# OCC Interpretive Letter No. 1185: Interpretive Letter #1185 - OCC Interpretive Letter

> Federal · Agency guidance · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT1185

## Section

- **Citation:** OCC Interpretive Letter No. 1185
- **Heading:** Interpretive Letter #1185 - OCC Interpretive Letter
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Agency guidance
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** OCC Interpretive Letters / Interpretive Letter #1185 - OCC Interpretive Letter

## Text

Interpretive Letter #1185
June 2025

June 12, 2025

Subject: National Bank Use of Certain Debt Securities Acquired for Investment and Equity
Securities Acquired as Hedges as Collateral for Repurchase Agreement Transactions (Repo)

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your request dated December 19, 2024, concerning whether [ ]
and [ ] (individually, [ ] and [ ] and collectively, the Banks) may use
securities acquired under 12 C.F.R. part 1 and equity securities acquired to hedge customer-
driven equity derivatives as collateral in repo transactions. Specifically, you requested
confirmation that the proposed activity would not constitute impermissible dealing under 12
U.S.C. §§ 24(7) and 378. Your request also raised the question of whether the proposed activity
is not inconsistent with the requirements of the OCC’s derivatives regulation at 12 C.F.R.
§ 7.1030. We confirm, based on the Banks’ representations and subject to the limitations
described below, that the activity (1) would not be impermissible dealing and (2) would not be
inconsistent with the OCC’s derivatives regulation at 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030.1

I.
Background

The Banks propose to use (a) securities in the Banks’ investment portfolio and (b) equity
securities acquired to hedge [ ]’s customer-driven equity derivative transactions as
collateral for tri-party repos.2 Under the proposal, the Banks would act as borrowers in the repo.
They would sell the collateral securities to a repo counterparty with an agreement to repurchase
the securities at a predetermined time and price. The difference between the sale price and the
purchase price would reflect the interest that the Banks would pay on the repo. The purpose of
the proposed activity is to help meet the Banks’ liquidity needs by allowing the Banks to access
funds more quickly in times of stress
eral securities to a repo counterparty with an agreement to repurchase
the securities at a predetermined time and price. The difference between the sale price and the
purchase price would reflect the interest that the Banks would pay on the repo. The purpose of
the proposed activity is to help meet the Banks’ liquidity needs by allowing the Banks to access
funds more quickly in times of stress.

1 This letter does not express any opinion on the applicability of the federal securities laws to any part of the
proposed activity. The Banks have represented that the proposed activities will be structured to comply with all
applicable securities laws.
2 In a tri-party repo, an independent custodian bank, clearing house, or securities depository is responsible for
ensuring that the collateral’s value remains adequate during the life of the transaction. See OCC, Comptroller’s
Handbook: Custody Services (Jan. 2002), p. 89. In this case, an unaffiliated bank would serve as the collateral agent
and custodian for the collateral.

2
Transaction Overview

The Banks represent the following:
• The Banks would use Type I, II, III, IV, and V securities acquired under 12 C.F.R. part 1
and, in the case of [ ], equity securities acquired to hedge customer-driven equity
derivative transactions as collateral. The securities would be liquid and readily
marketable for the purposes of applicable capital rules.3
• With respect to the securities that the Banks cannot deal in, the Banks would not purchase
the securities for the purpose of serving as repo collateral. Rather, the Banks would
purchase the securities either as investments pursuant to 12 C.F.R. part 1 or, in the case
of [ ], as a hedge pursuant to the physical hedging provisions of 12 C.F.R. §
7.1030
of applicable capital rules.3
• With respect to the securities that the Banks cannot deal in, the Banks would not purchase
the securities for the purpose of serving as repo collateral. Rather, the Banks would
purchase the securities either as investments pursuant to 12 C.F.R. part 1 or, in the case
of [ ], as a hedge pursuant to the physical hedging provisions of 12 C.F.R. §
7.1030. The Banks would not run a matched book between the initial purchase of the
securities and their use as collateral (i.e., the purchase of the securities would be wholly
unconnected to the later use of the securities for the repo transactions). The Banks would
not hold themselves out as making a market in the purchase and sale (via repo) of the
securities, would not make a market in securities, would not hold an inventory of
securities for the purpose of making a market or dealing in the securities, and would not
solicit transactions for the purpose of being able to purchase and then sell (via repo) the
securities.
• The securities are currently held on the Banks’ balance sheets. The securities would
continue to be reflected on the Banks’ balance sheets once they are used as collateral for
repos.
• The Banks would retain credit and market risk with respect to the securities.4 The Banks
would take on additional credit risk with respect to the repo counterparty but would not
be subject to any additional market risk because the repo would entail selling and
repurchasing the collateral at a predetermined price.
• The Banks’ repo counterparties could not rehypothecate or otherwise re-use the
collateral.
• If a repo counterparty defaulted and failed to return the collateral, the Banks would have
the right to net and set off their obligation to return cash to the counterparty against the
value of the unreturned collateral
o would entail selling and
repurchasing the collateral at a predetermined price.
• The Banks’ repo counterparties could not rehypothecate or otherwise re-use the
collateral.
• If a repo counterparty defaulted and failed to return the collateral, the Banks would have
the right to net and set off their obligation to return cash to the counterparty against the
value of the unreturned collateral. If the Banks needed to replace the unreturned collateral
(e.g., to maintain a hedge), the Banks would generally be able to purchase or borrow the
securities at the same price as the most recent daily mark-to-market valuation of the
unreturned securities.
• The Banks would have the right to substitute government securities as collateral in all the
repo transactions.
• If a customer-driven equity derivative terminated early, [ ] would substitute
collateral to reacquire the equity security and then promptly sell the equity security.
• The Banks state that, because of the protections afforded by tri-party repo, there is
minimal risk of delays or failure to deliver.

3 To qualify as a repo-style transaction under 12 C.F.R. part 3, a transaction must meet certain requirements
including that the transaction must be based solely on liquid and readily marketable securities, cash, or gold. See 12
C.F.R. § 3.2.
4 In the case of the equity securities, the market risk should be offset by the derivative transactions that the securities
hedge.
lure to deliver.

3 To qualify as a repo-style transaction under 12 C.F.R. part 3, a transaction must meet certain requirements
including that the transaction must be based solely on liquid and readily marketable securities, cash, or gold. See 12
C.F.R. § 3.2.
4 In the case of the equity securities, the market risk should be offset by the derivative transactions that the securities
hedge.

3
II.
Analysis

National banks have broad authority to engage in repos, including as borrowers.5 However,
using certain debt securities and equities as collateral raises two issues:

a. Whether the activity amounts to impermissible dealing under 12 U.S.C. §§ 24(7) and
378; and
b. Whether re-using equities as collateral complies with the limitations on physical hedging
provided under 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030(e).

a. Dealing Prohibition
Under 12 U.S.C. § 378(a)(1), a national bank generally may not accept deposits and also
engage in securities dealing.6 However, this general prohibition does not apply to “dealing in . . .
investment securities . . . to the extent permitted” by 12 U.S.C. § 24.7
Twelve U.S.C. § 24(Seventh) likewise provides that a national bank generally may not
deal in securities.8 Notwithstanding this general prohibition, the statute goes on to provide that a
national bank may purchase for its own account “investment securities,” subject to such
limitations and restrictions as the OCC may prescribe by regulation, and that limitations and
restrictions on dealing in investment securities under the statute do not apply to a national bank
dealing in certain government securities.9
Twelve C.F.R. part 1 implements 12 U.S.C. § 24(Seventh)’s provisions concerning
dealing in securities. Under 12 C.F.R
“investment securities,” subject to such
limitations and restrictions as the OCC may prescribe by regulation, and that limitations and
restrictions on dealing in investment securities under the statute do not apply to a national bank
dealing in certain government securities.9
Twelve C.F.R. part 1 implements 12 U.S.C. § 24(Seventh)’s provisions concerning
dealing in securities. Under 12 C.F.R. part 1, a national bank may deal in Type I and II securities
(generally comprising certain United States and Canadian government securities and similar
investment securities) but may only purchase and sell (but not deal in) Type III, IV, or V
securities (comprising other types of debt obligations that meet certain requirements).
In this case, the Banks propose to use a variety of securities acquired under 12 C.F.R. part
1 and equity securities acquired under 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030 as collateral for repo transactions.10
Since the Banks may deal in Type I and II securities, the key question is whether using the other
types of securities acquired under part 1 or equities acquired under 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030 violates
the dealing prohibition.

5 See, e.g., OCC, Comptroller’s Handbook: Bank Dealer Activities (Mar. 1990), p. 7 (“Banks employ repos of
government securities as borrowing substitutes . . .”); OCC, Comptroller’s Handbook: Investment Securities (Mar.
1990), p. 29; FFIEC, Policy Statement: Repurchase Agreements of Depository Institutions with Securities Dealers
and Others, 63 Fed. Reg. 6935 (Feb. 11, 1998).
6 More specifically, “in the business of issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing, at wholesale or retail, or
through syndicate participation, stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities.” 12 U.S.C. § 378(a)(1).
7 Id
r.
1990), p. 29; FFIEC, Policy Statement: Repurchase Agreements of Depository Institutions with Securities Dealers
and Others, 63 Fed. Reg. 6935 (Feb. 11, 1998).
6 More specifically, “in the business of issuing, underwriting, selling, or distributing, at wholesale or retail, or
through syndicate participation, stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, or other securities.” 12 U.S.C. § 378(a)(1).
7 Id.
8 “The business of dealing in securities and stock by the association shall be limited to purchasing and selling such
securities and stock without recourse, solely upon the order, and for the account of, customers, and in no case for its
own account, and the association shall not underwrite any issue of securities or stock.” 12 U.S.C. § 24(Seventh).
9 See id. The relevant provisions of 12 U.S.C. §§ 24(Seventh) and 378 were enacted by the Glass-Steagall Act.
10 The OCC has determined that a national bank may purchase equity securities to hedge customer-driven derivative
transactions without violating the prohibition against underwriting or dealing in securities. See, e.g., 12 C.F.R.
§ 7.1030(e); OCC Interpretive Letter 892 (Sept. 13, 2000).

4
The OCC stated that “dealing” in securities under 12 U.S.C. §§ 24(Seventh) and 378 “is
generally understood to encompass the purchase of securities as principal for resale to others.”11
The OCC further noted that “[d]ealing is buying and selling as part of a regular business
rwriting or dealing in securities. See, e.g., 12 C.F.R.
§ 7.1030(e); OCC Interpretive Letter 892 (Sept. 13, 2000).

4
The OCC stated that “dealing” in securities under 12 U.S.C. §§ 24(Seventh) and 378 “is
generally understood to encompass the purchase of securities as principal for resale to others.”11
The OCC further noted that “[d]ealing is buying and selling as part of a regular business. A
dealer typically maintains an inventory of securities and holds itself out to the public as willing
to purchase and sell and continuously quote prices.”12 In addition, although the definitions of
dealer and underwriter in federal securities laws do not control “for purposes of the Glass-
Steagall Act, these statutes were enacted during the same time period, and the Supreme Court
has previously sought guidance from the securities laws in understanding the ordinary meaning
of terms that also appear in Glass-Steagall.”13 Although the definitions in the federal securities
laws are not determinative, activities outside the scope of the federal securities laws are unlikely
to be subject to the Glass-Steagall Act.14
In sum, the Banks would not purchase securities principally for resale to others, would
not maintain an inventory of securities for resale, and would not hold themselves out as being in
the business of dealing or making a market in the securities at issue. Based on the foregoing, the
proposed activities would not constitute impermissible dealing.

b. Limitations on Physical Hedging
The OCC’s derivatives regulation provides that “[a] national bank engaging in physical
hedging activities . . . must hold the underlying solely to hedge risks arising from derivatives
transactions originated by customers for the customers’ valid and independent business
purposes.”15 Similar language appears in 12 C.F.R
not constitute impermissible dealing.

b. Limitations on Physical Hedging
The OCC’s derivatives regulation provides that “[a] national bank engaging in physical
hedging activities . . . must hold the underlying solely to hedge risks arising from derivatives
transactions originated by customers for the customers’ valid and independent business
purposes.”15 Similar language appears in 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030(b)(4), which defines physical
hedging to mean “holding title to or acquiring ownership of an asset (for example, by warehouse
receipt or book-entry) solely to manage the risks arising out of permissible customer-driven
derivatives transactions.” The question is whether the Banks’ proposed use of the securities as
collateral complies with the requirement to hold an asset solely to hedge risks. As discussed
below, the proposed activities, as described by the Banks, comply with this requirement.
The language cited above addresses a national bank holding or acquiring an underlying
asset solely “to hedge” or “to manage” the risks of the derivative activity. The key consideration
is the bank’s purpose in acquiring or holding an asset. Moreover, the primary purpose of the

11OCC Interpretive Letter 892. See also OCC Interpretive Letter 804 (Sept. 30, 1997) (“[D]ealing in securities
generally encompasses purchase and sale activities as principal with respect to the securities of other issuers.”).
12 OCC Interpretive Letter 892.
13 OCC Interpretive Letter 388 (Jun. 16, 1987) (citing Sec. Indus. Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 468
U.S. 137, 150-52 (1984) and Sec. Indus. Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 807 F.2d 1052, 1062-64 (D.C.
Cir. 1986)).
14 OCC Interpretive Letter 388 (“We do not believe, however, that activities not subject to the federal securities laws
could ever be subject to Glass-Steagall.”)
pretive Letter 388 (Jun. 16, 1987) (citing Sec. Indus. Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 468
U.S. 137, 150-52 (1984) and Sec. Indus. Ass’n v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 807 F.2d 1052, 1062-64 (D.C.
Cir. 1986)).
14 OCC Interpretive Letter 388 (“We do not believe, however, that activities not subject to the federal securities laws
could ever be subject to Glass-Steagall.”). In addition, in Interpretive Letter 804, the OCC determined that a bank
was not engaged in dealing because it would not (1) purchase securities in the transaction, (2) have principal risk, (3)
have the potential for market gain with respect to the securities at issue, nor (4) have indicia of ownership of record
or beneficial ownership. In this case, the Banks would purchase the securities, would have principal risk, would have
the potential for market gains and losses, and would have indicia of ownership. Nevertheless, the Banks would not
exhibit any of these factors as a result of the proposed repo activities. Rather, they would exhibit these factors either
as a result of initially purchasing (1) debt obligations as permissible investments under 12 C.F.R. part 1 or (2) equity
securities as hedges to customer-driven derivative transactions—an activity which does not violate the prohibition
against banks dealing in securities. See supra note 10. Nor would the Banks exhibit any of these factors as a result of
any effort to purchase securities principally for resale to others, maintain an inventory, or make a market.
15 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030(e)(1) (emphasis added).
quity
securities as hedges to customer-driven derivative transactions—an activity which does not violate the prohibition
against banks dealing in securities. See supra note 10. Nor would the Banks exhibit any of these factors as a result of
any effort to purchase securities principally for resale to others, maintain an inventory, or make a market.
15 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030(e)(1) (emphasis added).

5
limiting language in 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030(e)(1) and (b)(4) is to ensure that national banks do not
misuse their physical hedging authority to acquire securities that national banks could not
otherwise hold as principal.16
In this case, [ ] would acquire or hold equity securities as a hedge to customer-
driven derivative activities and would not purchase equities for the purpose of serving as
collateral. The use as collateral is secondary and subordinate to bona fide hedging of customer-
driven derivatives activities. If a derivative terminated early, [ ] represents that it would
promptly substitute collateral and sell the equity securities.17 Throughout the repo transaction, [
] would retain the market risk associated with the equity securities and reflect the securities on its
balance sheet. The securities would thereby continue to serve as an effective hedge while serving
as collateral. In light of the foregoing, the proposed use of the equity securities as collateral is not
inconsistent with the requirements of 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030(e).

III.
Conclusion

Based on the Banks’ representations as described above, the proposed activity would not
amount to impermissible dealing under 12 U.S.C. §§ 24(7) and 378 and would not be
inconsistent with the requirements of 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030. It is incumbent on each Bank to ensure
that it appropriately monitors the activity and prevents it from evolving into impermissible
dealing or activity that would violate the requirements of 12 C.F.R
ions as described above, the proposed activity would not
amount to impermissible dealing under 12 U.S.C. §§ 24(7) and 378 and would not be
inconsistent with the requirements of 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030. It is incumbent on each Bank to ensure
that it appropriately monitors the activity and prevents it from evolving into impermissible
dealing or activity that would violate the requirements of 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030.18 This conclusion
is based on the facts and circumstances as represented in your request. Different facts and
circumstances or different applicable laws and regulations could result in a different conclusion.

We trust that this is responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

/s/

Stuart Feldstein
Acting Principal Deputy Chief Counsel

16 The regulation’s definition of “customer-driven” emphasizes this purpose: “Customer-driven means a transaction
is entered into for a customer's valid and independent business purpose (and a customer-driven transaction does not
include a transaction the principal purpose of which is to deliver to a national bank assets that the national bank
could not invest in directly).” 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030(b)(1). See also Activities and Operations of National Banks and
Federal Savings Associations, 85 Fed. Reg. 40794, 40808 n.100 (Jul.7, 2020) (“In addition, several interpretive
letters have also specified that a bank may not engage in physical hedging activities for the purpose of speculating in
security or commodity prices. As described above, customer-driven financial intermediation as defined in the
proposal would not include activities entered into for the purpose of speculation.”).
17 Under 12 C.F.R. § 7.1030(e)(3), a national bank may not take anticipatory or maintain residual positions in an
underlying except as necessary for the orderly establishment or unwinding of a hedging position.
18 See, e.g., 12 C.F.R. §§ 1.5 (safe and sound banking practices under part 1); 7.1030(f) (safe and sound banking
practices under derivatives regulation).

## Nearby sections

- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 719 Letter concludes that an ESOP is a "company' for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 371c and that an ESOP that controls at least 25% of a bank's voting stock is an "affiliate" under sec. 371c (supersedes existing OCC interpretive letter #261). (10/26/89)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0719.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 720 Group of affiliate national banks may collectively own, through operating subsidiaries, minority interest in a merchant credit card processing subsidiary. (01/26/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0720.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 722 A national bank may invest CIF assets in mutual funds, including mutual funds that pay the bank a servicing fee, without the bank having to reduce its trustee fees, if the bank concludes, based upon a reasoned opinion of trust counsel, that such an arrangement is authorized by applicable state law, is consistent with the trust instrument, is appropriate for the particular trust accounts, and is consistent with OCC regulations, including in particular 12 C.F.R. 9.18(b)(12). (03/12/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0722.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 724 Bank can sell vehicle service contracts to customers who use home equity loan proceeds to purchase a vehicle, and the maturity of the service contract may be different from the maturity of the loan. (04/22/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0724.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 725 National bank to establish an operating subsidiary to engage in permissible derivatives-related activities. (05/10/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0725.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 726 Letter concerns the application of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations to financial institutions' support of microenterprise lending programs. (06/21/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0726.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 730 Letter concludes that loans proposed by the bank to an unaffiliated distributor of mutual funds would not be subject to interaffiliate lending restrictions contained in 12 U.S.C. 371C. (05/29/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0730.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 732 National bank may make a 5.5% investment in software company which is engaged in the design, development, marketing and maintenance of a network for electronic funds transfers and electronic data interchange, including transacting electronic commerce and marketing software products for use on its world-wide electronic commerce network. (05/10/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0732.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 733 National bank receiver is subject to the rights of secured creditors and creditors entitled to setoff. U.S. legal principles regarding enforcement of security interests are applicable to a receivership of a federal branch or agency conducted under National Bank Act. Therefore, receiver of an uninsured federal branch or agency does not have the right to interfere with the rights of secured creditors, including application of collateral held in U.S. to obligations of a non-U.S. office of the bank. (06/19/96).](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0733.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 736 Lending limit exception for participations not limited to banks. Non-banks may act as participants. (07/25/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0736.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 737 Huntington National Bank's acquisition of minority interest in a limited liability company providing stored value systems. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0737.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 738 National bank's participation in a guaranty issued by an agent for a syndication of lenders with respect to their borrower's letter of credit reimbursement obligations to another bank or financial institution is permissible under I.R. 7.1016. (08/14/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0738.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 740 Letter advises the Bank as follows: 1) The question of whether "salary" as used in 12 C.F.R. 2.4 includes an officer's base salary, bonuses, director's fees and/or any other compensation paid by the Bank must be determined by the Bank's management; 2) the question of whether the payment bonuses for credit life sales under 12 C.F.R. 2.4 is based on salary received by the recipient in a calendar year, a fiscal year, or any 12-month period must be determined by the Bank's management; and 3) pursuant to 12 C.F.R. 2.4, if the Bank's CEO is a loan officer and the CEO participates in the bonus plan under which payments based on credit life insurance sales are made, the CEO must be included in averaging the salaries of loan officers that participate in the Bank's bonus or incentive plan. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0740.md)
- [OCC Interpretive Letter No. 741 National bank may acquire majority interest in company which operates call center facility which operates programs by which potential customers for new or used automobiles may access databases containing information on the used and new car inventories of numerous automobile dealerships in its metropolitan area. (08/19/96)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT0741.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/OCC_INT1185. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.