What does FDIC's "FDIC Board of Directors Approve New Actions" change?

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. Material financial harm is assessed by reference to capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, and the bank's ability to avoid receivership; reputation risk unrelated to financial condition is excluded. An MRA may be issued only where the conduct satisfies the prudent-operation and material-risk or material-harm standard, or constitutes an actual violation of a banking or banking-related law or regulation. Examiners must use objective facts and sound reasoning, explain the basis for an unsafe-or-unsound-practice determination or MRA, and tailor supervisory actions to capital structure, complexity, activities, asset size, and other relevant financial-risk factors. Weaknesses below the MRA threshold may be documented as nonbinding supervisory observations; these do not create a requirement or supervisory expectation that the matter be presented to the board or that the bank implement the suggested enhancement. For other violations, the agencies may require remediation, but may require additional action only where that action is required by law. Market commentary indicates that the final rule is intended to reduce board-level escalation of immaterial policy, process, documentation, and other nonfinancial deficiencies while preserving supervisory action for material risks, consumer harm, widespread systemic problems, and legal violations. The final rule is expected to become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register; the publication date and therefore the calendar effective date were not available in the FDIC bulletin. The reciprocal-deposit interim final rule replaces the former general cap of the lesser of $5 billion or 20 percent of total liabilities with a tiered calculation: 50 percent of liabilities up to $1 billion, 40 percent of the portion above $1 billion through $10 billion, and 30 percent of the portion above $10 billion, subject to a maximum exclusion of $30 billion. It also broadens the agent-institution definition and clarifies operation of the reciprocal-deposit framework. Market commentary identifies the principal practical effect as allowing qualifying community and other insured banks to accept substantially more reciprocal deposits without classifying the excluded amount as brokered deposits. The interim final rule is expected to become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions OCC-supervised national banks and federal savings associations Insured depository institutions using reciprocal-deposit placement networks Banks that hold outstanding MRAs, supervisory recommendations, or enforcement actions based on supervisory deficiencies

What should firms consider doing?

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.

🇺🇸 FDIC Final Rule high

FDIC Board of Directors Approve New Actions

Published 27 August 2026 | United States

AI Analysis

On August 27, 2026, the FDIC unanimously approved a joint FDIC-OCC final rule defining unsafe or unsound practices under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and establishing uniform standards for Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs) and supervisory observations. The FDIC also approved an interim final rule implementing the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act changes to reciprocal deposits, including a tiered exclusion from brokered-deposit treatment of up to $30 billion, materially expanding eligible funding capacity for qualifying insured depository institutions.

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. Material financial harm is assessed by reference to capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, and the bank's ability to avoid receivership; reputation risk unrelated to financial condition is excluded. An MRA may be issued only where the conduct satisfies the prudent-operation and material-risk or material-harm standard, or constitutes an actual violation of a banking or banking-re

Compliance impact

The supervisory rule is a high-impact change to the framework for section 8 enforcement, board-level supervisory escalation, and corrective actions, although it does not eliminate obligations arising from applicable banking laws or regulations. The reciprocal-deposit rule may materially affect brokered-deposit classification and funding strategy for qualifying banks, with noncompliance potentially

Who is affected

FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions
OCC-supervised national banks and federal savings associations
Insured depository institutions using reciprocal-deposit placement networks
Banks that hold outstanding MRAs, supervisory recommendations, or enforcement actions based on supervisory deficiencies

12 U.S.C. 1818
12 U.S.C. 1831f
12 CFR 337.6
Federal Deposit Insurance Act section 29
Brokered deposits regulations

References

AI-generated analysis. May contain errors or omissions — verify with the original FDIC source before acting. Full disclaimer.

What the FDIC said

BOARD MATTERS | AUGUST 27, 2026 FDIC Board of Directors Approve New Actions By notational vote, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors today unanimously approved the following matters. Materials and information related to these Board actions are available on the Board Matters webpage. Final…

Extract from FDIC . Read the full notice at the source for the authoritative text.

Sectors

Banking & Credit

Topics

Prudential / Capital Requirements Senior Managers / Governance Reporting & Disclosure

Relevant Firm Types

Bank

View Original on FDIC Back to Feed