[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10201-10204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5013]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 225

[Regulation Y; Docket No. R-0948]


Risk-Based Capital Standards: Construction Loans on Presold 
Residential Properties; Junior Liens on 1- to 4-Family Residential 
Properties; and Investments in Mutual Funds

AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) 
is amending its risk-based capital standards for bank holding 
companies. The intended effect of this final rule is to keep the 
Board's bank holding company risk-based capital standards for 
construction loans on presold residential properties, real estate loans 
secured by junior liens on 1- to 4-family residential properties, and 
investments in mutual funds consistent with the risk-based capital 
standards for banks and thrifts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective April 1, 1999. The Federal 
Reserve will not object if an institution wishes to apply the 
provisions of this final rule beginning with the date it is published 
in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Norah Barger, Assistant Director (202/
452-2402), Barbara Bouchard, Manager (202/452-3072), T. Kirk Odegard, 
Financial Analyst (202/530-6225), Division of Banking Supervision and 
Regulation; or Mark E. Van Der Weide, Attorney (202/452-2263), Legal 
Division. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for 
the Deaf (TDD), Diane Jenkins (202/452-3544), Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The bank and thrift regulatory agencies have recently engaged in an 
interagency effort to make uniform capital standards pursuant to 
section 303 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory

[[Page 10202]]

Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRI Act).1 Section 303 of the CDRI 
Act requires the agencies to review their own regulations and written 
policies and to streamline those regulations where possible, and also 
requires the agencies to work jointly to make uniform all regulations 
and guidelines implementing common statutory or supervisory policies. 
To fulfill the CDRI Act section 303 mandate, the agencies reviewed 
their capital standards for banks and thrifts to identify areas where 
they had substantively different capital treatments or where 
streamlining was appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Board has worked with the Office of the Comptroller of 
the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) (collectively, 
the agencies) to fulfill the CDRI Act section 303 mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of these reviews, on October 27, 1997, the agencies 
proposed conforming amendments to their risk-based and leverage capital 
standards for banks and thrifts (62 FR 55686), while the Board 
concurrently proposed similar amendments to the capital standards for 
bank holding companies (62 FR 55692). Specifically, the agencies 
proposed to amend the risk-based capital treatments for construction 
loans on presold residential properties, loans secured by junior liens 
on 1- to 4-family residential properties, and investments in mutual 
funds. In addition, the agencies proposed a streamlining revision to 
their leverage capital rules. While not technically mandated under 
section 303 of the CDRI Act, the Board decided to amend the risk-based 
and leverage capital standards for bank holding companies to maintain 
consistency with the capital standards for banks and thrifts. The 
interagency and Board proposals were identical with respect to risk-
based capital standards, but differed with respect to leverage capital 
standards.
    This Board final rule applies to the bank holding company risk-
based capital standards the same changes that are being concurrently 
implemented in the risk-based capital standards for banks and 
thrifts.2 The Board amended its leverage capital standard 
for bank holding companies effective June 30, 1998 (63 FR 30369); the 
leverage capital standard is not discussed further in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Amended risk-based and leverage capital standards for banks 
and thrifts are included in a separate interagency notice published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The Board's Proposal

    The Board proposed to amend its risk-based capital standards for 
bank holding companies in three areas. First, with regard to 
construction loans on presold residential property, the Board proposed 
to conform its regulatory language to that of the FDIC. This revision 
would provide guidance on the characteristics of loans to builders that 
would be considered prudently underwritten, but would not substantively 
change the Board's capital treatment for such loans.3 
Second, the Board proposed to adopt the OCC's capital treatment for 
first and junior liens on 1- to 4-family residential properties where 
no institution holds an intervening lien. This would entail treating 
first and junior liens separately, with qualifying first liens risk-
weighted at 50 percent, and nonqualifying first liens and all junior 
liens risk-weighted at 100 percent.4 Finally, the Board 
proposed to modify its capital treatment for investments in mutual 
funds 5 by allowing an institution to allocate its 
investment in a mutual fund on a pro rata basis to various risk weight 
categories based on the investment limits set forth in the fund's 
prospectus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Qualifying construction loans on presold residential 
property are accorded a risk weight of 50 percent when the property 
is sold, regardless of when the institution makes the loan to the 
builder.
    \4\ Generally, qualifying liens are liens where the underlying 
loan meets prudent underwriting criteria, including an appropriate 
loan-to-value ratio, and is considered to be performing adequately. 
A lien where the underlying loan is 90 days or more past due, or is 
in nonaccrual status, is not considered to be performing adequately.
    \5\ An institution's investment in a mutual fund is generally 
assigned entirely to the risk category that is applicable to the 
highest-risk asset allowed under the fund's prospectus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments Received

    The Board received 4 public comments on the risk-based capital 
components of the proposal (one each from a bank holding company and an 
industry trade group, and two from concerned individuals).6 
No commenters specifically addressed the proposed risk-based capital 
treatment for construction loans on presold residential property or 
investments in mutual funds, while three commenters opposed the 
proposed treatment for junior liens on 1- to 4-family residential 
properties. One commenter supported the entire proposal without 
elaboration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information about public opinion with respect to 
this final rule, see the comment summaries in the concurrent 
interagency final rule regarding capital standards for banks and 
thrifts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the three commenters opposing the junior lien proposal, two 
opposed what they perceived to be lower capital requirements for first 
and junior liens to the same borrower. Both commenters indicated that 
lowering capital requirements would increase credit risk for 
institutions with high loan-to-value (LTV) loans, and one of these 
commenters expressed the opinion that this increased risk would 
negatively impact lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers. The 
third commenter opposed the proposal for different reasons. This 
commenter indicated that the proposed 100 percent risk weight for all 
junior liens was unreasonable because the credit risk inherent in such 
liens varies widely. This commenter further suggested that first and 
junior liens by the same lender should be treated separately because of 
the complexity of tracking such loans, and that junior liens 
individually should be eligible for either a 50 percent or 100 percent 
risk weight.

IV. Final Rule

    After consideration of the comments received and further 
deliberation of the issues involved, the Board has determined to adopt 
a final rule that is largely consistent with the original proposal. The 
Board is adopting the proposed capital treatments for construction 
loans on presold residential property and investments in mutual funds. 
The Board has decided, however, to adopt a capital treatment for junior 
liens on 1- to 4-family residential properties that differs from the 
proposed treatment.

Construction Loans on Presold Residential Property

    As proposed, the Board will continue to permit a qualifying 
residential construction loan to become eligible for the 50 percent 
risk category at the time the property is sold, regardless of when the 
institution made the loan to the builder. The Board is revising its 
regulatory language to conform its discussion of qualifying 
construction loans to that of the FDIC.

Junior Liens on 1- to 4-Family Residential Properties

    Rather than implementing the proposed treatment of junior liens on 
1- to 4-family residential properties, the Board is maintaining its 
current treatment of such liens. Where a bank holding company holds the 
first lien and junior lien(s) on a residential property and no other 
party holds an intervening lien, the loans will be viewed as a single 
extension of credit secured by a first lien on the underlying property 
for the purpose of determining the LTV ratio, as well as for risk 
weighting. The combined loan amount will be assigned to either the 50 
percent or 100 percent risk category, depending on whether the credit 
satisfies the criteria for a 50 percent risk weighting. To qualify for 
the 50 percent risk

[[Page 10203]]

category, the combined loan must be made in accordance with prudent 
underwriting standards, including an appropriate LTV ratio.7 
In addition, none of the combined loan may be 90 days or more past due, 
or be in nonaccrual status. Loans that do not meet all of these 
criteria must be assigned in their entirety to the 100 percent risk 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In this regard, bank holding companies are encouraged to 
adhere to the criteria established in the interagency guidelines for 
real estate lending. See 12 CFR part 208, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Investments in Mutual Funds

    As proposed, a bank holding company's total investment in a mutual 
fund should be assigned to the risk category appropriate to the highest 
risk-weighted asset the fund may hold in accordance with the stated 
investment limits set forth in its prospectus. Bank holding companies 
will also have the option of assigning the investment on a pro rata 
basis to different risk categories according to the investment limits 
in the fund's prospectus. Regardless of the risk-weighting method used, 
the total risk weight of a mutual fund must be no less than 20 percent. 
If the bank chooses to assign investments on a pro rata basis, and the 
sum of the investment limits of assets in the fund exceeds 100 percent, 
the bank must assign investments in descending order, beginning with 
the highest-risk assets.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, assume that a fund's prospectus permits 100 
percent risk-weighted assets up to 30 percent of the fund, 50 
percent risk-weighted assets up to 40 percent of the fund, and 20 
percent risk-weighted assets up to 60 percent of the fund. In such a 
case, the institution must assign 30 percent of the total investment 
to the 100 percent risk category, 40 percent to the 50 percent risk 
category, and 30 percent to the 20 percent risk category. The 
institution may not minimize its capital requirement by assigning 60 
percent of the total investment to the 20 percent risk category and 
40 percent of the total investment to the 50 percent risk category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, if a mutual fund can hold an insignificant amount of 
highly liquid, high-quality securities that do not qualify for a 
preferential risk weight, then these securities may be disregarded in 
determining the fund's risk weight. The prudent use of hedging 
instruments by a mutual fund to reduce its risk exposure will not 
increase the mutual fund's risk weighting. The Board also emphasizes 
that any activities which are speculative in nature or otherwise 
inconsistent with the preferential risk weighting assigned to the 
fund's assets could result in the fund being assigned to the 100 
percent risk category.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the 
Board has determined that this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the 
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The 
effect of the final rule will be to reduce regulatory burden on bank 
holding companies by unifying the agencies' risk-based capital 
treatment for presold construction loans, junior liens, and investments 
in mutual funds. Moreover, because the risk-based capital guidelines 
generally do not apply to bank holding companies with consolidated 
assets of less than $150 million, the final rule will not affect such 
companies. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Board has determined that the final rule does not involve a 
collection of information pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

VII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 
(SBREFA) (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121) provides generally for agencies to 
report rules to Congress for review. The reporting requirement is 
triggered when a federal agency issues a final rule. Accordingly, the 
agencies filed the appropriate reports with Congress as required by 
SBREFA.
    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this final 
rule does not constitute a ``major rule'' as defined by SBREFA.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 225

    Administrative practice and procedure, Banks, banking, Federal 
Reserve System, Holding companies, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Securities.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 225 of chapter II 
of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth 
below.

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(o), 1831i, 1831p-1, 
1843(c)(8), 1844(b), 1972(1), 3106, 3108, 3310, 3331-3351, 3907, and 
3909.

    2. In appendix A to part 225, section III.A., footnote 24 is 
revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 225--Capital Adequacy Guidelines for Bank 
Holding Companies: Risk-Based Measure

* * * * *
    III. * * *
    A. * * * \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ An investment in shares of a fund whose portfolio consists 
primarily of various securities or money market instruments that, if 
held separately, would be assigned to different risk categories, 
generally is assigned to the risk category appropriate to the 
highest risk-weighted asset that the fund is permitted to hold in 
accordance with the stated investment objectives set forth in the 
prospectus. An organization may, at its option, assign a fund 
investment on a pro rata basis to different risk categories 
according to the investment limits in the fund's prospectus. In no 
case will an investment in shares in any fund be assigned to a total 
risk weight of less than 20 percent. If an organization chooses to 
assign a fund investment on a pro rata basis, and the sum of the 
investment limits of assets in the fund's prospectus exceeds 100 
percent, the organization must assign risk weights in descending 
order. If, in order to maintain a necessary degree of short-term 
liquidity, a fund is permitted to hold an insignificant amount of 
its assets in short-term, highly liquid securities of superior 
credit quality that do not qualify for a preferential risk weight, 
such securities generally will be disregarded when determining the 
risk category into which the organization's holding in the overall 
fund should be assigned. The prudent use of hedging instruments by a 
fund to reduce the risk of its assets will not increase the risk 
weighting of the fund investment. For example, the use of hedging 
instruments by a fund to reduce the interest rate risk of its 
government bond portfolio will not increase the risk weight of that 
fund above the 20 percent category. Nonetheless, if a fund engages 
in any activities that appear speculative in nature or has any other 
characteristics that are inconsistent with the preferential risk 
weighting assigned to the fund's assets, holdings in the fund will 
be assigned to the 100 percent risk category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    3. In appendix A to part 225, section III.C.3. footnote 37 is 
revised to read as follows:
* * * * *
    III. * * *
    C. * * *
    3. * * * 37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ If a banking organization holds the first and junior 
lien(s) on a residential property and no other party holds an 
intervening lien, the transaction is treated as a single loan 
secured by a first lien for the purposes of determining the loan-to-
value ratio and assigning a risk weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    4. In appendix A to part 225, section III.C.3. is amended by adding 
a new sentence to the end of footnote 38 to read as follows:
* * * * *
    III. * * *
    C. * * *
    3. * * * 38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ * * * Such loans to builders will be considered prudently 
underwritten only if the bank holding company has obtained 
sufficient documentation that the buyer of the home intends to 
purchase the home (i.e., has a legally binding written sales 
contract) and has the ability to obtain a mortgage loan sufficient 
to purchase the home (i.e., has a firm written commitment for 
permanent financing of the home upon completion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[[Page 10204]]

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System, February 24, 1999.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 99-5013 Filed 3-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-U