are there circumstances in which such companies should be treated as banking entities subject to section 13 of the BHC Act? How many such companies would be covered by the proposed definition?

Question 9.

Under the proposed rule, would issuers of asset-backed securities be captured by the proposed definition of “banking entity”? If so, are issuers of asset-backed securities within certain asset classes particularly impacted? Are particular types of securitization vehicles (trusts, LLCs, etc.) more likely than others to be included in the definition of banking entity? Should issuers of asset-backed securities be excluded from the proposed definition of “banking entity,” and if so, why? How would such an exclusion be consistent with the language and purpose of the statute?

Question 10.

What would be the potential impact of including existing issuers of asset-backed securities

in the proposed definition of “banking entity” on existing issuers of asset-backed securities and the securitization market generally? How many existing issuers of asset-backed securities might be included in the proposed definition of “banking entity”? Are there ways in which the proposed rule could be amended to mitigate or eliminate potential impact, if any, on existing asset-backed securities

without compromising the intent of the statute?

For purposes of this Supplemental Information, “existing issuers of asset-backed securities” means issuers that issued asset-backed securities prior to the effective date of the proposed rule.

For purposes of this Supplemental Information, “existing asset-backed securities” means asset-backed securities that were issued prior to the effective date of the proposed rule.

Question 11.

What would be the legal and economic impact to an issuer of asset-backed securities of being considered a “banking entity”? What additional costs would be incurred in the establishment and implementation of a compliance program related to the provisions of the proposed rule as required by § _.20 of the proposed rule (including Appendix C, where applicable)? Who would pay those additional costs?

Question 12.

If the ownership requirement under the proposed rule for credit risk retention (section 15G of the Exchange Act) combined with the control inherent in the position of servicer or investment manager means that more securitization vehicles would be considered affiliates of banking entities, would fewer banking entities be willing to (i) serve as the servicer or investment manager of securitization transactions and/or (ii) serve as the originator or securitizer (as defined in section 15G of the Exchange Act) of securitization transactions? What other impact might the potential interplay between these rules have on future securitization transactions? Could there be other potential unintended consequences?

Question 13.

Are the proposed rule's definitions of buy and purchase and sale and sell appropriate? If not, what alternative definitions would be more appropriate? Should any other terms be defined? If so, are there existing definitions in other rules or regulations that could be used in this context? Why would the use of such other definitions be appropriate?

B. Subpart B—Proprietary Trading Restrictions

1. Section _.3: Prohibition on Proprietary Trading

Section _.3 of the proposed rule describes the scope of the prohibition on proprietary trading and defines a

number of terms related to proprietary trading. The Agencies note that the definition of “proprietary trading” in the statute and under the proposed rule is broad. This definition must be viewed in light of the exemptions described later in the proposed rule, which reflect statutory provisions permitting a number of activities.

a. Prohibition on Proprietary Trading

Section _.3(a) of the proposed rule implements section 13(a)(1)(A) of the BHC Act and prohibits a banking entity from engaging in proprietary trading unless otherwise permitted under §§ _.4 through _.6 of the proposed rule. Section _.3(b)(1) of the proposed rule defines proprietary trading in accordance with section 13(h)(4) of the BHC Act.

This definition is a key element of the proposal because, unless an activity covered by the definition is specifically permitted under one of the exemptions contained in §§ _.4 through _.6 of the proposed rule, a banking entity is prohibited from engaging in that activity. Specifically, the proposal largely restates the statutory definition of proprietary trading, defining that term to mean engaging in the purchase or sale of one or more covered financial positions as principal for the trading account of the banking entity.

The terms “trading account” and “covered financial position” are defined in §§ _.3(b)(2) and _.3(b)(3) of the proposed rule, respectively. The proposed definition of proprietary trading also clarifies that proprietary trading does not include acting as agent, broker, or custodian for an unaffiliated third party, because acting in these types of capacities does not involve trading as principal, which is one of the requisite aspects of the statutory definition.

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(1).

See

12 U.S.C. 1851(h)(4);

see also

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i).

Section _.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

) of the proposed rule's definition of trading account includes covered financial positions acquired or taken principally for the purpose of short-term resale.

This part of the trading account definition restates language contained in the statutory definition of trading account and describes one class of positions that are acquired or taken for short-term trading purposes.

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

Section _.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

) of the proposed rule includes covered financial positions acquired or taken principally for the purpose of benefitting from actual or expected short-term price movements.

This part of the trading account definition does not require the

resale

of the position; rather, it requires only an intent to engage in any form of transaction on a short-term basis (including a transaction

separate from, but related to, the initial acquisition of the position) for the purpose of benefitting from a short-term movement in the price of the underlying position. This part of the proposed definition would, for example, include a derivative or other position where the banking entity enters into (or intends to enter into) a subsequent transaction in the near-term to simply offset or “close out,” rather than sell, all or a portion of the risks of the initial position, in order to benefit from a price movement occurring between the acquisition of the underlying position and the subsequent offsetting transaction. Similarly, it would also include a derivative, commodity future, or other position that, regardless of the term of that position, is subject to the exchange of short-term variation margin through which the banking entity intends to benefit from short-term price movements. The proposed definition would also capture the acquisition of a debt instrument where the banking entity intends to enter into a short-term transaction to simply offset, rather than sell, the credit, interest rate and/or other material risk elements of the initial position so as to benefit from a price movement occurring between acquisition of the underlying position and the subsequent offsetting transaction.

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

Section _.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

) of the proposed rule's definition of trading account includes covered financial positions acquired or taken principally to lock in short-term arbitrage profits.

Although similar to the positions described in § __.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

) of the proposed definition (i.e., those acquired for the purpose of benefitting from actual or expected short-term price movements), this part of the definition focuses on short-term arbitrage profits more generally, without regard to whether the transaction is predicated on expected or actual

movements

in price. Rather, a position acquired to lock in arbitrage profits would include positions acquired or taken with the intent to benefit from

differences

in multiple market prices, even in cases in which no movement in those prices is necessary to realize the intended profit. Such arbitrage-based transactions might involve profiting from the difference in the market price of multiple related positions or assets, or might instead involve the difference in market price for particular price or risk elements associated with positions or assets. This would include, for example, arbitrage profits resulting from the convergence or divergence in prices between different positions held by a banking entity engaged in relative value convergence arbitrage, which involves marrying a long and short position to benefit from a convergence or divergence in price between the two, or any similar strategy, because such convergence or divergence could happen at any time (i.e., in one day, in sixty-one days, or some other time period).

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

Section _.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

) of the proposed rule's definition of trading account includes covered financial positions acquired or taken for the purpose of hedging another position that is itself held in a trading account.

In particular, the Agencies assume that, with respect to any position the purpose of which is to hedge another covered financial position in the trading account, the banking entity generally intends to hold the hedging position, whatever its nominal duration, for only so long as the underlying position is held. Accordingly, the proposed rule makes clear that such hedging positions fall within the definition of trading account.

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i)(A)(

iii. Overview of Current Market Risk Capital Rules Approach to Short-Term Trading Positions

The first prong of the proposed trading account definition, which references positions acquired principally for short-term trading purposes, is, like the statutory definition it implements, substantially similar to a key portion of the definition of a “covered position” under the Market Risk Capital Rules.

For the reasons discussed below, the Agencies have taken this similarity into account and propose to construe the first prong of the definition of trading account under the proposed rule—and in particular its reference to “short-term”—in a manner that is consistent with the Market Risk Capital Rules' approach to identifying positions taken with short-term trading intent.

The Federal banking agencies' current Market Risk Capital Rules are located at 12 CFR Part 3, Appendix B (OCC), 12 CFR Part 208, Appendix E and 12 CFR Part 225, Appendix E (Board), and 12 CFR Part 325, Appendix C (FDIC), and apply on a consolidated basis to banks and bank holding companies with trading activity (on a worldwide consolidated basis) that equals 10 percent or more of the institution's total assets, or $1 billion or more. On January 11, 2011, the Federal banking agencies proposed revisions to the Market Risk Capital Rules that include,

inter alia,

changes to the definition of covered position. Proposed revisions to the Market Risk Capital Rules include (i) changes to portions of the covered position definition not relevant to the statutory definition of trading account in section 13 of the BHC Act and (ii) the addition of a requirement that any position in a trading account also be a “trading position” in order to be considered a covered position.

See

76 FR 1890 (Jan. 11, 2011). The revised definition of “trading position” that has been proposed for those purposes is generally identical to this proposed rule's definition of trading account (i.e., a position acquired or taken: (i) For the purpose of short-term resale; (ii) with the intent of benefitting from actual or expected short-term price movements; (iii) to lock in short-term arbitrage profits; or (iv) to hedge another trading position). The Agencies also note that the first prong of the proposed rule's trading account definition is also substantially similar to the Basel Committee's definition of “trading book.”

See

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision,

Amendment to the Capital Accord to Incorporate Market Risks, available at http://bis.org/publ/bcbs119.pdf.

The Market Risk Capital Rules define a covered position to include all positions in a bank's “trading account,” as that term is defined, in part, in the Report of Condition and Income that banks are required to file periodically with respect to their financial condition (“Call Report”). Under the Market Risk Capital Rules, a covered position is one that is subject to a risk-based capital charge that is based, at least in part, on the banking organization's internal risk management models for purposes of calculating the banking organization's risk-based capital requirement.

In defining the term “trading account,” the Call Report notes that trading activities typically include, among other activities, “acquiring or taking positions in such items principally for the purpose of selling in the near-term or otherwise with the intent to resell in order to profit from short-term price movements.”

This language is substantially identical to the statutory

definition of trading account in section 13 of the BHC Act in that it refers to acquiring or taking positions (i) principally for the purpose of selling in the near-term or (ii) otherwise with the intent to resell in order to profit from short-term price movements.

The Agencies note that the Market Risk Capital Rules, both in their current and proposed form, also (i) include within the definition of covered position other positions not captured by the reference to positions acquired for the purpose of short-term resale or with the intent of benefitting from actual or expected short-term price movements (e.g.,

all

commodity and foreign exchange positions, regardless of the intended holding period) and (ii) exclude from that definition certain positions otherwise acquired with short-term trading intent for a variety of policy reasons. The Agencies have not proposed to incorporate such inclusions or exclusions for purposes of the proposed rule's definition of trading account; rather, the Market Risk Capital Rules and related concepts have been referred to only to the extent that they pertain to positions acquired for the purpose of short-term resale or with the intent of benefitting from actual or expected short-term price movements.

Report of Condition and Income at A78a (also including, in the definition of “trading account,” “regularly underwriting or dealing in securities; interest rate, foreign exchange rate, commodity, equity, and credit derivative contracts; other financial instruments; and other assets for resale * * * and * * * acquiring or taking positions in such items as an accommodation to customers or for other trading purposes.”). Accordingly, given its broader scope, the Call Report “trading account” includes trading positions that fall outside the statutory “trading account” for purposes of determining what is prohibited and permitted covered trading activity under section 13 of the BHC Act.

In providing guidance regarding the application of “trading account,” the Call Report also states that trading account positions include any position that is classified as “trading securities” under relevant U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) standards for accounting.

100

Under the referenced accounting standards, trading securities are defined as those “that are bought and held principally for the purpose of selling them in the near-term” and “generally used with the objective of generating profits on short-term differences in price.”

101

The Agencies note that the definition of a trading security under the relevant U.S. GAAP accounting standards is similar to both (i) the financial positions described in the second prong of the Call Report's definition of trading account and (ii) the financial positions described in the statutory definition of trading account under section 13 of the BHC Act.

100

See

Report of Condition and Income at A78a, referring to ASC Topic 320, Investments—Debt and Equity Securities (formerly FASB Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 115, “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities”).

101

See id.

In formulating the proposed rule, the Agencies carefully considered whether to define trading account for purposes of the proposed rule in a manner that formally incorporated the accounting standards governing trading securities. The Agencies have not proposed this approach because: (i) The statutory proprietary trading prohibition under section 13 of the BHC Act applies to financial instruments, such as derivatives, to which the trading security accounting standards may not apply; (ii) these accounting standards permit companies to classify, at their discretion, assets as trading securities even where the assets would not otherwise meet the definition of trading security; and (iii) these accounting standards could change in the future without consideration of the potential impact on section 13 of the BHC Act.

Although neither the Market Risk Capital Rules, the Call Report, nor relevant accounting standards provide a precise definition of what constitutes “near-term” or “short-term” for purposes of evaluating whether a position is of the type held in a trading account or is a trading security, guidance provided under relevant accounting standards notes that “near-term” for purposes of classifying trading activities is “generally measured in hours and days rather than months or years.”

102

The Agencies expect that the precise period of time that may be considered near-term or short-term for purposes of evaluating any particular covered financial position would depend on a variety of factors, including the facts and circumstances of the covered financial position's acquisition, the banking entity's trading and business strategies, and the nature of the relevant markets. In considering the purpose for which a covered financial position is acquired or taken and evaluating whether such position is acquired or taken for short-term purposes, the Agencies intend to rely on a variety of information, including quantitative measurements of banking entities' covered trading activities (as described below in Part II.B.5 of this Supplementary Information), supervisory review of banking entities' compliance practices and internal controls, and supervisory review of individual transactions.

102

See

FASB ASC Master Glossary definition of “trading.” Although § _.3(b)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule includes a rebuttable presumption that an account used to acquire or take certain covered financial positions that are held for 60 days or less is a trading account, the Agencies note that U.S. GAAP does not include a presumption that securities sold within 60 days of acquisition were held for the purpose of selling them in the near term.

In order to better reinforce the general consistency between the proposal's approach to defining a trading account and the “trading account” concept embedded in the Market Risk Capital Rules, the second prong of the proposed definition of trading account, contained in § _.3(b)(2)(i)(B) of the proposed rule, provides that a trading account includes any account used to acquire or take one or more covered financial positions, other than positions that are foreign exchange derivatives, commodity derivatives, or contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery (unless the position is otherwise held with short-term intent), that are also market risk capital rule covered positions, if the banking entity, or any affiliate of the banking entity that is a bank holding company, calculates risk-based capital ratios under the Market Risk Capital Rules.

103

For these purposes, a “market risk capital rule covered position” is defined as any covered position as that term is defined for purposes of (i) in the case of a banking entity that is a bank holding company or insured depository institution, the market risk capital rule that is applicable to the banking entity, and (ii) in the case of a banking entity that is affiliated with a bank holding company, other than a banking entity to which a market risk capital rule is applicable, the market risk capital rule that is applicable to the affiliated bank holding company.

104

In particular, for banking entities already subject to the Market Risk Capital Rules, it appears that positions subject to trading account treatment under those rules because they involve short-term trading intent are generally the type of positions to which the proprietary trading restrictions of section 13 of the BHC Act were intended to apply. In addition, including all covered financial positions that receive trading account treatment under the Market Risk Capital Rules because they meet a nearly identical standard regarding short-term trading intent would also eliminate the potential for inconsistency or regulatory arbitrage in which a banking entity might characterize a position as “trading” for capital purposes but not for purposes of the proposed rule.

103

The Agencies have excluded positions that are foreign exchange derivatives, commodity derivatives, or contracts of sale of a commodity for future delivery from this prong of the proposed trading account definition because all foreign exchange and commodity positions are considered “covered positions” under the Market Risk Capital Rules regardless of whether they involve the short-term trading intent required under the statutory definition of trading account in section 13(h)(6) of the BHC Act.

104

See

proposed rule § _.3(c)(8). Accordingly, in the context of a subsidiary of a bank holding company (other than a subsidiary, such as a bank, to which a market risk capital rule is already directly applicable), if that bank holding company is subject to a market risk capital rule, any position of that subsidiary that meets the definition of a “covered position” under the market risk capital rule applicable to the bank holding company would be subject to § _.3(b)(2)(i)(B) of the proposed rule.

The Agencies emphasize that this second prong of the trading account definition is being proposed in contemplation of the proposed revisions to the Market Risk Capital Rules and, in particular, the proposed definition of “covered position” under those proposed revisions. To the extent that those proposed revisions with respect to the definition of “covered position” are not adopted, or adopted in a form other than as proposed, the Agencies would expect to take that into account in determining whether or how to include the proposed second prong of the trading account definition for purposes of the final rule to implement section 13 of the BHC Act.

105

In particular, the Agencies note that under the proposed revisions to the Market Risk Capital Rules, but not the existing Market Risk Capital Rule, the term “covered position” expressly includes, other than with respect to commodity and foreign exchange positions, only positions taken with short-term trading intent.

See

76 FR 1890 (Jan. 11, 2011). The Agencies do not intend to incorporate “covered positions” under the Market Risk Capital Rules in a way that includes positions lacking short-term trading intent.

iv. Positions Acquired or Taken by Securities Dealers, Swap Dealers, and Security-Based Swap Dealers

The third prong of the proposed definition of trading account is contained in § _.3(b)(2)(i)(C) of the

proposed rule and provides that a trading account includes

any account

used to acquire or take one or more covered financial positions by a banking entity that is: (i) A SEC-registered securities or municipal securities dealer; (ii) a government securities dealer that registered, or that has filed notice, with an appropriate regulatory agency;

106

(iii) a CFTC-registered swap dealer; or (iv) a SEC-registered security-based swap dealer, in each case to the extent that the covered financial position is acquired or taken in connection with the activities that require the banking entity to be registered, or to file notice, as such.

107

Similarly included is any covered financial position acquired or taken by a banking entity that is engaged in the business of a dealer, swap dealer, or security-based swap dealer outside of the United States, if such position is acquired or taken in connection with the activities of such business.

108

As a result of this third prong, all covered financial positions acquired or taken by a registered dealer, swap dealer or security-based swap dealer, a government securities dealer that has filed notice with an appropriate regulatory agency, or a banking entity engaged in the same type of dealing activities outside the United States, are automatically included within the scope of positions described in the trading account definition, if they are acquired or taken in connection with the activities that require the banking entity to be registered, or file notice, as such (or, in the case of a banking entity engaged in the business of a dealer, swap dealer, or security-based swap dealer outside of the United States, in connection with the activities of such business). As discussed below, the proposed rule contains exemptions that permit a variety of covered trading activity in which these types of entities typically engage, notwithstanding the inclusion of all covered financial positions of such entities within the definition of trading account.

106

See

15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(42)(E); 15 U.S.C. 78

5(a)(1)(B); 17 CFR 400.5(b); 17 CFR 449.1. Section 15C(a)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act requires any government securities dealer, other than a registered broker-dealer or a financial institution, to register with the SEC pursuant to section 15C(a)(2). Registered broker-dealers and financial institutions are required to file written notice with their appropriate regulatory agency, as defined in section 3(a)(34) of the Exchange Act, prior to acting as a government securities dealer.

See

15 U.S.C. 78o-5(a)(1)(B). The proposed definition of trading account would cover positions of all three forms of government securities dealers: (i) those registered with the SEC; (ii) registered broker-dealers; and (iii) financial institutions that have filed notice with an appropriate regulatory agency.

107

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i)(C)(1)-(4). The Agencies emphasize that this provision applies only to positions taken in connection with the activities that require the banking entity to be registered as one of the listed categories of dealer, not to

all

of the activities of that banking entity. For example, an insured depository institution may be registered as a swap dealer, but only the swap dealing activities that require it to be so registered would be covered by the second prong of the trading account definition. A position taken in connection with other activities of the insured depository institution that do not trigger registration as a swap dealer, such as lending, deposit-taking, the hedging of business risks, or other end-user activity, would only be included within the trading account if the position met one of the other prongs of the trading account definition (i.e., §§ _.3(b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of the proposed rule).

108

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(i)(C)(5).

The Agencies have proposed this third prong of the trading account definition because all assets or other positions held by firms that register or file notice as securities or derivatives dealers as part of their dealing activity are generally held for sale to customers upon request or otherwise support the firm's trading activities (e.g., by hedging its dealing positions), and so would appear to involve the requisite short-term intent and be captured within the statutory definition of trading account. To the extent that a covered financial position is acquired or taken by such a banking entity outside the scope of the dealing activities that require the banking entity to be registered, or to file notice, as a dealer, swap dealer, or security-based swap dealer, that position may still cause the relevant account to be a trading account under the proposed rule if the account holding such a position otherwise meets the terms of the first or second prong of the trading account definition (i.e., positions acquired or taken for short-term trading purposes or certain Market Risk Capital Rules positions).

v. Rebuttable Presumption for Certain Positions

In order to provide greater clarity and guidance on the application of the trading account definition, and in particular for those banking entities with no experience in evaluating short-term trading intent or that are not subject to the Market Risk Capital Rules, the proposed rule also includes a rebuttable presumption regarding certain positions that, by reason of their holding period, are presumed to be trading account positions. In particular, § _.3(b)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule provides that an account would be presumed to be a trading account if it is used to acquire or take a covered financial position, other than dealing positions or certain Market Risk Capital Rules covered positions that are automatically considered part of the trading account, that the banking entity holds for a period of sixty days or less. However, the presumption does not apply if the banking entity can demonstrate, based on all the facts and circumstances, that the covered financial position, either individually or as a category, was not acquired or taken principally for the purpose of short-term resale, benefitting from short-term price movements, realizing short-term arbitrage profits, or hedging another trading account position.

109

Because it appears likely that most positions held for sixty days or less would have been acquired with short-term trading intent, the proposal presumes such positions are trading account positions unless the banking entity can demonstrate otherwise. The purpose of the proposed rebuttable presumption is to simplify the process of evaluating whether individual positions are included in the definition of trading account. The proposal does not apply this rebuttable presumption to positions described in § _.3(b)(2)(i)(B) or (C) of the proposed rule (i.e., certain Market Risk Capital Rules positions and dealing positions), because these positions are automatically part of the trading account, and cannot be rebutted.

109

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(ii).

However, the Agencies recognize that, for a variety of reasons, a banking entity may acquire a covered financial position for purposes other than short-term trading but nonetheless dispose of that position within the sixty-day period covered by the presumption. Accordingly, § _.3(b)(2)(ii) is only a

presumption,

and may be rebutted by reference to all the facts and circumstances surrounding the acquisition of a particular position. For example, if a banking entity acquired a covered financial position with the demonstrable intent of holding it for investment or other non-trading purposes but, because of developments not expected or anticipated at the time of acquisition (e.g., increased customer demand, an unexpected increase in its volatility or a need to liquidate the position to meet unexpected liquidity demands), held it for less than sixty days, those facts and circumstances would generally suggest that the position was not acquired with short-term trading intent, notwithstanding the presumption.

110

The proposed rule also makes clear that this rebuttal may be made not only with respect to a particular transaction, but also with respect to a particular category of transactions, recognizing that it may be possible to identify a category of similar

transactions that clearly do not involve short-term trading, notwithstanding the typical holding period of the related positions.

110

In such cases, the documented intention for acquiring or taking the position should be consistent with the intention articulated for financial reporting and other purposes.

It is important to note that these presumptions are designed to help determine whether a transaction is within the definition of “proprietary trading,” not whether a transaction is permissible under section 13 of the BHC Act. A transaction may fall within the definition of “proprietary trading” and yet be permissible if it meets one of the exemptions provided in the proposed rule, such as the exemption for market making-related activities.

vi. Request for Comment

The Agencies request comment on the proposed rule's approach to defining trading account. In particular, the Agencies request comment on the following questions:

Question 14.

Is the proposed rule's definition of trading account effective? Is it over- or under-inclusive in this context? What alternative definition might be more effective in light of the language and purpose of the statute? How would such definition better identify the accounts that are intended to be covered by section 13 of the BHC Act?

Question 15.

Is the proposed rule's approach for determining when a position falls within the definition of “trading account” for purposes of the proposed rule from when it must be reported in the “trading account” for purpose of filing the Call Report effective? What additional guidance could the Agencies provide on this distinction? Are there alternative approaches that would be more effective in light of the language and purpose of the statute? Is this approach workable for affiliates of bank holding companies that are not subject to the Federal banking agencies' market Risk Capital Rules (e.g., affiliated investment advisers)? If not, why not? Are affiliates of bank holding companies familiar with the concepts from the Market Risk Capital Rules that are being incorporated into the proposed rule? If not, what steps would an affiliate of a bank holding company have to take to become familiar with these concepts and what would be the costs and/or benefits of such actions? Is application of the trading account concept from the Federal banking agencies' Market Risk Capital Rules to affiliates of bank holding companies necessary to promote consistency and prevent regulatory arbitrage? Please explain.

Question 16.

Is the manner in which the Agencies intend to take into account, and substantially adopt, the approach used in the Market Risk Capital Rules and related concepts for determining whether a position is acquired with short-term trading intent effective?

Question 17.

Should the proposed rule's definition of trading account, or its use of the term “short-term,” be clarified? Are there particular transactions or positions to which its application would be unclear? Should the proposed rule define “short-term” for these purposes? What alternative approaches to construing the term “short-term” should the Agencies consider and/or adopt?

Question 18.

Are there particular transactions or positions to which the application of the proposed definition of trading account is unclear? Is additional regulatory language, guidance, or clarity necessary?

Question 19.

Is the exchange of variation margin as a potential indicator of short-term trading in derivative or commodity future transactions appropriate for the definition of trading account? How would this impact such transactions or the manner by which banking entities conduct such transactions? For instance, would banking entities seek to avoid the use of variation margin to avoid this rule? What are the costs and benefits of referring to the exchange of variation margin to determine if positions should be included in a banking entity's trading account? Please explain.

Question 20.

Are there particular transactions or positions that are included in the definition of trading account that should not be? If so, what transactions or positions and why?

Question 21.

Are there particular transactions or positions that are not included in the definition of trading account that should be? If so, what transactions or positions and why?

Question 22.

Is the proposed rule of construction for positions acquired or taken by dealers, swap dealers and security-based swap dealers appropriate and consistent with the purpose and language of section 13 of the BHC Act? Is its application to any particular type of entity, such as an insured depository institution engaged in derivatives dealing activities, sufficiently clear and effective? If not, what alternative would be clearer and/or more effective?

Question 23.

Is the rebuttable presumption included in the proposed rule appropriate and effective? Are there more effective ways in which to provide clarity regarding the determination of whether or not a position is included within the definition of trading account? If so, what are they?

Question 24.

Are records currently created and retained that could be used to demonstrate investment or other non-trading purposes in connection with rebutting the presumption in the proposed rule? If yes, please identify such records and explain when they are created and whether they would be useful in connection with a single transaction or a category of similar transactions. If no, we seek commenter input regarding the manner in which banking entities might demonstrate investment or other non-trading intent. Should the Agencies require banking entities to make and keep records to demonstrate investment or non-trading intent with respect to their covered financial positions?

Question 25.

How should the proposed trading account definition address arbitrage positions? Should all arbitrage positions be included in the definition of trading account, unless the timing of such profits is long-term and established at the time the arbitrage position is acquired or taken? Please explain in detail, including a discussion of different arbitrage trading strategies and whether subjecting such strategies to the proposed rule would be consistent with the language and purpose of section 13 of the BHC Act.

Question 26.

Is the holding period referenced in the rebuttable presumption appropriate? If not, what holding period would be more appropriate, and why?

Question 27.

Should the proposed rule include a rebuttable presumption regarding positions that are presumed

not

to be within the definition of trading account? If so, why, and what would the presumption be?

Question 28.

Should any additional accounts be included in the proposed rule pursuant to the authority granted under section 13(h)(6) of the BHC Act? If so, what accounts and why? For example, should accounts used to acquire or take certain long-term positions be included in the definition? If so, how would subjecting such accounts to the proposed rule's prohibitions and restrictions be consistent with the language and purpose of section 13 of the BHC Act?

Question 29.

Do any of the activities currently engaged in by issuers of asset-backed securities that would be considered a banking entity constitute proprietary trading as defined by § _.3(b) of this rule proposal? Would any activities relating to investment of funds in accounts held by issuers of asset-backed securities (e.g., reserve accounts, prefunding accounts, reinvestment accounts, etc.) or the purchase and sale of securities as part

of the management of a collateralized debt obligation portfolio be considered proprietary trading under the proposed rule? What would be the potential impact of the prohibition on proprietary trading on the use of such accounts in (i) existing securitization transactions and (ii) future securitization transactions? Would any of the securities typically acquired and retained using these accounts be considered an ownership interest in a covered fund under the proposed rule? Does the exclusion of trading in certain government obligations in § _.6(a) of the proposed rule mitigate the impact of the proposed rule on such issuers of asset-backed securities and their activities? Why or why not?

c. Excluded Positions

i. Excluded Positions Under Certain Repurchase and Reverse Repurchase Arrangements

Section _.3(b)(2)(iii)(A) of the proposed rule's definition of trading account provides that an account will not be a trading account to the extent that such account is used to acquire or take one or more covered financial positions that arise under a repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement pursuant to which the banking entity has simultaneously agreed, in writing at the start of the transaction, to both purchase and sell a stated asset, at stated prices, and on stated dates or on demand with the same counterparty.

111

This clarifying exclusion is proposed because positions held under a repurchase or reverse repurchase agreement operate in economic substance as a secured loan, and are not based on expected or anticipated movements in asset prices. Accordingly, these types of asset purchases and sales do not appear to be the type of transaction intended to be covered by the statutory definition of trading account.

111

See

proposed rule § _.3(b)(2)(iii)(A).

ii. Excluded Positions Under Securities Lending Transactions

Section _.3(b)(2)(iii)(B) of the proposed rule's definition of trading account provides that an account will not be a trading account to the extent that such account is used to acquire or take one or more covered financial positions that arise under a transaction in which the banking entity lends or borrows a security temporarily to or from another party pursuant to a written securities lending agreement under which the lender retains the economic interests of an owner of such security, and has the right to terminate the transaction and to recall the loaned security on terms agreed to by the parties.

112

This clarifying exclusion is proposed because a position held under a securities lending arrangement can be used, for example, to operate in economic substance and function, as a means to facilitate settlement of securities transactions, and is not based on expected or anticipated movements in asset prices. Accordingly, securities lending transactions do not appear to be the type of transaction intended to be covered by the statutory definition of trading account.

112

See

proposed rule § __.3(b)(2)(iii)(B). The language describing securities lending transactions in the proposed rule generally mirrors that contained in Rule 3a5-3 under the Exchange Act.

See

17 CFR 240.3a5-3.

iii. Excluded Positions Acquired or Taken for Liquidity Management Purposes

Section __.3(b)(2)(iii)(C) of the proposed definition of trading account provides that an account will not be a trading account to the extent that such account is used to acquire or take a position for the purpose of

bona fide

liquidity management, so long as important criteria are met.

113

See

proposed rule § __.3(b)(2)(iii)(C).

This proposed clarifying exclusion is intended to make clear that, where the purpose for which a banking acquires or takes a position is to ensure that it has sufficient liquid assets to meet its short-term cash demands, and the related position is held as part of the banking entity's liquidity management process, that transaction falls outside of the types of transactions described in the proposed rule's definition of trading account. Maintaining liquidity management positions is a critical aspect of the safe and sound operation of certain banking entities, and does not involve the requisite short-term trading intent that forms the basis of the statutory definition of “trading account.” In the context of

bona fide

liquidity management activity that would qualify for the clarifying exclusion, a banking entity's purpose for acquiring or taking these types of positions is not to benefit from short-term profit or short-term price movements, but rather to ensure that it has sufficient, readily-marketable assets available to meet its expected short-term liquidity needs.

However, the Agencies are concerned with the potential for abuse of this clarifying exclusion—specifically, that a banking entity might attempt to improperly mischaracterize positions acquired or taken for prohibited proprietary trading purposes as positions acquired or taken for liquidity management purposes. To address this, the proposed rule requires that the transaction be conducted in accordance with a documented liquidity management plan that meets five criteria. First, the plan would be required to specifically contemplate and authorize any particular instrument used for liquidity management purposes, its profile with respect to market, credit and other risks, and the liquidity circumstances in which the position may or must be used. Second, the plan would have to require that any transaction contemplated and authorized by the plan be principally for the purpose of managing the liquidity of the banking entity, and not for the purpose of short-term resale, benefitting from actual or expected short-term price movements, realizing short-term arbitrage profits, or hedging a position acquired or taken for such short-term purposes. Third, the plan would have to require that any positions acquired or taken for liquidity management purposes be highly liquid and limited to financial instruments the market, credit and other risks of which are not expected to give rise to appreciable profits or losses as a result of short-term price movements.

114

Fourth, the plan would be required to limit any position acquired or taken for liquidity management purposes, together with any other positions acquired or taken for such purposes, to an amount that is consistent with the banking entity's near-term funding needs, including deviations from normal operations, as estimated and documented pursuant to methods specified in the plan. Fifth, the plan would be required to be consistent with the relevant Agency's supervisory requirements, guidance and expectations regarding liquidity management. The Agencies would review these liquidity plans and transactions effected in accordance with these plans through supervisory and examination processes to ensure that the applicable criteria are met and that any position acquired or taken in reliance on the clarifying exclusion for liquidity management transactions is fully consistent with such plans.

114

Any instance in which positions characterized as taken for liquidity purposes do give rise to appreciable profits or losses as a result of short-term price movements will be subject to significant Agency scrutiny and, absent compelling explanatory facts and circumstances, would be viewed as prohibited proprietary trading under the proposal.

iv. Excluded Positions of Derivatives Clearing Organizations and Clearing Agencies

Section _.3(b)(2)(iii)(D) of the proposed rule's definition of trading account provides that an account will not be a trading account to the extent that such account is used to acquire or take one or more covered financial positions that are acquired or taken by a banking entity that is a derivatives clearing organization registered under section 5b of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7a-1) or a clearing agency registered with the SEC under section 17A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) in connection with clearing derivatives or securities transactions.

115

This clarifying exclusion is proposed because, in the case of a banking entity that acts as a registered, central counterparty in the securities or derivatives markets, these types of transactions do not appear to be the type of transaction intended to be covered by the statutory definition of trading account, as the purpose of such transactions is to provide a clearing service to third parties and not to profit from short-term resale or short-term price movements.

115

See

proposed rule § __.3(b)(2)(iii)(D).

v. Request for Comment

The Agencies request comment regarding the proposed clarifying exclusions and whether any other types of activity or transactions should be excluded from the proposed definition of trading account for clarity. In particular, the Agencies request comment on the following questions:

Question 30.

Are the proposed clarifying exclusions for positions under certain repurchase and reverse repurchase arrangements and securities lending transactions over- or under-inclusive and could they have unintended consequences? Is there an alternative approach to these clarifying exclusions that would be more effective? Are the proposed clarifying exclusions broad enough to include

bona fide

arrangements that operate in economic substance as secured loans and are not based on expected or anticipated movements in asset prices? Are there other types of arrangements, such as open dated repurchase arrangements, that should be excluded for clarity and, if so, how should the proposed rule be revised? Alternatively, are the proposed clarifying exclusions narrow enough to not inadvertently exclude from coverage any similar arrangements or transactions that do not have these characteristics?

Question 31.

Are repurchase and reverse repurchase arrangements and securities lending transactions sufficiently similar that they should be treated in the same way for purposes of the proposed rule? Are there aspects of repurchase and reverse repurchase arrangements or securities lending transactions that should be highlighted in considering the application of the proposed rule? Do repurchase and reverse repurchase arrangements or securities lending transactions raise any additional or heightened concerns regarding risk? Please identify and explain how these concerns should be reflected in the proposed rule.

Question 32.

Are the proposed exclusions for repurchase and reverse repurchase arrangements and securities lending transactions appropriate or are there conditions that commenters believe would be appropriate as a pre-requisite to relying on these exclusions? Please identify such conditions and explain. Alternatively, we seek commenter input regarding why repurchase and reverse repurchase arrangements and securities lending transactions do not present the potential for abuse, namely, that a banking entity might attempt to improperly mischaracterize prohibited proprietary trading as activity that qualifies for the proposed exclusions.

Question 33.

Is the proposed clarifying exclusion for liquidity management transactions effective and appropriate? If not, what alternative would be more effective and appropriate, and why? Is the proposed exclusion under- or over-inclusive? Does the proposed clarifying exclusion place sufficient limitations on liquidity management transactions to prevent abuse of the clarifying exclusion? If not, what additional limitations should be specified? Are any of the limitations contained in the proposed rule inappropriate or unnecessary? If so, how could such limitations be eliminated or altered in way that does not permit abuse of the clarifying exclusion?

Question 34:

Is the proposed exclusion for liquidity management positions necessary? If not excluded, would such activity otherwise qualify for an exemption contained in the proposed rule (e.g., the exemptions contains in §§ __.5 and __.6(a) of the proposed rule)? What types of banking entities are likely to engage in the liquidity management activities described in the proposed exclusion?

Question 35:

What types of instruments do particular types of banking entities currently use in connection with liquidity management activities (e.g., Treasuries)? Why are such instruments chosen for liquidity management purposes? Would such instruments meet the proposed requirement that the position be highly liquid and limited to financial instruments the market, credit and other risk of which are not expected to give rise to appreciable profits or losses as a result of short-term price movements? Why or why not?

Question 36:

What methodologies do banking entities currently use for estimating deviations from normal operations in connection with liquidity management programs?

Question 37:

Which unit or units within a banking entity are typically responsible for liquidity management? What is the typical reporting line structure used to control and supervise that unit or units? Are the responsibilities of personnel in the unit limited to liquidity management or do they perform other functions in addition to liquidity management? How is compensation determined for personnel in the unit of the banking entity responsible for liquidity management?

Question 38:

Would current liquidity management programs meet the five proposed criteria for liquidity management programs? If not which criteria would not be met, and why? What effect would the proposed liquidity management exclusions have on current liquidity management programs and banking entities in general?

Question 39:

Are liquidity management programs used for purposes other than ensuring the banking entity has sufficient assets available to it that are readily marketable to meet expected short-term liquidity needs? If so, for what purposes, and why?

Question 40:

What costs or other burdens would arise if the proposal did not contain an exclusion for positions acquired or taken for liquidity management purpose? Please explain and quantify these costs or other burdens in detail.

Question 41:

Is the proposed liquidity management exclusion sufficiently clear? If not, why is the exclusion unclear and how should the Agencies clarify the terms of this exclusion?

Question 42.

Is the proposed clarifying exclusion for certain positions taken by derivatives clearing organizations and clearing agencies effective and appropriate? If not, what alternative would be more effective and appropriate, and why?

Question 43.

Are any additional clarifying exclusions warranted? If so, what clarifying exclusion, and why?

Question 44.

Should the proposed definition exclude any position the market risk of which cannot be hedged by the banking entity in a two-way market?

116

If so, what would be the basis for concluding that such positions are clearly not within the statutory definition of trading account?

116

The Agencies also note that such an exclusion would be similar to the express exclusion of similar positions under the Federal banking agencies' most recent proposed revisions to the Market Risk Capital Rules.

See

76 FR 1890, 1912 (Jan. 11, 2011) (excluding from the definition of a covered position any position the material risk elements of which the holder is unable to hedge in a two-way market).

Question 45.

Should the proposed definition include a clarifying exclusion for any position in illiquid assets? If so, what would be the basis for concluding that such positions are clearly not within the statutory definition of trading account? How should “illiquid assets” be defined for these purposes? Should the definition be consistent with the definition given that term in the Board's Conformance Rule under section 13 of the BHC Act (12 CFR 225.180 et seq.)?

117

See

76 FR 8265 (Feb. 14, 2011). The Board's conformance rule defines “illiquid asset” as “any real property, security obligation, or other asset that (i) is not a liquid asset; (ii) because of statutory or regulatory restrictions applicable to the hedge fund, private equity fund or asset, cannot be offered, sold, or otherwise transferred by the hedge fund or private equity fund to a person that is unaffiliated with the relevant banking entity; or (iii) because of contractual restrictions applicable to the hedge fund, private equity fund or asset, cannot be offered, sold, or otherwise transferred by the hedge fund or private equity fund for a period of 3 years or more to a person that is unaffiliated with the relevant banking entity.” 12 CFR 225.180(g). A “liquid asset” is defined in paragraph (h) of the conformance rule.

See

12 CFR 225.180(h).

d. Covered Financial Position

i. Definition of “Covered Financial Position”

Section _.3(b)(3)(i) of the proposed rule defines a covered financial position as any long, short, synthetic or other position

118

in: (i) A security, including an option on a security; (ii) a derivative, including an option on a derivative; or (iii) a contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery, or an option on such a contract. The types of financial instruments described in the proposed definition are consistent with those referenced in section 13(h)(4) of the BHC Act as part of the statutory definition of proprietary trading.

119

118

The proposed definition's reference to any “long, short, synthetic or other position” is intended to make clear that a position in an identified category of financial instrument qualifies as a covered financial position regardless of whether the position is (i) an asset or liability or (ii) is acquired through acquisition or sale of the financial instrument or synthetically through a derivative or other transaction.

119

Section 13(h)(4) of the BHC Act also permits the Agencies to extend the scope of the proprietary trading restrictions to other financial instruments. The Agencies have not proposed to do so at this time.

To provide additional clarity, § __.3(b)(3)(ii) of the proposed rule provides that, consistent with the statute, the term covered financial position does not include any position that is itself a loan, a commodity, or foreign exchange or currency.

120

The exclusion of these types of positions is intended to eliminate potential confusion by making clear that the purchase and sale of loans, commodities and foreign exchange—none of which are referred to in section 13(h)(4) of the BHC Act—are outside the scope of transactions to which the proprietary trading restrictions apply. The reference in § __.3(b)(3)(ii) to a position that

is,

rather than a position that

is in,

a loan, a commodity, or foreign exchange or currency is intended to capture only the purchase and sale of these instruments themselves. This reflects the fact that, consistent with section 13(h)(4) of the BHC Act and the proposed rule, although a position that is a foreign exchange derivative or commodity derivative is included in the definition of covered financial position and therefore subject to the prohibition on proprietary trading, a position that is a commodity or foreign currency is not.

121

For example, the spot purchase of a commodity would meet the terms of the exclusion, but the acquisition of a futures position in the same commodity would not. The Agencies request comment on the proposed rule's definition of covered financial position. In particular, the Agencies request comment on the following questions:

120

See

proposed rule § __.3(b)(ii).

121

The types of commodity- and foreign exchange-related derivatives that are included within the definition of “derivative” under the proposed rule are discussed in detail below in Part III.B.2.d.ii of this Supplementary Information.

Question 46.

Is the proposed rule's definition of covered financial position effective? Is the definition over- or under-inclusive? What alternative approaches might be more effective in light of the language and purpose of section 13 of the BHC Act, and why?

Question 47.

Are there definitions in other rules or regulations that might inform the proposed definition of covered financial position? If so, what rule or regulation? How should that approach be incorporated into the proposed definition? Why would that approach be more appropriate?

Question 48.

Are there particular transactions or positions to which the application of the proposed definition of covered financial position is unclear? Is additional regulatory language, guidance, or clarity necessary?

Question 49.

The proposal would apply to long, short, synthetic, or other positions in one of the listed categories of financial instruments. Does this language adequately describe the type of positions that are intended to fall within the proposed definition of covered financial position? If not, why not? Are there different or additional concepts that should be specified in this context? Please explain.

Question 50.

Should the Agencies expand the scope of covered financial positions to include other transactions, such as spot commodities or foreign exchange or currency, or certain subsets of transaction (e.g., spot commodities or foreign exchange or currency traded on a high-frequency basis)? If so, which instruments and why?

Question 51.

What factors should the Agencies consider in deciding whether to extend the scope of the proprietary trading restriction to other financial instruments under the authority granted in section 13(h)(4) of the BHC Act? Please explain.

Question 52.

Is the proposed exclusion of any position that is a loan, a commodity, or foreign exchange or currency effective? If not, what alternative approaches might be more effective in light of the language and purpose of section 13 of the BHC Act? Should additional positions be excluded? If so, why and under what authority?

ii. Other Terms Used in the Definition of Covered Financial Position

The proposal also defines a number of terms used in the proposed definition of covered financial position. The term “security” is defined by reference to that same term under the Exchange Act.

122

The terms “commodity” and “contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery” are defined by reference to those same terms under the Commodity Exchange Act.

123

The Agencies have proposed to reference these existing definitions from the securities and commodities laws because these existing definitions are generally well-understood by market participants and have been subject to extensive interpretation in the context of securities and commodities trading activities.

122

See

proposed rule § __.2(w).

123

See

proposed rule §§ __.3(c)(1), (2).

The proposed rule also defines the term “derivative.”

124

In particular, the

definition of “derivative” under the proposed rule includes any “swap” (as that term is defined in the Commodity Exchange Act) and any “security-based swap” (as that term is defined in the Exchange Act), in each case as further defined by the CFTC and SEC by joint regulation, interpretation, guidance, or other action, in consultation with the Board pursuant to section 712(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Agencies have proposed to incorporate these definitions of “swap” and “security-based swap” under the Federal securities and commodities laws because those definitions: (i) Govern the primary Federal regulatory scheme applicable to exchange-traded and over-the-counter derivatives; (ii) will be frequently evaluated and applied by banking entities in the course of their trading activities; and (iii) capture agreements and contracts that are or function as derivatives.

125

The proposed rule also includes within the definition of derivative certain other transactions that, although not included within the definition of “swap” or “security-based swap,” also appear to be, or operate in economic substance as, derivatives, and which if not included could permit banking entities to engage in proprietary trading that is inconsistent with the spirit of section 13 of the BHC Act. Specifically, the proposed definition of derivative also includes: (i) Any purchase or sale of a nonfinancial commodity for deferred shipment or delivery that is intended to be physically settled; (ii) any foreign exchange forward or foreign exchange swap (as those terms are defined in the Commodity Exchange Act);

126

(iii) any agreement, contract, or transaction in foreign currency described in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(C)(i));

127

(iv) any agreement, contract, or transactions in a commodity other than foreign currency described in section 2(c)(2)(D)(i) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(D)(i)); and (v) any transaction authorized under section 19 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 23(a) or (b)). The Agencies are requesting comment on whether including these five types of transactions within the proposed definition of derivative is appropriate.

124

See

proposed rule § __.2(l).

125

The Agencies note that they have not included a variety of security-related derivatives within the proposed definition of derivative, as such transactions are “securities” for purposes of both the Exchange Act and the proposed rule and, as a result, already included in the broader definition of “covered financial position” to which the prohibition on proprietary trading applies.

126

The Agencies note that foreign exchange swaps and foreign exchange forwards are considered swaps for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act definition of that term unless the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to section 1a(47)(E) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1a(47)(E)), that foreign exchange swaps and forwards should not be regulated as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act and are not structured to evade certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. On May 5, 2011, the Treasury Secretary proposed to exercise that authority to exclude foreign exchange forwards and foreign exchange swaps from the definition of “swap.”

See Determination of Foreign Exchange Swaps and Foreign Exchange Forwards Under the Commodity Exchange Act,

76 FR 25774 (May 5, 2011). If the Secretary of the Treasury issues a final determination, as proposed, a “foreign exchange swap” and “foreign exchange forward” would be excluded from the definition of “swap” under the Commodity Exchange Act and, therefore, would fall outside of the proposed rule's definition of “derivative.” Accordingly, the Agencies have proposed to expressly include such transactions in the proposed definition of derivative, but have requested comment on a variety of questions related to whether foreign exchange swaps and forwards should be included or excluded from the definition of derivative. The Agencies note that, aside from foreign exchange swaps and forwards, the Commodity Exchange Act's definition of “swap” (and therefore the proposed definition of “derivative”) also includes other types of foreign exchange derivatives, including non-deliverable foreign exchange forwards (NDFs), foreign exchange options, and currency options, which fall outside of the Secretary of the Treasury's authority to issue a determination to exclude certain transactions from the “swap” definition.

127

Section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) was added to the Commodity Exchange Act in 2008 to address retail foreign exchange transactions that were documented as automatically renewing spot contracts (so-called rolling spot transactions) and therefore not futures contracts subject to the Commodity Exchange Act, but which were functionally and economically similar to futures.

See Retail Foreign Exchange Transactions,

76 FR 41375, 47376-77 (July 15, 2011). However, section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Commodity Exchange Act does not apply to transactions entered into by U.S. financial institutions, including insured depository institutions, brokers, dealers, and certain retail foreign exchange dealers.

See

7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(C)(i)(I)(aa). To apply this definitional prong to such banking entities, the definition of derivative includes a transaction “described in” section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Commodity Exchange Act. In other words, the use of this phrase is intended to capture any transaction described in section 2(c)(2)(C)(i) without regard to the identity of the counterparty.

To provide additional clarity, the proposed definition of derivative also clarifies two types of transactions that are outside the scope of the definition. First, the proposed definition of derivative would not include any consumer, commercial, or other agreement, contract, or transaction that the CFTC and SEC have further defined by joint regulation, interpretation, guidance, or other action as not within the definition of swap, as that term is defined in the Commodity Exchange Act, or security-based swap, as that term is defined in the Exchange Act. The SEC and CFTC have, in proposing rules further defining the terms “swap” and “security-based swap,” proposed to not include a variety of agreements, contracts, and transactions within those definitions by joint regulation or interpretation, and the Agencies have proposed to expressly reflect such exclusions in the proposed rule's definition in order to avoid the potential application of its restrictions to transactions that are not commonly thought to be derivatives.

128

Second, the proposed definition of derivative also does not include any identified banking product, as defined in section 402(b) of the Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000 (7 U.S.C. 27(b)), that is subject to section 403(a) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 27a(a)). This provision is proposed to clearly exclude identified banking products that are expressly excluded (i) from the definition of “security-based swap” and (ii) from Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC jurisdiction pursuant to section 403(a) of the Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000.

129

128

See

76 FR 29818 (May 23, 2011). For example, the SEC and CFTC have proposed to not include (i) certain insurance products within the definitions of “swap” and “security-based swap” by regulation and (ii) certain consumer agreements (e.g., agreements to acquire or lease real property or purchase products at a capped price) and commercial agreements (e.g., employment contracts or the purchase of real property, intellectual property, equipment or inventory) by joint interpretation.

See id.

at 29832-34. The Agencies have proposed to define “derivative” in the proposed rule by reference to the definition of ”swap” and “security-based swap” under the Federal securities and commodities laws in contemplation of the SEC and CFTC's proposed regulatory and interpretative exclusions; to the extent that such exclusions are not included in any final action taken by the SEC and CFTC, the Agencies will consider whether to state such exclusions expressly within the proposed rule's definition of derivative.

129

Examples of excluded identified banking products are deposit accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, or other deposit instruments issued by a bank.

The proposed rule defines a “loan” as any loan, lease, extension of credit, or secured or unsecured receivable.

130

The Agencies note that the proposed definition of loan is expansive, and includes a broad array of loans and similar credit transactions, but does

not

include any asset-backed security that is issued in connection with a loan securitization or otherwise backed by loans.

130

See

proposed rule § __.2(q).

The Agencies request comment on the proposed rule's definition of terms used in the definition of covered financial position. In particular, the Agencies request comment on the following questions:

Question 53.

Are the proposed rule's definitions of commodity and contract of sale of a commodity for future delivery appropriate? If not, what

alternative definitions would be more appropriate?

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.