[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-3605]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: February 22, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 3
[Docket No. 94-01]
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 208
[Docket No. R-0764]
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 325
RIN 3064-AB15
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of Thrift Supervision
12 CFR Part 567
[Docket No. 93-90]
RIN 1550-AA59
Risk-Based Capital Standards; Concentration of Credit Risk and
Risks of Nontraditional Activities
AGENCIES: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury;
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Office of Thrift Supervision
(OTS), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The OCC, the Board, the FDIC and the OTS (collectively ``the
agencies'') are issuing this proposed rule to implement the portions of
section 305 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement
Act of 1991 (FDICIA) that require the agencies to revise their risk-
based capital standards for insured depository institutions to ensure
that those standards take adequate account of concentration of credit
risk and the risks of nontraditional activities. The intended effect of
this proposed rule is to ensure that the agencies take adequate account
of concentration of credit risk and the risks of nontraditional
activities in assessing an institution's capital adequacy. The proposed
rule amends the risk-based capital standards by explicitly identifying
concentration of credit risk and certain risks arising from
nontraditional activities, as well as an institution's ability to
manage these risks, as important factors in assessing an institution's
overall capital adequacy.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 24, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to
any or all of the agencies. All comments will be shared among the
agencies.
OCC: Written comments should be submitted to Docket No. 94-01,
Communications Division, Ninth Floor, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219. Attention: Karen
Carter. Comments will be available for inspection and photocopying at
that address.
Board: Comments, which should refer to Docket No. R-0764, may be
mailed to Mr. William Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, 20th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20551. Comments addressed to Mr. Wiles may also be delivered to the
Board's mail room between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. and to the security
control room outside of those hours. Both the mail room and control
room are accessible from the courtyard entrance on 20th Street between
Constitution Avenue and C Street, NW. Comments may be inspected in room
B-1122 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., except as provided in Sec. 261.8 of
the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information, 12 CFR 261.8.
FDIC: Robert E. Feldman, Acting Executive Secretary, Attention:
room F-402, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20429. Comments may be hand-delivered to room F-
400, 1776 F Street NW., Washington, DC, on business days between 8:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. (FAX number (202) 898-3838). Comments will be available
for inspection and photocopying in room 7118, 550 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20429, between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days.
OTS: Written comments should be submitted to Director, Information
Services Division, Public Affairs, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, Attention Docket No. 93-90. These
submissions may be hand delivered at 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m. on business days; they may be sent by facsimile transmission to
FAX Number (202) 906-7755. Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. on
the day they are due in order to be considered by the OTS. Late filed,
misaddressed or misidentified submissions will not be considered in
this notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments will be available for
public inspection at 1700 G Street, NW., from 1 p.m. until 4 p.m. on
business days. Visitors will be escorted to and from the Public Reading
Room at established intervals.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
OCC: For issues relating to concentration of credit risk and the
risks of nontraditional activities, Roger Tufts, Senior Economic
Advisor (202/874-5070), Office of the Chief National Bank Examiner. For
legal issues, Ronald Shimabukuro, Senior Attorney, Bank Operations and
Assets Division (202/874-4460), Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20219.
Board: For issues related to concentration of credit risk, David
Wright, Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202/728-5854) and for issues
related to the risks of nontraditional activities, William Treacy,
Supervisory Financial Analyst, (202/452-3859), Division of Banking
Supervision and Regulation; Scott G. Alvarez, Associate General Counsel
(202/452-3583), Gregory A. Baer, Senior Attorney (202/452-3236), Legal
Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. For the
hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD),
Dorothea Thompson (202/452-3544), Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
FDIC: Daniel M. Gautsch, Examination Specialist (202/898-6912),
Stephen G. Pfeifer, Examination Specialist (202/898-8904), Division of
Supervision, or Fred S. Carns, Chief, Financial Markets Section,
Division of Research and Statistics (202/898-3930). For legal issues,
Pamela E. F. LeCren, Senior Counsel (202/898-3730) or Claude A. Rollin,
Senior Counsel (202/898-3985), Legal Division, Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20429.
OTS: John F. Connolly, Senior Program Manager, Capital Policy (202)
906-6465; Robert Fishman, Senior Program Manager, Supervision Policy
(202) 906-5672; Dorene Rosenthal, Senior Attorney, Regulations,
Legislation and Opinions Division (202) 906-7268, Office of Thrift
Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The risk-based capital standards tailor an institution's minimum
capital requirement to broad categories of credit risk embodied in its
assets and off-balance-sheet instruments. These standards require
institutions to have total capital equal to at least 8 percent of their
risk-weighted assets.1 Institutions with high or inordinate levels
of risk are expected to operate above minimum capital standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\As defined, risk-weighted assets include credit exposures
contained in off-balance-sheet instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 305(b) of FDICIA, (12 U.S.C. 1828 note) requires the
agencies to revise their risk-based capital standards for insured
depository institutions to ensure that those standards take adequate
account of interest rate risk, concentration of credit risk and the
risks of nontraditional activities. This proposed rule addresses
concentration of credit risk and the risks of nontraditional
activities. Rulemakings regarding interest rate risk are being issued
separately.
Advance notices of proposed rulemaking issued by the agencies with
respect to section 305 requested comment through a series of questions
on possible approaches to defining, measuring and incorporating these
risks in the risk-based capital standards. Comments received in
response to the notices are summarized in the following discussions of
each risk.
Currently, each agency addresses capital adequacy through a variety
of supervisory actions and considers the risks of credit concentrations
and nontraditional activities in taking those varied supervisory
actions.
B. Concentration of Credit Risk
Summary of Comments
The agencies received 107 responses to the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking on concentration of credit risk, with some
duplication among agencies. In response to the question of what factors
should be used in defining concentrations, most commenters agreed that
borrower, industry, geography, collateral and loan type are relevant
factors to define concentration risk. There was less consensus on which
of these factors is the most significant or how to apply these factors
in determining concentrations. Some commenters suggested using a narrow
definition for concentrations to make any rule the agencies might adopt
easier to implement and less burdensome to the industry. Others
suggested caution in defining concentrations given data limitations and
differences in the way definitions are applied by institutions in
managing risk.
Few commenters offered specific guidance as to an appropriate
objective formula to assess capital for concentration risk. However,
many commenters indicated that determinations should be performed on a
case-by-case basis because of the high variability in type and
riskiness of concentrations among institutions. Regarding the general
levels of capital appropriate for concentrations, some commenters
suggested requiring higher than minimum capital ratios for affected
institutions, while others suggested reducing reported capital to
reflect the additional risk. Other commenters indicated that
concentration risk should be viewed in the context of all other factors
affecting the capital adequacy of the institution, including the size
of the allowance for loan losses, profitability, liquidity, and
internal controls.
Some commenters were concerned that proposed regulations might be
overly burdensome or provide incentives for institutions to engage in
activities such as out-of-territory lending that, while adding to
diversity, also add to an institution's overall risk. Some commenters
were also concerned that new regulations might place the banking
industry at a competitive disadvantage.
Proposed Approach
Most institutions, large and small, can identify and track large
concentrations of credit risk by individual or related groups of
borrowers. Many institutions are also able to identify concentrations
by either industry, geography, country, loan type or other relevant
factors. However, because of practical and theoretical problems, there
is no generally accepted approach to identify and quantify the
magnitude of risk associated with concentrations of credit. In
particular, definitions and analyses of concentrations are not uniform
within the industry and are based in part on the subjective judgments
of each institution using its experience and knowledge of its specific
borrowers, market area and products. For these reasons, it is not
feasible at this time to quantify the risk related to concentrations of
credit for use in a formula-based capital calculation. However,
techniques do exist to identify broad classes of concentrations and to
recognize significant exposures.
The volatile and unpredictable nature of the timing and magnitude
of losses associated with concentrations suggests that the effective
tracking and management of such risk is important to ensuring the
safety and soundness of financial institutions. Moreover, the agencies
believe that institutions with significant levels of concentrations of
credit risk should hold capital above the regulatory minimums.
With these considerations in mind, the agencies propose to take
account of concentration of credit risk in their risk-based capital
guidelines or regulations by amending the standards to explicitly
identify concentrations of credit risk and an institution's ability to
manage them as important factors in assessing an institution's overall
capital adequacy.
In addition to reviewing concentrations of credit risk pursuant to
section 305, the agencies also may review an institution's management
of concentrations of credit risk for adequacy and consistency with
safety and soundness standards regarding internal controls, credit
underwriting or other relevant operational and managerial areas to be
promulgated pursuant to section 132 of FDICIA (12 U.S.C. 1831p-1).
In implementing regulations concerning concentration of credit
risk, the agencies recognize the need to ensure that any treatment does
not inadvertently create false incentives or unintended consequences
that might decrease the safety and soundness of the banking and thrift
industries or unnecessarily reduce the availability of credit to
potential borrowers. For example, while portfolio diversification is a
desirable goal, it may also increase an institution's overall risk if
accomplished by lending in unfamiliar market areas to out-of-territory
borrowers or by rapid expansion of new loan products for which the
institution does not have adequate expertise. In addition, to the
extent certain loan products, geographic areas or borrowers are
perceived to fit into generic designations of concentrations, credit
availability to certain groups of borrowers might be severely limited,
despite the creditworthiness of individual borrowers, or the neutral or
beneficial impact a single credit might have on the overall risk of the
institution's portfolio.
Another consideration in evaluating credit concentrations is the
``Qualified Thrift Lender'' test that requires thrifts by statute to
hold 65 percent of their assets in qualifying categories. This
requirement necessarily ``concentrates'' a thrift's portfolio in
certain types of assets. OTS does not intend to implement section 305
in such a way as to penalize thrift institutions for fulfilling this
obligation.
C. Risks of Nontraditional Activities
Summary of Comments
The agencies received 69 comment letters on nontraditional
activities, with some duplication among the agencies. Many commenters
believed that it would be very difficult to create a definitive list of
activities that should be considered nontraditional. Some commenters
indicated that the risks of nontraditional activities depend on both
the activity and the institution involved, and thus that each
depository institution should be addressed on a case-by-case basis
through the examination process. It was also observed that, while the
activities themselves might be new or nontraditional, the risks of
these activities can be segmented into components (e.g., credit risk,
interest-rate risk, operating risk) that are normally associated with
traditional banking activities.
Commenters also raised concerns that explicit capital requirements
for nontraditional activities might affect the competitive balance
between insured depository institutions and non-bank financial firms
such as securities firms. In particular, concern was raised that
restricting new activities could limit the ability of banks and thrifts
to compete with non-bank competitors, or alternatively restrictions
might unduly discourage depository institutions from undertaking
otherwise prudent initiatives. Some commenters also indicated that
capital standards imposed for an activity should be parallel to
standards imposed on non-banks that compete in the same activity.
Some commenters expressed concern about the potential risks that
arise from inexperience when a smaller or less- sophisticated
institution first embarks on a new business venture, while others
believed that the activities undertaken by the larger and more
experienced institutions present greater risks.
Proposed Approach
New developments in technology and financial markets have
introduced significant changes to the banking industry, and in some
cases have led institutions to engage in activities not traditionally
considered part of their business. Both in the risk-based capital
regulations and guidelines adopted by the agencies in 1989, and in
subsequent revisions and interpretations, the agencies have adopted
measures to take adequate account of the risks of nontraditional
activities under the risk-based capital standards. Thus, to the extent
that section 305 constitutes a mandate to the agencies to make certain
that risk-based capital standards are kept current with industry
practices, the agencies have been acting consistently with section 305.
Furthermore, in keeping with section 305, the agencies will continue
their efforts to incorporate nontraditional activities into risk-based
capital.
The agencies propose to take account of the risks posed by
nontraditional activities by ensuring that, as members of the industry
begin to engage in, or significantly expand their participation in, a
nontraditional activity, the risks of that activity are promptly
analyzed and the activity is given appropriate capital treatment.
Moreover, the agencies recognize that an institution's ability to
adequately manage the risks posed by nontraditional activities affects
its risk exposure. Therefore, the agencies also propose to amend their
risk-based capital standards to explicitly identify the management of
nontraditional activities as an important factor to consider in
assessing an institution's overall capital adequacy.
D. Biennial Review of Risk-Based Capital Standards
Section 305(a) of FDICIA requires the agencies to review their
capital standards biennially to determine whether those standards are
sufficient to facilitate prompt corrective action under section 38 of
FDICIA, 12 U.S.C. 1831o. As part of any such review, the agencies
expect that they will consider the asset coverage of the risk-based
capital standards, including in particular the coverage of
concentrations of credit and nontraditional activities. The agencies,
though, do not intend to wait until the next biennial review should a
nontraditional activity evolve rapidly in the industry; rather, such
products will be promptly reviewed for proper treatment under risk-
based capital. Similarly, as new developments in identifying and
measuring concentration of credit risk emerge, potential refinements to
risk-based capital standards will be considered.
In addition, to the extent appropriate, the agencies will issue
examination guidelines on new developments in nontraditional activities
or concentrations of credit to ensure that adequate account is taken of
the risks of these activities.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
No collections of information pursuant to section 3504(h) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) are contained in this
notice. Consequently, no information has been submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget for review.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement
Each agency has concluded after reviewing the proposed regulation
that the regulation, if adopted, will not impose a significant economic
hardship on small institutions. The proposal does not necessitate the
development of sophisticated recordkeeping or reporting systems by
small institutions nor will small institutions need to seek out the
expertise of specialized accountants, lawyers, or managers in order to
comply with the regulation. Each agency therefore hereby certifies
pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)) that the proposal, if adopted, 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.).
G. Executive Order 12866
The OCC and the OTS have determined that this proposed rule does
not constitute a ``significant regulatory action.'' This proposed rule
will amend the risk-based capital guidelines to clarify that the
agencies may impose additional capital requirements above the minimum
capital leverage and risk-based capital requirements where an
institution has significant concentration of credit risk or risks from
nontraditional activities. This proposed rule is consistent with the
current practice and policies of the agencies and is required by
section 305 of FDICIA.
H. Proposed Regulation
In consideration of the foregoing, the OCC, the Board, the FDIC and
the OTS hereby propose to amend title 12 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by amending their respective parts as follows:
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
12 CFR CHAPTER I
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Capital risk, National
banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 3 of title 12,
chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as set forth below.
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, 3907 and 3909.
2. In part 3, Sec. 3.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 3.10 Applicability.
The OCC may require higher minimum capital ratios for an individual
bank in view of its circumstances. For example, higher capital ratios
may be appropriate for:
(a) A newly chartered bank;
(b) A bank receiving special supervisory attention;
(c) A bank that has, or is expected to have, losses resulting in
capital inadequacy;
(d) A bank with significant exposure due to interest rate risk, the
risks from concentrations of credit, certain risks arising from
nontraditional activities, or management's overall inability to monitor
and control financial and operating risks presented by concentrations
of credit and nontraditional activities;
(e) A bank with significant exposure due to fiduciary or
operational risk;
(f) A bank exposed to a high degree of asset depreciation, or a low
level of liquid assets in relation to short-term liabilities;
(g) A bank exposed to a high volume of, or particularly severe,
problem loans;
(h) A bank that is growing rapidly, either internally or through
acquisitions; or
(i) A bank that may be adversely affected by the activities or
condition of its holding company, affiliate(s), or other persons or
institutions including chain banking organizations, with which it has
significant business relationships.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR CHAPTER II
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 208
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Confidential business
information, Currency, Reporting and record keeping requirements,
Securities.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board is proposing
to amend 12 CFR part 208 as follows:
PART 208--MEMBERSHIP OF STATE BANKING INSTITUTIONS IN THE FEDERAL
RESERVE SYSTEM (REGULATION H)
1. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 36, 248(a), 248(c), 321-338, 461, 481-486,
601, and 611, 1814 and 1823(j); 3105; 3310 and 3331-3351, 3906-3909;
15 U.S.C. 78b, 78l(b), 78l(g), 78l(i), 78o-4(c) (5), 78q, 78q-1, and
78w.
2. Appendix A to part 208 is amended by revising the fifth and
sixth paragraphs under ``I. Overview'' to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 208--Capital Adequacy Guidelines for State Member
Banks: Risk-Based Measure
I. Overview
* * * * *
The risk-based capital ratio focuses principally on broad
categories of credit risk, although the framework for assigning
assets and off-balance-sheet items to risk categories does
incorporate elements of transfer risk, as well as limited instances
of interest rate and market risk. The framework incorporates risks
arising from traditional banking activities as well as risks arising
from nontraditional activities. The risk-based ratio does not,
however, incorporate other factors that can affect an institution's
financial condition. These factors include overall interest-rate
exposure; liquidity, funding and market risks; the quality and level
of earnings; investment, loan portfolio, and other concentrations of
credit risk; certain risks arising from nontraditional activities;
the quality of loans and investments; the effectiveness of loan and
investment policies; and management's overall ability to monitor and
control financial and operating risks, including the risks presented
by concentrations of credit and nontraditional activities.
In addition to evaluating capital ratios, an overall assessment
of capital adequacy must take account of those factors, including,
in particular, the level and severity of problem and classified
assets. For this reason, the final supervisory judgement on a bank's
capital adequacy may differ significantly from conclusions that
might be drawn solely from the level of its risk-based capital
ratio.
* * * * *
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR CHAPTER III
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 325
Bank deposit insurance, Banks, Banking, Capital adequacy, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, State nonmember
banks.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board of Directors
of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation hereby proposes to amend
part 325 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 325--CAPITAL MAINTENANCE
1. The authority citation for part 325 is revised to read as
follows:
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(o), 1831o, 3907, 3909; Pub. L. 102-233, 105 Stat. 1761, 1790
(12 U.S.C. 1831n note); Pub. L. 102-242, 105 Stat. 2236, 2386 (12
U.S.C. 1828 note).
Sec. 325.3 [Amended]
2. Section 325.3(a) is amended in the fourth sentence by adding
``significant risks from concentrations of credit or nontraditional
activities,'' immediately after ``funding risks,'' and by adding ``will
take these other factors into account in analyzing the bank's capital
adequacy and'' immediately after the third time ``FDIC'' appears in the
section.
3. The fifth paragraph of the undesignated text of appendix A to
part 325 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 325--Statement of Policy on Risk-Based Capital
* * * * *
The risk-based capital ratio focuses principally on broad
categories of credit risk; however, the ratio does not take account
of many other factors that can affect a bank's financial condition.
These factors include overall interest rate risk exposure;
liquidity, funding and market risks; the quality and level of
earnings; investment, loan portfolio, and other concentrations of
credit risk; certain risks arising from nontraditional activities;
the quality of loans and investments; the effectiveness of loan and
investment policies; and management's overall ability to monitor and
control financial and operating risks, including the risk presented
by concentrations of credit and nontraditional activities. In
addition to evaluating capital ratios, an overall assessment of
capital adequacy must take account of each of these other factors,
including, in particular, the level and severity of problem and
adversely classified assets. For this reason, the final supervisory
judgement on a bank's capital adequacy may differ significantly from
the conclusions that might be drawn solely from the absolute level
of the bank's risk-based capital ratio.
* * * * *
OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION
12 CFR CHAPTER V
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 567
Capital, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings
associations.
Accordingly, the Office of Thrift Supervision hereby proposes to
amend part 567, chapter V, title 12, Code of Federal Regulation as set
forth below:
SUBCHAPTER D--REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS
PART 567--CAPITAL
1. The authority citation for part 567 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1828
(note).
2. Section 567.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (9)
to read as follows:
Sec. 567.3 Individual minimum capital requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Appropriate considerations for establishing individual minimum
capital requirements. * * *
* * * * *
(3) A savings association that has a high degree of exposure to
interest rate risk, prepayment risk, credit risk, concentration of
credit risk, certain risks arising from nontraditional activities, or
similar risks; or a high proportion of off-balance sheet risk,
especially standby letters of credit;
* * * * *
(9) A savings association that has a record of operational losses
that exceeds the average of other, similarly situated savings
associations; has management deficiencies, including failure to
adequately monitor and control financial and operating risks,
especially the risks presented by concentrations of credit and
nontraditional activities; or has a poor record of supervisory
compliance.
* * * * *
Dated: September 14, 1993.
Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency.
Dated: June 14, 1993.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 11th day of May, 1993.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Dated: June 7, 1993.
Jonathan L. Fiechter,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 94-3605 Filed 2-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODES 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 0714-01-P; 6720-01-P
