Risk-Based Capital Standards Proposed Rule on Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework—Basel II; Establishment of a Risk-Based Capital Floor
FederalAgency guidance
Ask Donna
How this section applies to your facts.
FDIC Financial Institution Letters › Risk-Based Capital Standards Proposed Rule on Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework—Basel II; Establishment of a Risk-Based Capital Floor
Text
DRAT 12/612010
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Offce of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 3
Docket No. OCC-2010-0009
RIN Number 1557-AD33
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Parts 208 and 225
Regulations Hand Y; Docket No. R-XX
FEDERA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 325
RIN 3064-AD58
Risk-Based Capital Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework-Basel II;
Establishment of a Risk-Based Capital Floor
AGENCIES: Offce of
the eomptroller of
the Currency, Treasury; Board of
Governors
of the Federal Reserve System; and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
ACTION: Joint notice of
proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Offce of
the Comptroller of
the Currency (OCC), Board of
Governors of
the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Federal Deposit Insurance
eorporation (FDIC) (collectively, the agencies) propose to: (1) amend the advanced risk-
based capital adequacy standards (advanced approaches rules)! to be consistent with
certain provisions of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
(the Act) and (2) amend the general risk-based capital rules2 to provide limited flexibility
consistent with section 171(b) of
the Act for recognizing the relative risk of certain assets
generally not held by depository institutions.
1 12 CFR part 3, Appendix C (OCC); 12 CFR par 208, Appendix F and 12 CFR part
225, Appendix G (Board); and 12 CFR part 325 Appendix D (FDIC).
2 12 CFR part 3, Appendix A (OCC); 12 CFR parts 208 and 225, Appendix A (Board);
12 eFR part 325, and Appendix A (FDIC)).
1
ent with section 171(b) of
the Act for recognizing the relative risk of certain assets
generally not held by depository institutions.
1 12 CFR part 3, Appendix C (OCC); 12 CFR par 208, Appendix F and 12 CFR part
225, Appendix G (Board); and 12 CFR part 325 Appendix D (FDIC).
2 12 CFR part 3, Appendix A (OCC); 12 CFR parts 208 and 225, Appendix A (Board);
12 eFR part 325, and Appendix A (FDIC)).
1
DRAT 12/6/2010
DATES: Comments on this notice of
proposed rulemaking must be received by (INSERT
DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER), 2010.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to:
OCC: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Agencies is
subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by the Federal
eRulemaking Portal or e-mail, if
possible. Please use the title "Risk-Based Capital
Standards: Advanced Capital Adequacy Framework-Basel II; Revisions to the
Transitional Floors" 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://ww.regulations.gov. Select "Document Type" of "Proposed Rules," and
in "Enter Keyword or il Box," enter Docket il "OCC-2010-0009," and click
"Search." On "View By Relevance" tab at bottom of
screen, in the "Agency"
column, locate the proposed rule for OCC, in the "Action" column, click on
"Submit a eomment" 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 ofthe comment period.
. E-mail: regs.comments(8occ.treas.gov.
2
mments 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 ofthe comment period.
. E-mail: regs.comments(8occ.treas.gov.
2
DRAT 12/612010
. Mail: OffceoftheComptrolleroftheCurrency.250EStreet.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-
2010-0009" 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,
e-mail addresses, or phone numbers. eomments 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
considt?r confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this
proposed rule by any of
the following methods:
. Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Select
"Document Type" of "Public Submissions," in "Enter Keyword or ID Box," enter
Docket il "OCe-2010-0009," and click "Search." Comments will be listed under
"View By Relevance" tab at bottom of screen. If comments from more than one
agency are listed, the "Agency" column wil indicate which comments were
received by the OCC.
3
. Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Select
"Document Type" of "Public Submissions," in "Enter Keyword or ID Box," enter
Docket il "OCe-2010-0009," and click "Search." Comments will be listed under
"View By Relevance" tab at bottom of screen. If comments from more than one
agency are listed, the "Agency" column wil indicate which comments were
received by the OCC.
3
DRAT 12/6/2010
. Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect and photocopy
comments at the OCC, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC. For security reasons,
the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You
may do so by calling (202) 874-4700. Upon arrval, visitors will be
required to present valid governent-issued photo identification and to submit to
security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.
. Docket: You may also view or request available background documents and
project summares using the methods described above.
Board: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. R-xxxx, by any of
the
following methods:
. Agency Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions
for
submitting comments at
http://w'l-íW . federalreservc. gov / generalinfo/ foia/ProposedRegs. cfm.
. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
. E-mail: regs.comments~federalreserve.gov. Include docket number in the subject
line of
the message.
. FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
. Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of
Governors of
the Federal Reserve
System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, unless
4
ude docket number in the subject
line of
the message.
. FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.
. Mail: Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of
Governors of
the Federal Reserve
System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20551.
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm as submitted, unless
4
DRAT 12/6/2010
modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to
remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed
electronically or in paper form in Room MP-500 of
the Board's Martin Building (20th and
C Streets, NW) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
FDIC: You may submit by any of
the following methods:
. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://w-w'W.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
. Agency Web site: http:í/www.FDiC.govíregulationsílaws/fedcral/propose.html.
. Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments/Legal ESS,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC
20429.
. Hand Delivered/Courier: The guard station at the rear of
the 550 17th Street Building
(located on F Street), on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
. E-mail: commentscqFDlC.gov.
Instructions: Submissions received must include "FDIC" and "PIN XXXX-XXXX."
Comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.FDIC.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html, including any personal
information provided.
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OCe: Mark Ginsberg, Risk Expert, (202) 874-5070, Capital Policy Division; or Carl
Kaminski, Senior Attorney, or Stuart Feldstein, Director, Legislative and Regulatory
Activities, (202) 874-5090.
5
DRAT 12/6/2010
Board: Ana Lee Hewko, (202) 530-6260, Assistant Director, or Brendan Burke,
ions/laws/federal/propose.html, including any personal
information provided.
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OCe: Mark Ginsberg, Risk Expert, (202) 874-5070, Capital Policy Division; or Carl
Kaminski, Senior Attorney, or Stuart Feldstein, Director, Legislative and Regulatory
Activities, (202) 874-5090.
5
DRAT 12/6/2010
Board: Ana Lee Hewko, (202) 530-6260, Assistant Director, or Brendan Burke,
(202) 452-2987 Supervisory Financial Analyst, Division of
Banking Supervision and
Regulation, or April C. Snyder, (202) 452-3099, Coursel, or Benjamin W. McDonough,
(202) 452-2036, Counsel, Legal Division. For the hearng impaired only,
Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), (202) 263-4869.
FDIC: George French, Deputy Director, Policy, (202) 898-3929, Nancy Hunt,
Associate Director, Capital Markets Branch, (202) 898-6643, or Bobby Bean, Chief,
Policy Section (202) 898-6705, Division of Supervision and eonsumer Protection; or
Mark Handzlik, Counsel (202) 898-3990, or Michael Phillps, Counsel (202) 898-3581,
Supervision and Legislation Branch, Legal Division.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
I. Background
A. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Section 171(b)(2) of
the of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and eonsumer
Protection Act (the Act)3 states that the agencies4 shall establish minimum risk-based
capital requirements applicable to insured depository institutions, depository institution
holding companies, and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve
(covered institutions). In particular, and as described in more detail below, sections
171(b)(1) and (2) specify that the minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements
established under section 171 shall not be less than "generally applicable" capital
3 Pub.-L. 111-203, § 171, 124 Stat. 1376, 1435-38 (July 21,2010) (the Act)
and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve
(covered institutions). In particular, and as described in more detail below, sections
171(b)(1) and (2) specify that the minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements
established under section 171 shall not be less than "generally applicable" capital
3 Pub.-L. 111-203, § 171, 124 Stat. 1376, 1435-38 (July 21,2010) (the Act).
4 Even though the Office of
Thrft Supervision (OTS) is not issuing this notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR), OTS plans to issue an NPR that parallels the substance of
this notice to amend its capital regulations at 12 CFR part 567. OTS's parallel notice is
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order
12866.
6
DRAT 12/6/2010
requirements, which shall serve as a floor for any capital requirements the agencies may
require. Moreover, sections 171(b)(l) and (2) specify that the Federal baning agencies
may not establish leverage or risk-based capital requirements for covered institutions that
are quantitatively lower than the generally applicable leverage or risk-based capital
requirements in effect for insured depository institutions as of
the date of enactment of
the Act.
B. Advanced approaches rules.
On December 7, 2007, the agencies implemented the advanced approaches rules,
which are mandatory for U.S. depository institutions and bank holding companies
(collectively, banking organizations) meeting certain thresholds for total consolidated
assets or foreign exposure.5 The advanced approaches rules incorporate a series of
proposals released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee or
BeBS), including the Basel Committee's comprehensive June 2006 release entitled
"International Convergence of
Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised
Framework" (New Accord).6
The advanced approaches rules establish a series of
transitional floors to provide a
smooth transition to the advanced approaches rules and to limit temporarly the amount
by which a banking
(Basel Committee or
BeBS), including the Basel Committee's comprehensive June 2006 release entitled
"International Convergence of
Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised
Framework" (New Accord).6
The advanced approaches rules establish a series of
transitional floors to provide a
smooth transition to the advanced approaches rules and to limit temporarly the amount
by which a banking organization's risk-based capital requirements could decline relative
572 FR 69288 (December 7,2007). Subject to prior supervisory approval, other banking
organizations can opt to use the advanced approaches rules. See 72 FR 69397 (December
7,2007).
6 The BCBS is a committee of
banking supervisory authorities established by the central
bank governors of
the G-I0 countries in 1975. The BCBS issued the New Accord to
modernize its first capital Accord, which was endorsed by the BCBS members in 1988
and implemented by the agencies in 1989. The New Accord, the 1988 Accord, and other
documents issued by the BCBS are available through the Bank for International
Settlements' Web site at www.bis.org.
7
DRAT 12/6/2010
to the general risk-based capital rules over a period of at least three years following
completion of a satisfactory parallel run. The advanced approaches rules place limits on
the amount by which a baning organization's risk-based capital requirements may
decline. Under the advanced approaches rules, the banking organization must take the
risk-based capital ratios equal to the lesser of (i) the organization's ratios calculated under
the advanced approaches rules and (ii) its ratios calculated under the general risk-based
capital rules,7 with risk-weighted assets multiplied by 95 percent, 90 percent, and 85
percent during the first, second, and third transitional floor periods, respectively and
compare these ratios to its minimum risk-based capital ratio requirements under section 3
of the advanced approaches rules.8 Under this approach, banking organizations that use
the advanced approaches rule could operate wi
d
capital rules,7 with risk-weighted assets multiplied by 95 percent, 90 percent, and 85
percent during the first, second, and third transitional floor periods, respectively and
compare these ratios to its minimum risk-based capital ratio requirements under section 3
of the advanced approaches rules.8 Under this approach, banking organizations that use
the advanced approaches rule could operate with lower minimum risk-based capital
requirements durng a transitional floor period, and potentially thereafter, than would be
required under the general risk-based capital rules. At this time, no banking organization
has entered a transitional floor period and all organizations are required to compute their
risk-based capital requirements using the general risk-based capital rules.
C. Requirements of section 171 of the Act
Section 171(a)(2) of
the Act defines the term "generally applicable risk-based
capital requirements" to mean: "(A) the risk-based capital requirements, as established
by the appropriate Federal banking agencies to apply to insured depository institutions
under the prompt corrective action regulations implementing section 38 of
the Federal
7 12 CFR part 3, Appendix A (OCC); 12 CFR parts 208 and 225, Appendix A (Board);
and 12 eFR part 325, Appendix A (FDIC).
8 Under the advanced approaches rules, the minimum tier 1 risk-based capital
requirement is 4 percent and the total risk-based capital requirement is 8 percent. See 12
CFR part 208, appendix F section 3 and 12 eFR part 225, appendix G section 3(Board);
( other cites).
8
Federal
7 12 CFR part 3, Appendix A (OCC); 12 CFR parts 208 and 225, Appendix A (Board);
and 12 eFR part 325, Appendix A (FDIC).
8 Under the advanced approaches rules, the minimum tier 1 risk-based capital
requirement is 4 percent and the total risk-based capital requirement is 8 percent. See 12
CFR part 208, appendix F section 3 and 12 eFR part 225, appendix G section 3(Board);
( other cites).
8
DRAT 12/612010
Deposit Insurance Act, regardless of total consolidated asset size or foreign financial
exposure; and (B) includes the regulatory capital components in the numerator of
those
capital requirements, the risk-weighted assets in the denominator of
those capital
requirements, and the required ratio of
the numerator to the denominator." Section
171(b )(2) of
the Act further provides that "(tJhe appropriate Federal banking agencies
shall establish minimum risk-based capital requirements on a consolidated basis for
insured depository institutions, depository institution holding companies, and nonbank
financial companies supervised by the Board of Governors. The minimum risk-based
capital requirements established under this paragraph shall not be less than the generally
applicable risk-based capital requirements, which shall serve as a floor for any capital
requirements that the agency may require, nor quantitatively lower than the generally
applicable risk-based capital requirements that were in effect for insured depository
institutions as of
the date of enactment of
this Act."
In accordance with section 38 of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the Federal
baning agencies established minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements for
insured depository institutions for prompt corrective action (PCA rules).9 All insured
institutions, regardless of their total consolidated assets or foreign exposure, must
compute their minimum risk-based capital requirements for PCA purposes using the
general risk-based capital rules, which currently are the "generally applicable risk-based
capital requirements" defi
sed capital requirements for
insured depository institutions for prompt corrective action (PCA rules).9 All insured
institutions, regardless of their total consolidated assets or foreign exposure, must
compute their minimum risk-based capital requirements for PCA purposes using the
general risk-based capital rules, which currently are the "generally applicable risk-based
capital requirements" defined by Section 171(a)(2) of
the Act.
D. Effect on Applications by Foreign Banking Organizations
9 Pub. L. 102-242; 105 Stat. 2242 (1991).
9
DRAT 12/6/2010
In approving an application by a foreign bank to establish a branch or agency in
the United States or to make a bank or nonbank acquisition, the Board considers, among
other factors, whether the capital of the foreign bank is equivalent to the capital that
would be required of a U.S. banking organization.
to Similarly, in order to make effective
a foreign bank's declaration under the BHC Act to be treated as an FHC, the Board must
apply comparable capital and management standards to the foreign ban "giving due
regard
to the principle of
national treatment and equality of competitive opportunity."
1 1
National treatment generally means treatment that is no less favorable than that provided
to domestic institutions that are in like circumstances. The Board has broad discretion to
take any relevant factors into account in determining standards that are both comparable
and provide national treatment.
The Board has been making capital equivalency findings for foreign banks under
the International Baning Act and the Bank Holding Company Act since 1992 pursuant
to guidelines developed as part of a joint study by the Board and Treasury on capital
equivalency.12 The study acknowledged the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's
10 See 12 USC §§ 1842(c); 1843U); and 3105(d)(3)(B), (j)(2).. In addition, in approving
an application to establish an interstate branch, the oce must make a similar capital
equivalency determination. See 12 U.S.C. § 3103 (a)(3)(B)(i)
guidelines developed as part of a joint study by the Board and Treasury on capital
equivalency.12 The study acknowledged the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's
10 See 12 USC §§ 1842(c); 1843U); and 3105(d)(3)(B), (j)(2).. In addition, in approving
an application to establish an interstate branch, the oce must make a similar capital
equivalency determination. See 12 U.S.C. § 3103 (a)(3)(B)(i).
11 12 USC § 1843(1)(3). A foreign bank that operates a branch, agency or commercial
lending company in the United States and any company that owns such a foreign bank, is
subject to the BHC Act as if
it were a ban holding company. The BHe Act, as
amended by the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, provides that a bank holding company may
become a FHe if its depository institutions meet certain capital and management
standards. See 12 USC § 1843(1)(1); 12 CFR 225. Under section 606 of
the Act, this
requirement wil be modified to require the bank holding company to be well capitalized
and well managed. See the Act at § 606.
12 "Capital Equivalency Report," Board of Governors ofthe Federal Reserve System and
Secretary of
the U.S. Deparment of
the Treasury (June 19, 1992) (Capital Equivalency
Report). See 12 U.S.C. §3105(j).
10
DRAT 12/6/2010
1988 capital accord (Basel 1)13 as the prevailing capital standard for internationally active
banks and found that implementation of
Basel I was broadly equivalent across countries.
Until 2007, the Board generally accepted as equivalent the capital of foreign bans from
countries adhering to Basel I within the bounds of national discretion allowed under the
Basel I framework. For foreign banks that have begun operating under the New Accord's
capital standards in making capital equivalency determinations, the Board has evaluated
the capital of
the foreign bank as reported in compliance with the New Accord, while also
taking into account a range of factors including compliance with the New Accord's
capital requirement floors linked to Basel I, where applicable
ramework. For foreign banks that have begun operating under the New Accord's
capital standards in making capital equivalency determinations, the Board has evaluated
the capital of
the foreign bank as reported in compliance with the New Accord, while also
taking into account a range of factors including compliance with the New Accord's
capital requirement floors linked to Basel I, where applicable.
At this time, many foreign ban applicants are operating under Basel II advanced
approaches that have been implemented by their home country authorities. In many
cases, home country authorities have adopted floors based on Basel I standards using
discretion and flexibility as provided in the Accord. However, in some cases, Basel I
floors are no longer in effect, or are expected to be phased out in the near term.
Question 1. How should the new proposed rule should be applied to foreign
banks in evaluating capital equivalency in the context of applications to establish
branches or make bank or nonbank acquisitions in the United States, and in evaluating
capital comparability in the context of foreign bank FHC declarations?
E. Effect of section 171 of
the Act on certain institutions and their assets.
Certain covered institutions may not previously have been subject to consolidated
risk-based capital requirements. Some of
these companies are very likely to be similar in
nature to most depository institutions and bank holding companies subject to the general
13 International Convergence of
Capital Measurement and Capital Standard, 1988.
11
of
the Act on certain institutions and their assets.
Certain covered institutions may not previously have been subject to consolidated
risk-based capital requirements. Some of
these companies are very likely to be similar in
nature to most depository institutions and bank holding companies subject to the general
13 International Convergence of
Capital Measurement and Capital Standard, 1988.
11
DRAT 12/6/2010
risk-based capital rules. Others, may be different, with exposure types and risks that
were not contemplated when the general risk-based capital rules were developed. The
Financial Stability Oversight Council has not yet designated any nonbank financial
companies to be supervised by the Board; over time it is conceivable that it will designate
one or more companies whose activities are quite different than those addressed in the
general risk-based capital rules. The Board will be supervising these institutions for the
first time and expects that there will be cases when it needs to evaluate the risk-based
capital treatment of specific exposures not typically held by depository institutions, and
that do not have a specific risk weight under the generally applicable risk-based capital
requirements.
Under the general risk-based capital rules, exposures are generally assigned to
five risk weight categories, that is, 0 percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, 100 percent, and 200
percent, according to their relative riskiness. Assets not explicitly included in a lower
risk weight category are assigned to the 100 percent risk weight category. Going
forward, there may be situations where exposures of a depository institution holding
company or nonbank financial company supervised by the Board not only do not wholly
fit within the terms of a risk weight category, but also impose risk that are
incommensurate with the risk weight otherwise specified in the generally applicable risk-
based capital requirements
percent risk weight category. Going
forward, there may be situations where exposures of a depository institution holding
company or nonbank financial company supervised by the Board not only do not wholly
fit within the terms of a risk weight category, but also impose risk that are
incommensurate with the risk weight otherwise specified in the generally applicable risk-
based capital requirements.
For example, there are some material exposures of insurance companies that,
while not riskless, would be assigned to a 100 percent risk weight category because they
are not explicitly assigned to a lower risk weight category. An automatic assignent to
the 100 percent risk weight category without consideration of an exposure's economic
12
DRAT 12/6/2010
substance could overstate the risk of
the exposure and produce uneconomic capital
requirements for a covered institution.
II. Proposed Rule
A. Generally Applicable Risk-based Capital Requirement Floor.
The OCC, Board, and FDIC are proposing to modify their respective advanced
approaches rules consistent with section 171 (b )(2). In particular, the agencies are
proposing to revise the advanced approaches rules by replacing the transitional floors in
section 21(e) of
the advanced approaches rule with a permanent floor equal to the tier 1
and total risk-based capital requirements under the current generally applicable risk-based
capital rules. Thus, the agencies are proposing to require each banking organization
subj ect to the advanced approaches rules to maintain the systems and records necessary
to calculate its required minimum risk-based capital under both the general risk-based
capital rules and the advanced approaches rules
and total risk-based capital requirements under the current generally applicable risk-based
capital rules. Thus, the agencies are proposing to require each banking organization
subj ect to the advanced approaches rules to maintain the systems and records necessary
to calculate its required minimum risk-based capital under both the general risk-based
capital rules and the advanced approaches rules. Each quarter, each banking organization
subject to the advanced approaches rules must calculate and compare its minimum tier 1
and total risk-based capital ratios as calculated under the general risk-based capital rules
and the advanced approaches risk-based capital rules and then use the lower of
the two
tier 1 risk-based capital ratios and the lower of
the two total risk-based capital ratios. For
bank holding companies, the proposal also incorporates the phase-in of
restrictions on
the regulatory capital treatment of debt or equity instruments issued before May 19, 2010
as described in section 171(4)(B) of
the Act.
The agencies are also proposing to eliminate the paragraphs of the advanced
approaches rules dealing with the transitional floor periods, and the interagency study.
13
DRAT 12/6/2010
These parts of
the advanced approaches rules no longer serve a purpose. Question 2: The
agencies seek comment generally on the impact of a permanent floor on the minimum
risk-based capital requirements for banking organizations subject to the advanced
approaches rules, and on the manner in which the agencies are proposing to implement
the provisions of section 171 (b) of the Act.
B. Change to Generally Applicable Risk-based Capital Requirements
The proposed floor consistent with the requirements of section 171 (b )(2) is based
on the generally applicable risk-based capital requirements for depository institutions
zations subject to the advanced
approaches rules, and on the manner in which the agencies are proposing to implement
the provisions of section 171 (b) of the Act.
B. Change to Generally Applicable Risk-based Capital Requirements
The proposed floor consistent with the requirements of section 171 (b )(2) is based
on the generally applicable risk-based capital requirements for depository institutions.
To address the appropriate capital requirement for low risk assets non-depository
institutions may hold for which there is no explicit capital treatment in the general risk-
based capital rules, the agencies propose that such exposures receive the capital
treatment applicable under the capital guidelines for bank holding companies under
limited circumstances. The circumstances are intended to allow for an appropriate capital
requirement for low risk nonbanking exposures without creating unintended new
opportunities for depository institutions to engage in capital arbitrage. The agencies
therefore propose to limit this treatment to cases in which a depository institution is not
authorized to hold the asset under applicable law other than under debt previously
contracted or similar authority, and the risks associated with the asset are substantially
similar to the risks of assets that receive a lower risk weight. The agencies therefore
propose a change to the general risk- based capital rules for depository institutions to
permit this limited flexibility to appropriately address exposures of depository institution
holding companies and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board. The
agencies request comment on this change to the general risk-based capital rules.
14
hat receive a lower risk weight. The agencies therefore
propose a change to the general risk- based capital rules for depository institutions to
permit this limited flexibility to appropriately address exposures of depository institution
holding companies and nonbank financial companies supervised by the Board. The
agencies request comment on this change to the general risk-based capital rules.
14
DRAT 12/6/2010
Question 3. For what specific types of exposures do commenters believe this
treatment is appropriate? Does the proposal provide suffcient flexibility to address the
exposures of depository institution holding companies and nonbank financial companies
supervised by the Federal Reserve? If not, how should the proposal be changed to
recognize the considerations outlined in this section?
Consistent with the joint efforts of
the U.S. baning agencies and the Basel
Committee to enhance the regulatory capital rules, the agencies anticipate that the
generally applicable risk-based capital requirements and advanced approaches rule will
be amended from time to time. These amendments would reflect advances in risk
sensitivity and other potentially substantive changes to fundamental aspects of
the New
Accord such as the definition of capital, treatment of counterparty credit risk, and new
regulatory capital elements such as an international
leverage ratio and prudential capital
buffers.
The agencies will consider each proposed change to the risk-based capital rules
and determine whether it is appropriate to implement the change by rulemaking based on
the implications of each proposal for the capital adequacy of
banks, the implementation
costs of such proposals, and the nature of any unintended consequences or competitive
issues. The generally applicable risk-based capital requirements and generally applicable
leverage capital requirements that the agencies may establish in the future would, as
required under the Act, become the minimum leverage and risk-based capital
requirements for all banking organizations
, the implementation
costs of such proposals, and the nature of any unintended consequences or competitive
issues. The generally applicable risk-based capital requirements and generally applicable
leverage capital requirements that the agencies may establish in the future would, as
required under the Act, become the minimum leverage and risk-based capital
requirements for all banking organizations. Furthermore, as provided under the Act, any
future amendments to the leverage requirements or risk-based capital requirements
established by the agencies may not result in capital requirements that are "quantitatively
15
DRAT 12/6/2010
lower" than the generally applicable leverage requirements or risk-based capital
requirements in effect as ofthe date of enactment of
the Act.
To comply with this provision of
the Act, the agencies propose to perform a
quantitative analysis of
the likely effect on capital requirements as part of developing
future amendments to the capital rules to ensure that any new capital framework is not
quantitatively lower than the requirements in effect as of
the date of enactment of
the Act.
The agencies therefore would not anticipate proposing to require banking organizations
to compute two sets of generally applicable capital requirements from current and historic
frameworks as the generally applicable requirements are amended over time. The
agencies have not yet determined the quantitative method for measuring the equivalence
of current, historic, and proposed future capital frameworks.
Question 4: The agencies request comment on the most appropriate method of
conducting the aforementioned analysis, including potential quantitative methods for
comparing future capital requirements to ensure that any new capital framework is not
quantitatively lower than the requirements in effect as of the date of the enactment of the
Act.
The agencies anticipate addressing aspects of Section 171 not addressed in this
proposed rule in a subsequent rulemaking
e method of
conducting the aforementioned analysis, including potential quantitative methods for
comparing future capital requirements to ensure that any new capital framework is not
quantitatively lower than the requirements in effect as of the date of the enactment of the
Act.
The agencies anticipate addressing aspects of Section 171 not addressed in this
proposed rule in a subsequent rulemaking.
Question 5: The agencies seek comment on all other aspects of this proposed
rule, including the costs and benefits. What, if any, changes should the agencies make to
the proposed rule or the risk-based capital framework to better balance costs and
benefits?
Regulatory Flexibilty Act Analysis
16
DRAT 12/6/2010
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,14 (RF A), the
regulatory flexibility analysis otherwise required under section 604 of
the RFA is not
required if an agency certifies that the rule wil not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities (defined for purposes of the RF A to include banks
with assets less than or equal to $175 milion) and publishes its certification and a short,
explanatory statement in the Federal Register along with its rule. .
This proposal would impact bank holding companies, national banks, state
member banks, state nonmember banks, and savings associations that use the advanced
approaches rules to calculate their risk-based capital requirements according to certain
internal ratings-based and internal model approaches
s its certification and a short,
explanatory statement in the Federal Register along with its rule. .
This proposal would impact bank holding companies, national banks, state
member banks, state nonmember banks, and savings associations that use the advanced
approaches rules to calculate their risk-based capital requirements according to certain
internal ratings-based and internal model approaches. A bank holding company, bank, or
savings association must use the advanced approaches rules only if: (i) it has
consolidated total assets (as reported on its most recent year-end regulatory report) equal
to $250 billion or more; (ii) it has consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposures
at the most recent year-end equal to $10 billion or more; or (iii) it is a subsidiar of a
bank holding company, ban, or savings association that would be required to use the
advanced approaches rules to calculate its risk-based capital requirements.
With respect to the proposed changes to the general risk-based capital rules, the
proposal has the potential to affect the risk weights applicable only to assets that
generally are impermissible for banks or savings associations to hold. These proposed
changes are accordingly unlikely to have a significant impact on banking organizations.
The agencies also note that the changes to the general risk-based capital rules would not
impose any additional obligations, restrictions, burdens, or reporting, recordkeeping or
14 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
17
cable only to assets that
generally are impermissible for banks or savings associations to hold. These proposed
changes are accordingly unlikely to have a significant impact on banking organizations.
The agencies also note that the changes to the general risk-based capital rules would not
impose any additional obligations, restrictions, burdens, or reporting, recordkeeping or
14 5 U.S.C. 605(b)
17
DRAT 12/6/2010
compliance requirements on banks or savings associations, including small banking
organizations, nor do they duplicate, overlap or conflict with other Federal rules.
The agencies estimate that zero small bank holding companies (out of a total of
approximately 2,471 small bank holding companies), one small national bank (out of a
total of approximately 713 small national banks), one small state member bank
(out of a
total of approximately 412 small state member banks), one small state nonmember bank
(out of a total of approximately 2,778 small state nonmember banks), and zero small
savings associations (out of a total of approximately 378 small savings associations) are
required to use the advanced approaches rules.15 In addition, each of the small banks that
is required to use the advanced approaches rules is a subsidiary of a ban holding
company with over $250 billion in consolidated total assets or over $10 billion in
consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposures. Therefore, the agencies believe
that the proposed rule will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determinations
Section 202 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4
(UMRA) requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governents, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in anyone year
nations
Section 202 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4
(UMRA) requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before
promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governents, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in anyone year. If a budgetary impact
statement is required, section 205 of the UMRA also requires an agency to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. The
15 (All totals are as of December 31, 2009-to be updated. J
18
DRAT 12/6/2010
OCC has determined that its proposed rule will not result in expenditures by state, local,
and tribal governents, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. Accordingly,
the OCC has not prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
regulatory alternatives considered.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the requirements ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,16
the agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond
to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Offce of
Management
and Budget (OMB) control number. Each of
the agencies has an established information
collection for the paperwork burden imposed by the advanced approaches rule. This
notice of proposed rulemaking would substitute a floor of 100 percent of the capital ratios
under the risk-based capital rules, instead of floors of 95, 90, and 85 percent,
respectively, for the first, second, and third transition periods under the advanced
approaches rules. The proposed change to transitional floors would change the basis for
calculating a data element that must be reported to the agencies under an existing
requirement
titute a floor of 100 percent of the capital ratios
under the risk-based capital rules, instead of floors of 95, 90, and 85 percent,
respectively, for the first, second, and third transition periods under the advanced
approaches rules. The proposed change to transitional floors would change the basis for
calculating a data element that must be reported to the agencies under an existing
requirement. However, it would have no impact on the frequency or response time for
the reporting requirement and, therefore, does not constitute a substantive or material
change subject to OMB review.
Plain Language
Section 722 of
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the agencies to use plain
language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. In light of
this
requirement, the agencies have sought to present the proposed rule in a simple and
1644 U.S.C. 3501-3521
19
DRAT 12/612010
straightforward manner. The agencies invite comment on whether the agencies could
take additional steps to make the proposed rule easier to understand.
List of Subjects
12 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital, National banks,
Reporting and record keeping requirements, Risk.
12 CFR Part 208
eonfidential business information, Crime, Currency, Federal Reserve System,
Mortgages, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Risk.
12 CFR Part 225
Administrative practice and procedure, Bans, banking, Federal Reserve System,
Holding companies, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Securities.
12 CFR Part 325
Administrative practice and procedure, Bans, banking, Capital Adequacy, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State nonmember banks.
12 CFR Part 567
Capital, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Risk, Savings associations.
Department of the Treasury
Offce of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Chapter I
Authority and Issuance
20
ments, Securities.
12 CFR Part 325
Administrative practice and procedure, Bans, banking, Capital Adequacy, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State nonmember banks.
12 CFR Part 567
Capital, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Risk, Savings associations.
Department of the Treasury
Offce of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Chapter I
Authority and Issuance
20
DRAT 12/612010
For the reasons stated in the common preamble, the Office of
the Comptroller of
the Currency proposes to amend part 3 of chapter I of
Title 12, Code of
Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 3- MINIMUM CAPITAL RATIOS; ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.c. 93a, 161, 1818, 1828(n), 1828 note, 1831n note, 1835,
3907, and 3909.
2. In appendix C to part 3, in section 21, revise _ to read as follows:
Appendix C to Part 3 - Capital Adequacy Guidelines for Banks: Internal Ratings-
based and Advanced Measurement Approaches
(Placeholder for OCC rule text. J
Federal Reserve System
12 CFR CHAPTER II
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set forth in the common preamble, parts 208 and 225 of chapter II
of
title 12 of
the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 208 - MINIMUM CAPITAL RATIOS; ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Subpart A of
Regulation H (12 CFR part 208, Subpart A) is issued by
the Board of
Governors of
the Federal Reserve System (Board) under 12 U.S.c. 24, 36;
sections 9,11,21,25 and 25A of
the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.c. 321-338a, 248(a),
248(c), 481-486, 601 and 611); sections 1814, 1816, 1818, 18310, 1831p-l, 1831r-l and
21
thority citation for part 208 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Subpart A of
Regulation H (12 CFR part 208, Subpart A) is issued by
the Board of
Governors of
the Federal Reserve System (Board) under 12 U.S.c. 24, 36;
sections 9,11,21,25 and 25A of
the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.c. 321-338a, 248(a),
248(c), 481-486, 601 and 611); sections 1814, 1816, 1818, 18310, 1831p-l, 1831r-l and
21
DRAT 12/6/2010
1835a of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) (12 U.S.e. 1814, 1816, 1818,
18310, 1831p-l, 1831r-l and 1835); and 12 U.S.e. 3906-3909.
2. In Appendix A to part 208, revise section III.e. 4. to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 208-Capital Adequacy Guidelines for State Member Banks:
Risk-Based Measure
*
*
*
*
*
III. Procedures for Computing Weighted Rìsk Assets and Off-Balance Sheet Items
*
*
*
*
*
e. Risk Weights
*
*
*
4. eategory 4: 100 percent. a. Except as provided in section III.e. 4.e, all assets not
included in the categories above are assigned to this category, which comprises standard
risk assets. The bulk of
the assets typically found in a loan portfolio would be assigned to
the 100 percent category. * * *
e. Subject to the requirements below a bank, may assign an asset not included in the
categories above to the risk weight category applicable under the capital guidelines for
bank holding companies,17 provided that all of the following conditions apply:
l. The bank is not authorized to hold the asset under applicable law other than under debt
previously contracted or other similar authority; and
ii. The risks associated with the asset are substantially similar to the risks of assets that
are otherwise assigned to a risk weight category of less than 100 percent under this
appendix.
17 See 12 CFR part 225, appendix A.
22
following conditions apply:
l. The bank is not authorized to hold the asset under applicable law other than under debt
previously contracted or other similar authority; and
ii. The risks associated with the asset are substantially similar to the risks of assets that
are otherwise assigned to a risk weight category of less than 100 percent under this
appendix.
17 See 12 CFR part 225, appendix A.
22
DRAT 12/6/2010
3. In Appendix F to part 208, revise section 3 to read as set forth below:
Appendix F to Part 20S-Capital Adequacy Guidelines for Banks: Internal Ratings-
Based and Advanced Measurement Approaches
Part i. General Provisions
*
*
*
*
*
Section 3. Minimum Risk-Based Capital Requirements
(a) (1) Except as modified by paragraph (c) of
this section or by section 23 of
this
appendix, each ban must meet a minimum:
(i) Total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0 percent; and
(ii) Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0 percent.
(2) A bank's total risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
(i) Its total qualifying capital to total risk-weighted assets, and
(ii) Its total risk-based capital ratio as calculated under Appendix A of
this par.
(3) A bank's tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
(i) Its tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets, and
(ii) Its tier 1 risk-based capital ratio as calculated under Appendix A of
this part.
(b) Each bank must hold capital commensurate with the level and nature of all risks to
which the bank is exposed.
Its total risk-based capital ratio as calculated under Appendix A of
this par.
(3) A bank's tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
(i) Its tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets, and
(ii) Its tier 1 risk-based capital ratio as calculated under Appendix A of
this part.
(b) Each bank must hold capital commensurate with the level and nature of all risks to
which the bank is exposed.
(c) When a bank subject to (the market risk ruleJ calculates its risk-based capital
requirements under this appendix, the bank must also refer to (the market risk rule J for
supplemental rules to calculate risk-based capital requirements adjusted for market risk.
*
*
*
*
*
4. In Appendix F to part 208, revise section 21 by
deleting
paragraph (e) in its entirety.
23
DRAT 12/6/2010
PART 225-BANK HOLDING COMPANIES AND CHANGE IN BANK
CONTROL (REGULATION Y)
1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(13), 1818, 1828(0), 183li, 1831p-l, 1843(c)(8),
1844(b), 1972(1),3106,3108,3310,3331-3351,3907, and 3909; 15 U.S.c. 6801 and
6805.
2. In Appendix G to part 225, revise section 3 and to read as set forth below:
Appendix G to Part 225-Capital Adequacy Guidelines for Bank Holding
Companies: Internal Ratings-Based and Advanced Measurement Approaches
Par i. General Provisions
*
*
*
*
*
Section 3. Minimum Risk-Based Capital Requirements
(a)(l) Except as modified by paragraph (c) of
this section or by section 23 of
this
appendix, each ban holding company must meet a minimum:
(i) Total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0 percent; and
(ii) Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0 percent.
(2) A bank holding company's total risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
l Provisions
*
*
*
*
*
Section 3. Minimum Risk-Based Capital Requirements
(a)(l) Except as modified by paragraph (c) of
this section or by section 23 of
this
appendix, each ban holding company must meet a minimum:
(i) Total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0 percent; and
(ii) Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0 percent.
(2) A bank holding company's total risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
(i) Its total qualifying capital to total risk-weighted assets, and
(ii) Its total risk-based capital ratio as calculated under 12 CFR part 208, appendix A, as
adjusted to include certain debt or equity instruments issued before May 19, 2010 as
described in section 171(4)(B) of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
(3) A bank holding company's tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
(i) Its tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets, and
24
DRAT 12/612010
(ii) Its tier 1 risk-based capital ratio as calculated under 12 CFR par 208, appendix A, as
adjusted to include certain debt or equity instruments issued before May 19, 2010 as
described in section 171(4)(B) of
the Dodd-Frank Act.
(b) Each bank holding company must hold capital commensurate with the level and
nature of all risks to which the bank holding company is exposed.
(c) When a bank holding company subject to (the market risk ruleJ calculates its risk-
based capital requirements under this appendix, the bank holding company must also
refer to (the market risk ruleJ for supplemental rules to calculate risk-based capital
requirements adjusted for market risk.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In Appendix G to part 225, revise section 21 by deleting
paragraph (e) in its entirety.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
12 CFR Chapter III
Authority for Issuance
For the reasons stated in the common preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance
eorporation amends Part 325 ofehapter III of
Title 12, Code of
the Federal Regulations
as follows:
PART 325 - CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
1
et risk.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In Appendix G to part 225, revise section 21 by deleting
paragraph (e) in its entirety.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
12 CFR Chapter III
Authority for Issuance
For the reasons stated in the common preamble, the Federal Deposit Insurance
eorporation amends Part 325 ofehapter III of
Title 12, Code of
the Federal Regulations
as follows:
PART 325 - CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
1. The authority citation for part 325 continues to read as follows:
25
DRAT 12/6/2010
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1815(a), 1815(b), 1816, 1818(a), 1818(b), 1818(c), 1818(t),
1819(Tenth), 1828(c), 1828(d), 1828(i), 1828(n), 1828(0), 18310, 1835,3907,
3909,4808; Pub. L. 102-233, 105 Stat. 1761, 1789, 1790, (12 U.S.c. 1831n note);
Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, as amended by Pub. L. 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160,
2233 (12 u.s.e. 1828 note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2386, as amended
by Pub. L. 102-550, 106 Stat. 3672,4089 (12 U.S.c. 1828 note).
2. In Appendix A to part 325, revise section II.C., to read as follows:
ApPENDIX A TO PART 325 - STATEMENT OF POLICY ON RIsK-BASED CAPITAL
*
*
*
*
*
II. PROCEDURES FOR COMPUTING RISK-WEIGHTED ASSETS
*
*
*
*
*
C. Risk Weights for Balance Sheet Assets (see Table II)
The risk based capital framework contains five risk weight categories-O
percent, 20 percent, 50 percent, 100 percent, and 200 percent. *
*
*
Category 4 -100 Percent Risk Weight.
*
*
*
(d) Subject to the requirements below, a bank may assign an asset not included in the
categories above to the risk weight category applicable under the capital guidelines for
bank holding companies18, provided that all of
the following conditions apply:
a. The bank is not authorized to hold the asset under applicable law other than debt
previously contracted or similar authority; and
b. The risks associated with the asset are substantially similar to the risks of assets that
are otherwise assigned to a risk weight category less than 100 percent under this
appendix.
18 See 12 CFR part 225, appendix A.
26
hat all of
the following conditions apply:
a. The bank is not authorized to hold the asset under applicable law other than debt
previously contracted or similar authority; and
b. The risks associated with the asset are substantially similar to the risks of assets that
are otherwise assigned to a risk weight category less than 100 percent under this
appendix.
18 See 12 CFR part 225, appendix A.
26
DRAT 12/6/2010
3. In Appendix D to part 325, revise section 3 to read as set forth below:
ApPENDIX D TO PART 325-CAPIT AL ADEQUACY GUIDELINES FOR BANKS: INTERNAL
RATINGS-BASED AND ADVANCED MEASUREMENT ApPROACHES
Part i. General Provisions
*
*
*
*
*
Section 3. Minimum Risk-Based eapital Requirements
(a) (1) Except as modified by paragraph (c) of
this section or by section 23 of
this
appendix, each bank must meet a minimum:
(i) Total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0 percent; and
(ii) Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0 percent.
(2) A bank's total risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
(i) Its total qualifying capital to total risk-weighted assets, and
(ii) Its total risk-based capital ratio as calculated under appendix A of
this part.
(3) A bank's tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
(i) Its tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets, and
(ii) Its tier 1 risk-based capital ratio as calculated under appendix A of
this part.
(b) Each bank must hold capital commensurate with the level and nature of all risks to
which the bank is exposed.
ts total risk-based capital ratio as calculated under appendix A of
this part.
(3) A bank's tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is the lower of:
(i) Its tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets, and
(ii) Its tier 1 risk-based capital ratio as calculated under appendix A of
this part.
(b) Each bank must hold capital commensurate with the level and nature of all risks to
which the bank is exposed.
(c) When a bank subject to appendix C of
this part calculates its risk-based capital
requirements under this appendix, the bank must also refer to appendix C of this part for
supplemental rules to calculate risk-based capital requirements adjusted for market risk.
*
*
*
*
*
In Appendix D to part 325, revise section 21 by deleting paragraph (e) in its entirety:
27
DRAT 12/612010
(THIS SIGNATUR PAGE RELATES TO THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED
RULEMAKING TITLED "RISK-BASED eAPITAL STANDARS: ADVANCED
CAPITAL ADEQUACY FRAEWORK-BASEL II; REVISIONS TO THE
TRANSTIONAL FLOORS"J
Dated:
, 2010
John Walsh,
eomptroller of the Currency
28
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
DRAT 12/6/2010
,2010
Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary of the Board
29
DRAT 12/6/2010
Dated at Washington, D.C., this ~ day of 2010.
By order of
the Board of
Directors.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary
30
DRAFT 12/6/2010
(FR Doc. 10-_ Filed J
Billing eodes 4810-33-P (25%), 6210-01-P (25%), 6714-01-P (25%), 6720-01-P (25%)
31
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.