FDIC News

Key dates

2026-08-27

The FDIC Board unanimously approved the final rule on unsafe or unsound practices and MRAs and the interim final rule on Road to Housing Act reciprocal deposits by notational vote.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open MRAs, supervisory recommendations, and section 8 enforcement matters and assess whether each matter satisfies the new material-harm, Deposit Insurance Fund risk, prudent-operation, or legal-violation criteria.
• Banks should consider mapping existing policies, procedures, reporting controls, documentation findings, and governance issues to the new distinction between MRAs, supervisory observations, and other violations, while retaining controls for matters that could affect capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, market-risk sensitivity, consumer outcomes, or receivership risk.
• Management and board committees may wish to prepare for examiner requests for the objective facts, risk analysis, and reasoning supporting any MRA or unsafe-or-unsound-practice conclusion, including evidence of how the bank assessed reasonably foreseeable conditions.
• Banks using reciprocal deposits should consider recalculating their permissible nonbrokered reciprocal-deposit capacity under the tiered liability formula and updating brokered-deposit classification, liquidity, deposit reporting, internal limits, and regulatory reporting controls.
• Potential agent institutions should verify their eligibility under the revised definition, including the applicable capital and examination-rating requirements and the broadened CAMELS-based criteria.
• Treasury, balance-sheet management, and deposit operations teams may wish to model the effect of the expanded reciprocal-deposit exclusion on funding concentration, liquidity stress assumptions, deposit pricing, and brokered-deposit monitoring.
• Legal and regulatory-affairs teams should monitor the Federal Register publication of both rules, confirm the effective dates, review any interim-final-rule comment opportunity, and determine whether implementation or comments are appropriate.
• Banks should consider reviewing examiner lookback requests and suspicious-activity review scopes against the related OCC examination guidance, which generally limits lookbacks involving failures to detect or report suspicious activity to one year or less unless heightened approval is obtained.

What changed

The final supervisory rule defines an unsafe or unsound practice as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and that, if continued, is likely to materially harm the bank's financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or that has materially harmed the bank's financial condition.

Key dates

2026-07-31

FDIC Board approved the two notices of proposed rulemaking by notational vote

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the forthcoming NPRM text and accompanying Financial Institution Letter for specific amendments to CRA and insider-lending requirements.
• Banks may wish to map current CRA policies, monitoring, and documentation against the existing regulation to identify where process changes could be needed if the proposal is adopted.
• Institutions may wish to review insider-credit approval, reporting, and conflict-management controls so they can assess whether the proposal would require policy or system updates.
• Stakeholders may wish to monitor the comment period and prepare submissions if the proposals raise operational, prudential, or conduct concerns.

What changed

The Board approved a proposed update to the FDIC’s **Community Reinvestment Act regulations**, which may affect how covered institutions are evaluated for community reinvestment performance and related compliance expectations. The Board also approved a proposed rule on **extensions of credit to insiders**, indicating possible changes to the FDIC’s insider lending restrictions, governance controls, and related reporting or approval requirements.

Key dates

2026-06-25

FDIC Board met in open session and approved three notices of proposed rulemaking

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the institution would fall above the proposed resolution-submission threshold if raised to $100 billion in assets.
• Firms may wish to inventory current resolution-planning, interim supplement, and public-section processes to identify work that could be reduced or repurposed if the proposal is finalized.
• Assessment and finance teams may wish to model the impact of a $10 billion to $30 billion threshold change and any indexed future adjustments on deposit insurance assessments.
• Legal and information-governance teams may wish to review confidentiality-agreement templates and third-party-sharing controls in anticipation of broader permitted disclosure under Part 309.
• Institutions currently subject to FDIC resolution submissions may wish to monitor whether the proposed filing-cycle change to every three years alters internal preparation calendars and governance approvals.

What changed

The Board approved a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise resolution-submission requirements for covered insured depository institutions; secondary reporting indicates the proposal would raise the applicability threshold from $50 billion to $100 billion in total assets, move covered institutions to a three-year filing cycle, eliminate certain interim supplements and public sections, and remove a substantial portion of current narrative content requirements.

Key dates

2026-06-02

FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve jointly announced updates to certain interagency documents removing references to reputation risk

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory supervisory manuals, internal policies, and model examination references that still mention reputation risk and assess whether any language should be updated for consistency with the agencies’ approach.
• Firms should consider whether account-closure, onboarding, or risk-acceptance frameworks rely on reputation-risk concepts that may now be less aligned with supervisory expectations.
• Banks may wish to review escalation criteria and decision records to ensure they are grounded in material financial, operational, or legal risk factors rather than vague reputational concerns.
• Supervisory response teams may wish to brief relevant business lines on the agencies’ stated focus on financial risk and the agencies’ concern that reputation risk can be used to pressure restrictions on lawful customer activity.
• Compliance functions may wish to monitor whether additional interagency documents are revised in subsequent FDIC, OCC, or Federal Reserve publications.

What changed

The publication says the agencies updated certain interagency documents and removed references to reputation risk. The stated scope of the change is narrow: the agencies said the updates are limited to removing references to reputation risk, not to imposing new obligations on banks. The agencies also reiterated that reputation risk can be misused to pressure banks to restrict access to financial services based on constitutionally protected political or religious beliefs, speech, conduct, or lawful business activities.