Volcker Rule

Firm Advice: Volcker Rule: Observations on Interagency FAQs, OCC Interim Examination Guidelines

By Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP | Posted on

More than six months after the release of final Volcker Rule regulations, banking organizations continue to grapple with a long list of interpretive questions and an opaque process for seeking clarity from the Volcker agencies. Regulatory silence broke for a brief moment this past week in the form of a short interagency FAQ and, from the OCC, interim examination guidelines for assessing banking entities’ progress toward Volcker Rule compliance during the conformance period.

Read the full article here.

The Volcker Rule: Criticisms and Compliance Issues

By Kirill Lelchitskiy, LL.M. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

On December 10, 2013, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued jointly developed final regulations. By doing this, federal agencies implemented § 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act (Volcker Rule).

(more…)

Five Federal Agencies Adopt Interim Rule Providing Relief from the Volcker Rule with Respect to Collateralized Debt Obligations that Hold Trust Preferred Securities

By Goodwin Procter LLP | Posted on
The Federal Reserve Board, the OCC, the FDIC, the SEC and the CFTC (collectively, the “Agencies”) adopted an interim final rule (the “Interim Rule”) that provides relief from certain requirements of the Volcker rule for banking entities that hold investments in or that have sponsored issuers of collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) backed by trust preferred securities (“TruPS”).  (more…)

The Volcker Rule: Impact on Banking Entities’ Investments in Trust Preferred CDOs

By Arnold and Porter LLP | Posted on

On December 10, 2013, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission released final rules (the Final Rules) to implement Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the “Volcker Rule.”

(more…)

Volcker Rule challenged in Court: Will Regulators Accede or Demur?

By Sreelekha Haridas Maruthur, LL.M. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

The American Banker’s Association (ABA) filed a petition on December 24, 2013, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging a provision of the recently approved final version of the Volcker Rule (the Final Rule) requiring community banks to divest their holdings in a commonly held debt instrument known as Collateralized Debt Obligation backed by Trust-Preferred Securities or TruPS-backed CDO.

(more…)

Banks and Industry Groups Continue to Question the Soundness of Volcker Rule

By Rebecca Kwan, J.D. Candidate 2014 | Posted on

The Volcker Rule, which bans banks from participating in proprietary trading, is still worrying bankers.  Financial industry groups are now focusing on an exemption from the rule that allows banks to make certain investments as a part of a legitimate liquidity management program. Regulators will have to distinguish between liquidity trading and proprietary trading. Unfortunately, liquidity trading and proprietary trading are not such discrete activities, making regulators’ jobs difficult, if not impossible.

Banks and industry groups argue that the exemption is so narrow that legitimate liquidity trades could be mistakenly labeled proprietary trades by regulators. In any case, bankers know that the narrower the exemption is, the more trading activity they will have to defend to regulators down the line. According to Berkeley Law Assistant Professor, Stavros Gadinis, “The more flexibility [banks] manage at this stage, the less negotiation they will have to do at a later stage, so this is where it’s at stake, where they can nip it in the bud.” Bankers have to be able to hedge to protect themselves, and the exemption is an attempt to allow that activity while prohibiting the kinds of risky trades that destabilize the market.

Regulators take the opposite view, arguing that the exemption is too broad, and that banks will easily disguise proprietary trading activities as liquidity trading. They worry that the exemption will function as a loophole and allow for risky whale-like trades. But the Volcker Rule, Gadinis said, “would not have stopped the [London] Whale trades. The question of what is a hedge is subject to interpretation. There are things that are definitely hedges, but there are things where it could be, but it’s doubtful.” (more…)

Volcker Rule Update #2: Comment Period Extended; Analysis of the Hedging Exemption

By Peter Benesch, J.D. Class of 2013 | Posted on

The deadline for submitting comments regarding the proposed regulations implementing the Volcker Rule has been extended from January 13 to February 13. As we noted in our previous update on the Volcker Rule, the timeline was already very tight if regulators intended to meet the implementation deadline of July 2012, and this postponement only makes that timeline even tighter and less feasible.

Putting this logistical problem to a side, one major provision in the proposal we have yet to discuss in-depth is the exemption provided in the Volcker Rule for risk-mitigating hedging transactions. The current proposal would allow banks to maintain, purchase, or sell hedging positions with commercial deposits provided that these positions arise from and are related to specific risks involved in the bank’s other legitimate positions, contracts, or holdings. These other risks include market risk, counterparty/credit risk, currency/foreign exchange risk, and interest rate risk (among others). Additionally, the hedged positions taken by the bank must be “reasonably correlated” (or, to be more precise, reasonably negatively correlated) with the risks purportedly being mitigated.

(more…)

Update: 298 Page Volcker Rule Proposal Leaves Much To Be Desired (And Decided); Issue #1: Market Making

By Peter Benesch, J.D. Class of 2013 | Posted on

On October 12th the Federal Reserve, FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and SEC submitted the long-awaited proposal for implementation of Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, widely referred to as the “Volcker Rule.” Legislators included this section in the Dodd-Frank Act in order to divide commercial banking and depository functions, which are federally insured, from banks’ investment activities (commonly referred to as “proprietary trading”). Given the fact that many large commercial banks, such as Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, derive a significant portion of their revenue (8% and 9%, respectively) from their trading desk, the details of the rule could have enormous implications for the future financial strength and stability of depository institutions.

The proposal has several large exceptions to its prohibition on proprietary trading in order to allow banks to continue to provide important financial services to their customers. One of the largest exceptions is for market making. Market making can involve a number of activities, but at its core it consists of financial institutions accepting client requests to purchase (or sell) any given security without that financial institution immediately going out into the market and finding a seller (or buyer). In order to facilitate this process, financial institutions involved in market making may maintain a stock of various securities that they buy and sell to clients as needed to meet client demand. Under the new proposal, banks would be allowed to purchase and sell securities under the premise of market making so long as: a.) the bank “holds itself out” as being willing to buy and sell those securities to and/or from clients, b.) the purchases or sales do not exceed “reasonably expected near term demands” of clients, c.) the activities are primarily intended to generate income from fees, commissions, and bid-ask spreads (as opposed to appreciation or depreciation in the securities themselves), and d.) the compensation arrangements of employees engaged in market making is not designed to reward large returns that may result from the appreciation or depreciation of the securities themselves.

(more…)