[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16820]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 12, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
[Docket No. R-0841]
10 Percent Revenue Limit on Bank-Ineligible Activities of
Subsidiaries of Bank Holding Companies Engaged in Underwriting and
Dealing in Securities
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In 1987 and 1989 the Board authorized bank holding companies
to establish separate nonbank subsidiaries (``section 20
subsidiaries'') to underwrite and deal in securities that a bank may
not underwrite and deal in directly (``ineligible securities''). In
order to ensure compliance with section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act
(12 U.S.C. 377), the Board required that the amount of revenue a
section 20 subsidiary derives from ineligible securities underwriting
and dealing activities may not exceed 10 percent of the total revenue
of the subsidiary. Section 20 prohibits a member bank of the Federal
Reserve System from being affiliated with a company that is ``engaged
principally'' in underwriting and dealing in securities.
In January 1993, after notice and the opportunity for public
comment, the Board authorized section 20 subsidiaries to use an
alternative indexed method to compute compliance with the 10 percent
revenue limitation to account for unusual changes in the level and
structure of interest rates since 1989, when the 10 percent limit was
adopted. When the Board adopted the indexed revenue test, the Board
deferred adoption of another alternative test for the 10 percent limit
that would be based on assets, rather than revenue. Inasmuch as the
Board has had increased experience in reviewing and monitoring the
operations and activities of the section 20 subsidiaries, and in order
to allow these subsidiaries additional flexibility in the conduct of
their securities operations, the Board now proposes to modify its
orders approving the establishment of the section 20 subsidiaries to
allow such subsidiaries the option of using an alternative measure to
the revenue-based tests for assessing compliance with the 10 percent
limit. The Board requests comment on whether asset values, sales volume
data, or both measures should be used as a new alternative to the
revenue test.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 12, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments, which should refer to Docket No. R-0841, may be
mailed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20551, to the
attention of Mr. William Wiles, Secretary. Comments addressed to the
attention of Mr. Wiles may 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 security control room
are accessible from the courtyard entrance on 20th Street between
Constitution Avenue and C Street, NW. Comments may be inspected in room
MP-500 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, except as provided in
section 261.8 of the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of
Information, 12 CFR 261.8.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard M. Ashton, Associate General
Counsel (202/452-3750), Thomas M. Corsi, Senior Attorney (202/452-
3275), Legal Division; Michael J. Schoenfeld, Senior Securities
Regulation Analyst (202/452-2781), Division of Banking Supervision and
Regulation, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. For the
hearing impaired only, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD),
Dorthea Thompson (202/452-3544), Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
A. Ten Percent Limit on Ineligible Securities Activities of Section 20
Subsidiaries
Beginning with orders issued in 1987, the Board has authorized bank
holding companies to establish nonbank subsidiaries (``section 20
subsidiaries'') to underwrite and deal in securities that a bank may
not underwrite and deal in directly (``ineligible securities'').1
In order to assure compliance with section 20 of the Glass-Steagall
Act, the Board limited the amount of ineligible securities that these
section 20 subsidiaries could underwrite and deal in. Section 20
provides that a member bank may not be affiliated with a company that
is ``engaged principally'' in underwriting and dealing in
securities.2 In particular, the Board determined that a bank
affiliate would not be ``engaged principally'' in ineligible securities
activities for purposes of section 20 if those activities were not
substantial relative to the other activities of the subsidiary. The
Board ruled that ineligible securities activities are not a substantial
part of a subsidiary's business if the gross revenue derived from those
activities does not exceed 10 percent of the total gross revenues of
the subsidiary, when revenue is averaged over a rolling 8-quarter
period. Subject to this limitation, the Board has approved the
establishment of over 30 section 20 subsidiaries, several of which are
authorized to underwrite and deal in debt and equity securities
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\E.g., Citicorp, 73 Federal Reserve Bulletin 473 (1987),
aff'd, Securities Industry Association v. Board of Governors, 839
F.2d 47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1059 (1988).
\2\12 U.S.C. 377. The Board and the courts have ruled that
section 20 does not prohibit a member bank from being affiliated
with a company that is engaged principally in underwriting and
dealing in securities that banks may underwrite and deal in directly
(``eligible securities''). See Citicorp, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Adoption of Alternative Indexed Revenue Test
In July 1992, the Board proposed to establish two alternative
methods that a section 20 subsidiary could elect to use to determine
compliance with the 10 percent limit on ineligible securities
activities in place of the gross revenue test.3 In proposing these
alternative tests, the Board noted that historically unusual changes in
the level and structure of interest rates have distorted the revenue
test as a measure of the relative importance of ineligible securities
activities in a manner that was not anticipated when the 10 percent
limit was adopted in 1989.4 To address this problem, the Board
first proposed an alternative revenue test indexed to interest rate
changes that would allow for adjustment of the current revenue of a
section 20 subsidiary to account for the unanticipated interest rate
conditions. In January 1993, the Board adopted an optional alternative
indexed revenue test.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\57 FR 33507, July 29, 1992.
\4\The Board pointed out that, in contrast to conditions in
1989, there was an unusually wide difference between short- and
long-term rates. Since eligible securities tend to be shorter term
than ineligible securities, the unusually sharp increase in the
steepness of the yield curve had the effect of making it appear,
based on revenue data, that the eligible securities activities of at
least some section 20 subsidiaries had been reduced, even though the
relative proportion of eligible and ineligible securities activities
being conducted by those subsidiaries remained essentially the same.
\5\79 Federal Reserve Bulletin 226 (1993). Under the indexed
revenue test, current interest and dividend revenues from eligible
and ineligible activities for each quarter are increased or
decreased by an adjustment factor provided by the Board based on the
average duration of a section 20 subsidiary's eligible and
ineligible securities portfolio. The adjustment factors, which vary
according to specific time periods of average duration, represent
the ratio of interest rates on Treasury securities in the most
recent quarter to those in September 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposed Asset-Based Test
At the same time that the indexed revenue test was proposed, the
Board also proposed an alternative asset-based test. Specifically, the
Board proposed that the 10 percent limit would be computed by using
average daily assets held in connection with ineligible securities
activities and with other activities. The Board recognized that in
1987, when it initially decided to use revenue as the appropriate
measure of the section 20 limit on ineligible securities activities,
the Board had expressed two concerns about a test based on average
assets. One concern was that an asset-based test might be manipulated,
for example, through ``matched book'' repurchase and reverse repurchase
agreements for government securities. The second concern was that an
average asset test, even if computed on a daily basis, would not
include securities that were underwritten by the section 20 subsidiary
but that were held only for a few hours, which is typical in many
underwriting transactions. Accordingly, when the Board proposed an
alternative asset-based test in 1992, the Board requested comment on
possible modifications to address these concerns.
A number of banking organizations commenting on the Board's
proposal supported adoption of an asset-based alternative measure for
computing the 10 percent limit. These comments stated that, like the
indexed revenue proposal, a limit based on assets would be less
susceptible than the unadjusted revenue test to unusual changes in
interest rate conditions. Those supporting the asset-based test also
stated that this test would be easier and less costly to apply than a
measure that required adjustments to revenue data and would allow for
greater predictability in the management of the operations of the
subsidiary.
Many commenters also opposed establishing any specific restrictions
to address the potential for manipulative transactions. These
commenters believed that the capital and funding requirements needed to
support such transactions, as well as earnings considerations and
market-imposed credit risk constraints, would effectively curtail the
excessive use of asset transactions conducted solely to increase the
level of eligible assets. Commenters also observed that implementation
of such separate limits would be difficult in practice.
On the question of the treatment of intra-day holdings of
securities that are being underwritten, while there was some support
for including the value of such securities for purposes of applying an
asset-based test, other comments opposed counting the value of such
holdings on the grounds that the 10 percent limit should measure only
assets that pose a risk to the section 20 subsidiary.
After considering these comments, the Board decided to defer
adoption of an alternative asset-based test, noting that the Board was
not then able to assess the potential practical effect of the test.
II. Proposed Alternative Test
A. Need for an Improved Alternative to the Gross Revenue Test
Since the decision to defer consideration of the asset-based test,
the Board has had a greater opportunity to review and analyze the
operations of section 20 subsidiaries. At the outset, the Board notes
that, during this time period and in the entire seven year period since
the Board first approved the creation of section 20 subsidiaries, the
Board has not uncovered evidence of unsafe or unsound practices,
conflicts of interest, or other conduct related to the operations of
these subsidiaries that has impaired the condition of the affiliated
depository institutions or the banking organizations as a whole. The
available evidence further suggests that these subsidiaries have
exerted a beneficial procompetitive influence on the securities markets
in which they compete.
When the section 20 subsidiaries were first authorized, the Board
selected revenue, rather than asset values or sales volume, as the best
overall measure of ineligible securities activities because the Board
believed that such a test would pose the fewest operational
difficulties and provide the most accurate indication of the relative
importance of specific activities. The Board also noted that although
the applicants had argued that a variety of factors could be used to
judge ``engaged principally'' status, a single uniform standard was
desirable.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Citicorp, supra, 73 Federal Reserve Bulletin at 484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, subsequent events have shown that the susceptibility of
results from the gross revenue measure to distortion caused by changes
in interest rate conditions casts doubt on the appropriateness of that
test. Although the indexed revenue test addresses these concerns, it
necessarily involves increased operational difficulties. For some
section 20 subsidiaries, the costs and resources needed to implement
the indexed revenue test, with the need for complicated duration models
and the calculation of the duration of all securities in a section 20
subsidiary's portfolio on a regular basis, may provide a disincentive
for using that test.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\At present only four section 20 subsidiaries are using the
indexed revenue test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, and in order to provide additional flexibility to
section 20 subsidiaries in the conduct of authorized activities, the
Board now believes it is desirable to consider adoption of another
optional measure in addition to revenue for applying 10 percent limit
on ineligible securities activities. The Board believes that either
asset values or sales volume, or a combination of both measures, should
be considered as a new alternative measure.
B. Asset-Based Test as an Alternative Measure
Any asset-based test would limit a section 20 subsidiary's average
daily assets held in connection with underwriting and dealing in
ineligible securities to 10 percent of its total average daily assets,
computed on a rolling 8-quarter basis. Because, as the Board observed
when an asset-based test was previously proposed, a measure relying on
asset values would be less sensitive to unanticipated changes in
interest rate conditions than a test based on revenues, such a test
would address these distortions. Also, it appears that for at least
some section 20 subsidiaries a test relying on asset values may be
easier in practice to apply than the indexed revenue test. Moreover, as
explained below, in light of its greater experience with the operations
of the section 20 subsidiaries, the Board is now of the view that the
concerns previously expressed about the operation of an asset-based
test can be appropriately mitigated.
The Board believes that the use of assets acquired in connection
with particular types of securities activities may represent a
permissible measure of compliance with the statutory limitation in
section 20 on ineligible securities activities. Asset values do provide
a rough approximation of risk to the section 20 subsidiary, and risk to
banking organizations was one of the concerns behind passage of the
Glass-Steagall Act. The Board notes that the New York State Banking
Department, in applying a state law restriction on the level of
ineligible securities activities of affiliates of state-chartered
banks, allows the use of either assets or revenue as a measure of
compliance with the law.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\E.g., letter, dated December 23, 1986, from New York
Superintendent of Banks to Morgan Guaranty Trust Company and Bankers
Trust Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underwriting
The Board believes that, if an asset-based test is adopted as an
alternative measure, the value of any securities underwritten by a
subsidiary would have to be accounted for in computing average daily
assets, even where the securities are disposed of prior to the end of
the day. The literal language of section 20 covers any underwriting
activity. Thus, under the proposed asset-based test, if securities
underwritten by a section 20 subsidiary are recorded as assets of the
subsidiary, but are disposed of before the end of the day on which
underwriting activity takes place, then the securities would be treated
as if they were carried as assets on the books of the subsidiary as of
the end of that day. If securities are underwritten by the section 20
subsidiary on a ``best efforts'' or agency basis the securities would
be treated as assets of the subsidiary for each day that underwriting
activity occurs with respect to that particular security.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Under an asset-based alternative measure, similar treatment
would be accorded an entire issue of privately-placed securities
when any portion of the issue is taken into inventory pursuant to
SEC Rule 144A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Manipulation Limits
Should an asset-based test be adopted as an alternative measure,
the Board does not propose that any specific limits be incorporated to
address the potential for manipulative transactions carried out solely
to inflate artificially a section 20 subsidiary's base of eligible
assets. Many of the comments on the previously proposed asset-based
test stated that there are sufficient financial and market constraints
on the holding of excessive eligible securities solely to support
increased ineligible securities activities. Even in the case of matched
book-type transactions, counterparties typically impose limits on the
amount of transactions they will engage in with any particular section
20 subsidiary, in order to control credit risk. The Board's minimum
consolidated leverage ratio and the SEC's net capital rule, which is
applicable to a section 20 subsidiary, would impose additional
constraints. In addition, the acquisition of significant amounts of
eligible securities by a section 20 subsidiary in matched book or
similar transactions would also tend to have an overall negative impact
on the earnings performance of the consolidated bank holding company
organization, given the small profit margins typical in such
transactions. Finally, the Board believes that it has the authority to
take appropriate corrective action where manipulative transactions are
detected.
C. Sales Volume Test as Alternative Measure
The Board is also requesting comment on adoption of sales volume as
an alternative measure. If sales volume data is used as the measure of
an alternative test for applying the 10 percent limit, then the dollar
volume of a section 20 subsidiary's sales of ineligible securities as a
result of underwriting and dealing in such securities could not be
allowed to exceed 10 percent of its total sales volume over a rolling
8-quarter period.
The Board believes that the value of various types of securities
and other assets sold by a section 20 subsidiary bears a relationship
to the subsidiary's level of activity with respect to each type of
security or other asset. Use of such data is thus consistent with the
statutory requirements. Under a sales volume test, intra-day
transactions like underwriting and dealing sales would be automatically
covered, even if the assets involved were not recorded on the
subsidiary's books at the end of the day. In addition, like an asset-
based test, a sales volume test would be less sensitive to changes in
interest rate relationships. Such a test may also be easier to comply
with than the current alternative of indexed revenues.
Repurchase Transactions and Other Sales Transactions
One question raised by the use of sales volume as a test of the 10
percent limit is whether securities repurchase agreements (``repo
transactions'') should be treated as ``sales'' and therefore covered
under such a test. Repo transactions are hybrids, having some
characteristics of collateralized lending and some characteristics of
an outright sale of securities. The Federal Reserve, for purposes of
open market operations, has taken the position that repo transactions
are sales rather than loans. The Board requests comment on how repo
transactions should be treated for purposes of a sales volume test, if
such a test were adopted as an appropriate alternative measure.
In addition, the Board invites comments concerning reporting and
other administrative issues associated with implementing a sales volume
test. The Board specifically requests comment on how sales volume
should be computed for various types of transactions involving the same
kinds of underlying securities in different market places. For example,
Treasury bonds may be sold in the cash market, on a ``When Issued''
basis, on a forward contract basis, or indirectly, by purchasing a put
option or selling a futures contract. Although each type of transaction
may be reported differently for balance sheet purposes, all of the
various kinds of transactions may have an identical impact on the
section 20 subsidiary's risk profile.
The Board is considering adopting instructions similar to those
contained in the current Federal Reserve Report Series Form FR 2004,
Schedule B ``Weekly Report of Cumulative Dealer Transactions'' for
collection of sales volume information. Accordingly, comments are
requested concerning whether the instructions and definitions for
reporting sales volume data in the FR 2004 would provide an adequate
basis for developing sales volume reporting for section 20
subsidiaries. Comments are also requested concerning the definition and
reporting of various types of transactions that are not addressed in
the existing FR 2004 report instructions.
Manipulative Transactions
When the Board first approved the establishment of the section 20
subsidiaries, it considered and rejected using a sales volume test, on
the ground that the eligible securities sales volume of a section 20
subsidiary, like asset values, could be easily inflated by repeated
matched book transactions intended for no other purpose than to inflate
the subsidiary's eligible sales volume base.10 As noted above,
many of the comments on the previously proposed asset-based test
pointed out the credit risk and market limitations on the extent to
which a section 20 subsidiary may engage in matched book or similar
transactions. While these limits may be less effective where a section
20 subsidiary engages in unusual sales of securities with its own
affiliate, rather than with a third party, solely for the purpose of
increasing the volume of eligible securities sales, these matters can
be addressed during the examination process and, as noted above,
corrective action can be taken where manipulative transactions are
found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\0Citicorp, supra, 73 Federal Reserve Bulletin at 484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Compliance With Both Measures
A possible means for addressing the disadvantages of asset values
and sales volume alone as appropriate measures is to require a section
20 subsidiary electing an alternative test to comply with both
measures. The Board seeks comment on this possible requirement.
E. Implementation of Any Alternative Test
The Board notes that comments received on the asset-based test
previously proposed suggested that, if such a test were adopted, some
section 20 subsidiaries may not have access to sufficiently detailed
asset data for earlier quarters to allow computation of such a test on
a rolling 8-quarter basis and may not be able to obtain this
information easily. Therefore, the Board proposes that, if an
alternative measure is adopted using either asset values or sales
volume, or a combination of both measures, a section 20 subsidiary
would be allowed, at its election, initially to comply with such a test
on a prospective basis only for the first two-year period. The Board
followed this approach when the indexed revenue test was adopted.
As was also the case with respect to adoption of the indexed
revenue test, the Board proposes that, regardless of which test may be
adopted as an alternative measure, any section 20 subsidiary electing
to use a new test would be required to continue using that test for a
period of at least two years, in order to prevent frequent switching
between tests that would impair an accurate assessment of the relative
importance of the subsidiary's ineligible securities activities.
F. Proposed Elimination of Indexed Revenue Test
The Board also seeks comment as to why, if a new alternative
measure is adopted, the indexed revenue test should not be eliminated
because there would no longer be a need for that alternative measure.
However, a section 20 subsidiary would be allowed to continue to elect
to use the unadjusted revenue test, if the subsidiary wishes to avoid
the costs associated with converting to any new test.
G. Proposed Modification of Board Orders
The Board proposes that its orders approving the establishment of
section 20 subsidiaries be modified to provide that a section 20
subsidiary may elect, as an alternative to the existing revenue tests,
to apply an asset-based test to assess compliance with the 10 percent
limit on ineligible securities activities. Under such a test, a section
20 subsidiary would be viewed as in compliance with that section for
any quarter if the average daily assets held in connection with
underwriting and dealing in ineligible securities for that quarter,
when added to the average daily assets held in connection with
ineligible securities activities for the previous seven quarters, does
not exceed 10 percent of the average daily total assets of the
subsidiary for that quarter and for the seven previous quarters.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\1Securities underwritten by the subsidiary, including
securities taken into inventory in a private placement pursuant to
SEC Rule 144A, would be treated as assets of the subsidiary for each
day underwriting activity takes place with respect to such
securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the alternative, the Board proposes that section 20 subsidiaries
be authorized to elect to apply, as an alternative to the existing
revenue test, a sales volume test to assess compliance with the 10
percent limit. Under such a test, a section 20 subsidiary would be
viewed as in compliance with that section for any quarter if the total
dollar volume of sales of ineligible securities from underwriting and
dealing activities for that quarter, when added to the total dollar
volume of such sales for the previous seven quarters, does not exceed
10 percent of the total dollar volume of sales of all securities and
other assets by the subsidiary for that quarter and for the seven
previous quarters.
Finally, as a third alternative, the Board proposes that section 20
subsidiaries be authorized to apply an alternative test measured by
both asset values and sales volume. Under such a test, a section 20
subsidiary would be viewed as in compliance with section 20 for any
quarter if the subsidiary simultaneously satisfied both the asset-based
and sales volume measures described above.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, July 6, 1994.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 94-16820 Filed 7-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
