Prudential / Capital Requirements in United States

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

2026-08-27

OCC issued revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11; PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 manual, PPM 5400-11 replaces the February 27, 2026 version, and OCC Bulletin 2023-16 is rescinded.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open MRAs, enforcement orders, capital directives, and supervisory findings against the new material-harm, Deposit Insurance Fund risk, and substantive-violation thresholds.
• Banks should consider reviewing issue-management taxonomies and governance procedures so that MRAs, other violations, and supervisory observations are recorded and escalated according to their distinct consequences.
• Board and committee reporting processes may warrant review because supervisory observations do not automatically require board presentation or a corrective-action plan, whereas MRAs and enforcement actions remain subject to formal remediation and validation expectations.
• Large and complex banks should consider reassessing whether deficiencies that might previously have produced a community-bank-level supervisory response could receive faster escalation under the revised tailoring framework.
• Banks with existing enforcement actions may wish to assess whether their remediation evidence demonstrates substantial compliance with the essential requirements of each order and whether remaining issues are minor and isolated.
• Capital management teams may wish to review procedures for the institution of and termination of individual minimum capital ratios under the revised enforcement manual.
• Legal and regulatory change teams should monitor Federal Register publication of the joint OCC-FDIC final rule and calculate the actual effective date rather than relying on the bulletin date.
• Internal audit and compliance functions may wish to preserve objective factual support for responses to MRAs and other supervisory communications, particularly where the bank believes an issue does not meet the new risk-based threshold.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 version and structures the OCC enforcement framework around escalation, tailoring, and focus. The OCC generally intends to provide banks an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before initiating a Section 8 enforcement action, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable and warranted.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the joint final rule through OCC Bulletin 2026-40. The bulletin applies to all OCC-supervised banks; it does not state the Federal Register publication date, effective date, or a firm compliance deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify the final rule’s Federal Register publication and effective date, because the OCC bulletin itself does not state either date or a compliance deadline, and should monitor OCC and FDIC implementation guidance before relying on any transition treatment.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open MRAs, supervisory recommendations, enforcement matters, and examination findings and map each item to the final rule’s material-financial-risk, DIF-risk, actual-violation, or already-caused-harm criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level MRA remediation obligations from discretionary management responses to supervisory observations and documenting why a weakness is treated under one category rather than another.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to enhance evidence files supporting assessments of likelihood, materiality, current and reasonably foreseeable conditions, and impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and market-risk sensitivity.
• Banks should consider documenting how supervisory requirements and remediation plans are tailored to asset size, complexity, activities, capital structure, and other financial-risk factors, particularly where the institution has heightened systemic, concentration, liquidity, or operational complexity.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to distinguish actual violations of banking or banking-related laws and regulations from prudential weaknesses, because an actual violation can support an MRA without separately satisfying the prudent-operation and material-risk test.
• Boards and senior management should consider reviewing governance procedures so that MRAs receive required escalation and tracking while supervisory observations are clearly identified as non-binding potential enhancements.
• Firms should consider preparing a process for requesting and retaining the objective facts and reasoning underlying an MRA or unsafe-and-unsound-practice determination, as the rule requires examiners to share that basis.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either is likely, if continued, to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. “Likely” requires more than a merely possible risk; relevant financial-condition effects include impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the final rule and OCC published Bulletin 2026-40 describing its application to OCC-supervised banks.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map existing and anticipated MRAs, enforcement commitments, supervisory recommendations, and examination findings against the new material-financial-risk and actual-violation criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level corrective-action items from nonbinding supervisory observations and documenting why each issue does or does not meet the MRA threshold.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to update issue-taxonomy and escalation procedures to assess impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, and the Deposit Insurance Fund.
• Banks should consider retaining objective evidence and documented reasoning supporting materiality assessments, including institution-specific factors such as asset size, complexity, activities, and capital structure.
• Management and boards may wish to review outstanding policies, process, and documentation findings to determine whether they remain mandatory remediation matters, are better treated as supervisory observations, or independently constitute violations of banking or banking-related law.
• OCC-supervised banks should monitor the related examination guidance and assess whether planned lookbacks, independent-consultant requirements, or suspicious-activity review scopes are affected by the revised supervisory approach described in industry reporting.
• Firms should track Federal Register publication and calculate the 60-day effective date once publication occurs; the August 27, 2026 announcement date is not itself the effective date.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either, 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 has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. Relevant financial-condition impacts include capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk; reputation concerns unrelated to financial condition are excluded.

Key dates

2026-03-25

NCUA issued the proposed rule to remove the prescriptive requirements

2026-05-26 Deadline

Public comment period closed

2026-08-06

Final rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50677

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current indirect vehicle lending policies to confirm they no longer reference the removed 50% and 100% net-worth limits.
• Boards may wish to document a board-approved risk appetite and concentration framework for third-party serviced indirect vehicle loans.
• Credit unions may wish to align vendor oversight, due diligence, and servicing controls with their internal policies since the prior waiver pathway is no longer the operative framework.
• State-chartered federally insured credit unions may wish to verify any conforming updates needed to insurance-related procedures and governance materials.
• Compliance functions may wish to update training, policy manuals, and examination binders to reflect that supervision will now focus on principles-based oversight rather than the deleted rule text.

What changed

The final rule removes 12 CFR 701.21(h) in full, eliminating the existing concentration limits, the 30-month step-up to a higher limit, the waiver process to a Regional Director, the related response timeline, and the embedded definition framework tied to that paragraph. NCUA also states that it removed the parallel requirement in 12 CFR 741.203(c) and the related citation in 12 CFR 746.201(c), as part of the same deregulatory package.

Key dates

2026-08-06

Federal Register publication of the final rule at 91 FR 50661

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update policies, procedures, and product templates that still reference the former segregated deposit and collateral formulas in 12 CFR 701.20.
• Institutions may wish to review surety and guaranty programs to ensure the obligation remains fixed in amount and duration and is structured as an otherwise permissible loan under the applicable lending regulations.
• FCUs may wish to confirm that any related lending analysis still addresses member lending limits and other applicable provisions, including where commercial lending rules apply.
• FISCUs may wish to confirm continued state-law authority to act as surety or guarantor and verify any state-specific constraints or approvals before offering these arrangements.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to reassess collateral practices for these products in light of the new flexibility while preserving safety-and-soundness controls.

What changed

The final rule deletes the specific segregated deposit requirement in 12 CFR 701.20(c)(3) for suretyship and guaranty agreements. It also removes the detailed collateral standards in 12 CFR 701.20(d), including the prior 100 percent and 110 percent collateral categories and the requirement for a perfected security interest tied to those prescribed values.

Key dates

2026-08-04

Publication of the Federal Reserve Board notice of proposed rulemaking ‘Regulatory Modernization and Relief for Mutual Holding Companies’ in the Federal Register (91 FR 49490; FR Doc. 2026-15774) amending Regulations Q (12 CFR part 217) and MM (12 CFR part 239).

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment deadline for submitting responses to the Federal Reserve Board on the proposed amendments to Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at mutual holding companies and savings and loan holding companies may wish to review the proposed amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), particularly the sections on dividend waivers, mutual-to-stock conversion processes, post-conversion restrictions, chartering requirements for subsidiary holding companies, and updated model charters and bylaws, to assess operational and governance impacts.
• Firms planning or contemplating mutual-to-stock conversions should consider comparing their current conversion documentation, use of FR MM-PS, FR MM-OC and FR MM-OF forms, and liquidation account methodologies with the proposed streamlined forms, corrected liquidation account calculations, and revised rules on stock pricing, repurchases, offers and sales, employee stock ownership plan financing and benefit plans.
• Institutions that issue, or are considering issuing, mutual capital certificates should review the proposed Appendices B and C to Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217) to evaluate whether their existing or planned instrument terms align with the model key terms for qualification as Common Equity Tier 1 or Additional Tier 1 capital, including permanence, loss-absorption, distributions and redemption features.
• Subsidiary holding companies of thrift mutual holding companies may wish to analyze the proposed elimination of the federal charter requirement and related changes to Subpart C of Regulation MM to determine chartering options, corporate structure implications, and any needed updates to organizational documents and regulatory commitments.
• Governance and legal teams at MHCs could review the proposed revisions to membership rights, proxy processes, postal mail requirements, voluntary dissolution, and the model charter and bylaws in Appendices A, C and D to Regulation MM, with a view to aligning internal policies and corporate governance frameworks with the modernized regime once finalized.
• Risk and capital management functions at bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies and state member banks should consider evaluating capital planning assumptions and buffers in light of the clarified eligibility of mutual capital instruments as regulatory capital under Regulation Q, and identify any systems or reporting changes that may be required if the proposal is adopted.
• All affected firms may wish to prepare internal impact assessments and, where appropriate, draft comment letters addressing specific elements of Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26), including any perceived risks around conflicts of interest, reduced accountability, or adjustment costs noted in the economic analysis.
• Compliance monitoring teams should plan to track the rulemaking through the comment close date and subsequent Federal Reserve actions so that, if the proposal is finalized, implementation plans can be developed for policy updates, staff training and revisions to regulatory reporting and capital instrument documentation.

What changed

The NPR proposes targeted amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) governing mutual holding companies (MHCs), including eliminating certain dividend waiver requirements that currently apply to MHCs and their subsidiary holding companies, and revising post-conversion restrictions to reduce burdens following mutual-to-stock conversions.

Key dates

2026-07-31

Federal Reserve Board issued the request for comment on the proposal.

2026-08-04

Federal Register publication date referenced in the available materials.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment period closes 60 days after Federal Register publication, according to secondary reporting and the referenced publication timeline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether the institution falls within the mutual banking organization or mutual holding company framework and assess whether the proposal would affect capital planning.
• Firms may wish to evaluate existing and planned capital instruments to determine whether they could qualify as regulatory capital under the proposed clarification.
• Institutions may wish to review dividend-waiver, conversion, and other mutual-structure processes for possible operational or governance changes under the proposal.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comment letters on capital treatment, loss-absorption, conflicts of interest, accountability, and competition effects, consistent with the issues highlighted by the Board statement.

What changed

The proposal would modernize the Board’s rules applicable to mutual banking organizations, including mutual holding companies, for the first time in about 30 years. It would clarify which instruments may count as regulatory capital, expand flexibility for certain mutual banks to raise capital, and reduce procedural burdens. The Board’s memo says the proposal would amend Regulation MM and the capital rule to address limited access to equity and costly, unclear requirements.

Key dates

2026-07-01

Revisions to the CBLR framework became effective, including the lower 8% threshold and revised grace-period rules

2026-07-30

OCC Bulletin 2026-34 published the updated Community Bank Compliance Guide

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether current capital planning and reporting processes reflect the revised 8% CBLR entry threshold.
• Firms that use or may elect the CBLR framework may wish to reassess whether they can remain above the 7% grace-period floor during any temporary noncompliance.
• Banks may wish to confirm how the four-quarter cure period and the eight-quarter cap over five years would operate in their internal capital contingency planning.
• Community banking organizations may wish to reconcile the updated guide with the text of the capital rule, since the guide is only a summary and not binding legal text.

What changed

The agencies revised the non-binding compliance guide to align with the updated CBLR framework in the capital rule. The key substantive change is the minimum leverage ratio for CBLR qualification, which was lowered from greater than 9% to greater than 8%. The grace period for a bank that elects the CBLR framework but temporarily fails to meet the qualifying criteria was revised from two quarters to four quarters, provided the bank maintains a leverage ratio greater than 7% and does not exceed eight quarters in grace-period status over a five-year period.

Key dates

2026-07-17

Federal Register publication date for the final rule

2026-08-17 Deadline

Final rule effective date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether any counterparties qualify as eligible seeded funds under the revised margin-affiliate definition and document the three-year trading-inception window.
• Firms may wish to refresh margin threshold calculations to reflect the exclusion of qualifying seeded funds from margin-affiliate aggregation.
• Operational teams may wish to update collateral eligibility schedules so that money market and similar fund securities are assessed under the expanded eligible-collateral framework.
• Risk and valuation teams may wish to confirm haircut logic under Commission Regulation 23.156(a)(3) for money market and similar funds.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to map the final rule against existing IM procedures, counterparty onboarding language, and margin agreements to determine whether amendments are needed before the effective date.
• Firms may wish to coordinate with fund sponsors and asset managers to verify the fund's start-up capital structure, independence, support limitations, and commencement of trading for any seeded-fund analysis.

What changed

['The Commission revised the definition of "margin affiliate" so that certain collective investment vehicles that receive start-up capital from a sponsor entity, referred to as "seeded funds," are treated as having no margin affiliates or as not constituting margin affiliates of another entity for purposes of the initial margin threshold calculation.', "For eligible seeded funds, swap dealers and major swap participants subject to the CFTC uncleared swaps margin rules are relieved from the requirement to post and collect initial margin for up to three years from the fund's trading inception...

Key dates

2026-06-08

CFPB issued the Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status referenced by the agencies

2026-07-13

FDIC, OCC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance on lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that capacity-to-repay analysis captures employment-authorization-related income instability.
• Firms should consider whether credit policy, risk grading, and portfolio monitoring procedures explicitly address elevated repayment uncertainty for non-work-authorized borrowers.
• Institutions may wish to reassess documentation and verification controls for income, employment, and supporting records in light of the agencies' stated focus on safe-and-sound lending.
• Teams should consider whether fair-lending, TILA, and ECOA controls are aligned with the CFPB's June 8, 2026 statement and the interagency guidance.
• Risk and finance functions may wish to evaluate whether allowance, concentration risk, and credit-loss assumptions need updating where exposure to this borrower segment is material.

What changed

The publication does not create a new lending ban or a new standalone rule. Instead, it restates that institutions should identify, measure, monitor, and control the credit risks associated with borrowers who are not legally authorized to work in the United States through underwriting practices that assess willingness and capacity to repay according to the credit terms. The guidance specifically links this issue to the CFPB's June 8, 2026 Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status and reminds creditors of obligations under the Truth in Lending Act as implemented by Regulation Z,...

Key dates

2026-07-13

OCC, FDIC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance

2026-06-08

CFPB issued its Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status, referenced by the guidance

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that repayment capacity, source of repayment, and overall financial condition are assessed consistently for borrowers whose work authorization is uncertain.
• Firms may wish to test whether account management, credit classification, and allowance methodologies adequately capture elevated credit risk linked to employment authorization uncertainty.
• Institutions may wish to review consumer compliance controls for alignment with TILA, Regulation Z, ECOA, and Regulation B when evaluating applicants affected by immigration or work-authorized status.
• Risk and compliance teams may wish to update portfolio monitoring, concentration analysis, and documentation standards so that the identified credit risk factors are reflected in governance and reporting.
• Community banks may wish to verify that loan policy language and examiner-facing documentation clearly show how these risks are being identified, measured, monitored, and controlled.

What changed

The publication is guidance, not a new rule or statute, and it reinforces existing expectations rather than imposing a new legal prohibition. It states that lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States may present elevated credit risk because their ability to generate income, maintain employment, and remain financially stable may be more uncertain.

Key dates

2026-07-13

Federal Reserve speech delivered in London on modernization of financial regulation

2026-07-22 Deadline

FSB public comment deadline for the consultation report on sound practices for responsible adoption of AI

2026-07-13

Speech states the FSB modernization consultation report will be published in the fall and then delivered to the G20

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the speech to ongoing capital-rule workstreams, especially Basel III, stress testing, and G-SIB surcharge calibration.
• Large-bank firms may wish to assess whether current capital planning assumes overlapping stress-test and risk-based requirements that could be reduced or realigned.
• Community and regional banks may wish to review whether fixed-dollar regulatory thresholds continue to overstate burden as assets grow with inflation and nominal GDP.
• Supervised firms may wish to align internal issue-management processes with the Federal Reserve’s stated shift toward findings tied to material financial risk and more differentiated treatment of lesser issues.
• AI governance teams may wish to compare current model-risk, vendor-risk, and use-case controls against the FSB’s consultation themes on responsible adoption and use of AI.
• Boards and senior management may wish to review whether supervisory documentation, escalation, and risk reporting are sufficiently focused on material safety-and-soundness issues.

What changed

This speech does not itself impose binding requirements, but it signals several concrete regulatory and supervisory changes already underway. Bowman said the Federal Reserve is advancing a 2026 Basel III proposal and related capital framework reforms, including a single stack of risk-based capital requirements for large banks, recalibration of the G-SIB surcharge, reduced overlap between stress testing and risk-based capital requirements, and indexing the G-SIB surcharge to nominal economic growth going forward.

Key dates

2026-07-06

Federal Reserve and the firms executed the written agreement

2026-07-09

Federal Reserve publicly announced the enforcement action

2026-08-05 Deadline

Cash flow forecasts due 30 days after the agreement date, as described in the agreement reporting

2026-09-04 Deadline

Capital plan due 60 days after the agreement date, as described in the agreement reporting

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the written agreement and map each requirement to responsible owners, due dates, and reporting lines.
• Firms in similar structures may wish to confirm whether capital distribution limits, new debt restrictions, or prior-approval conditions apply under their own supervisory agreements.
• Boards may wish to assess whether consolidated capital planning, liquidity forecasting, and subsidiary support expectations are sufficiently documented and tested.
• Supervisory response plans may wish to be updated to reflect escalation triggers for capital shortfalls, liquidity stress, and required regulator communications.

What changed

The Fed executed a written agreement with TS Banking Group, Inc. and TS Contrarian Bancshares, Inc. on July 6, 2026, and publicly disclosed it on July 9, 2026. The public press release identifies only the parties and the action type, while the attached agreement indicates the Board can enforce the agreement under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and section 50 of the FDI Act.

Key dates

2026-06-18

Federal Reserve determined Small Business Bank was significantly undercapitalized

2026-06-25

Termination effective date for the BNP Paribas-related cease-and-desist order and the Community Bankshares cease-and-desist order

2026-06-29

Prompt Corrective Action Directive issued for Small Business Bank

2026-07-29 Deadline

Approximate latest date to increase equity if measured as 30 days from the June 29, 2026 directive date; the exact deadline depends on the directive's effective date and any permitted extension

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at banks facing PCA should review whether capital ratios trigger section 38 of the FDI Act and Regulation H thresholds.
• Affected institutions may wish to map the directive's capital restoration timeline to board oversight, funding sources, and shareholder approval processes.
• Firms with open Federal Reserve enforcement matters may wish to monitor the Board's enforcement database for termination notices and effective dates.
• Boards and management teams may wish to ensure the documentation supporting capital adequacy, if relevant, is current and ready for supervisory review.

What changed

For Small Business Bank, the Board executed a Prompt Corrective Action Directive dated June 29, 2026 under section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and Regulation H. The directive states the bank was significantly undercapitalized as defined in 12 C.F.R. 208.43(b)(4) and requires the bank to raise equity within 30 days of the effective date so it becomes adequately capitalized under 12 C.F.R. 208.43(b)(2).

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

2026-06-25

Federal Reserve Board announced the consent cease-and-desist order against Jason Burns

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review lending approval, exception, and escalation controls for any patterns that could be characterized as unsafe lending.
• Firms may wish to assess whether board and senior management oversight of credit extensions is documented clearly enough to withstand supervisory scrutiny.
• Institutions may wish to confirm that conflicts of interest, insider influence, and related-party lending safeguards are operating effectively.
• Banks may wish to ensure that examination issues identified in credit administration are remediated before they become individual enforcement matters.

What changed

The publication records a new formal enforcement action: a consent cease-and-desist order against Jason Burns. The stated basis is unsafe lending practices, but the press release does not describe the underlying factual findings, operational requirements, monetary penalties, or remediation deadlines. The action is an individual supervisory response connected to an Oklahoma bank and its holding company, indicating the Fed viewed the conduct as serious enough to warrant public enforcement.

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.

Key dates

2026-05-22

FDIC and Federal Reserve Board approved joint agency feedback letters on the 2025 resolution plan submissions; Chairman Hill issued his statement

2026-06-01

Expected timeframe for the FDIC to propose amendments to the IDI Rule, described as coming in the following weeks

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and resolution-planning teams may wish to review the forthcoming FDIC IDI Rule proposal closely for potential changes to large-bank resolution expectations.
• Firms subject to Title I planning may wish to reassess prior resolution-plan assumptions, including any areas likely to be revisited through joint FDIC-Federal Reserve feedback.
• Large banking organizations may wish to map which existing resolution-related policies or internal playbooks could be affected if the FDIC rescinds or modifies current requirements.
• Teams may wish to monitor whether the FDIC and Federal Reserve Board signal changes to the structure, scope, or cadence of future Title I submissions and feedback letters.

What changed

The announcement does not create a new binding rule or immediate compliance deadline. Instead, it confirms supervisory feedback on the 2025 resolution plans for the eight U.S. GSIBs and 56 foreign-based firms and signals that the FDIC is actively reevaluating its resolution framework. Chairman Hill said the FDIC plans to propose amendments to the IDI Rule for large insured depository institutions in the coming weeks, is reviewing other resolution-related rules and policies, and expects to engage the Federal Reserve Board on reconsidering elements of the Title I resolution planning process.

Key dates

April 15, 2026

- SEC issues conditional exemptive order and approves FICC's proposed rule change

Post

April 15, 2026 (prior to Federal Register publication); - Exemptive order and rule approval made available on SEC.gov; related CFTC order on CFTC.gov

TBD (after Federal Register publication) Deadline

- Official effective date upon Federal Register publication (no specific comment or implementation deadline specified in announcement)

Suggested considerations

• Qualifying Firms: Review and ensure compliance with exemptive order conditions (e.g., customer eligibility, account segregation, risk controls) before offering cross-margining; update internal policies, systems, and customer agreements to support combined margin calculations in futures accounts.
• Operational Updates: Implement changes to clearing and margining processes aligned with the Third Amended Cross-Margining Agreement; conduct testing with FICC and CME for customer-level arrangements.
• Documentation and Reporting: Maintain records demonstrating adherence to Rule 15c3-3 exemptions and notify customers of new margining options; monitor for CFTC parallel requirements on commingled funds.
• Legal/Compliance Review: Assess dual SEC/CFTC registration status and joint membership; consult with counsel on condition-specific interpretations.

What changed

• - Exemptive Order: Provides relief from the SEC's broker-dealer customer protection rule (Rule 15c3-3), permitting dually registered broker-dealer/FCMs that are joint clearing members of FICC and CME...
• Rule Change Approval: Approves FICC's filing to incorporate a Third Amended and Restated Cross-Margining Agreement with CME into its Government Securities Division rules, enabling cross-margining at...
• Scope Expansion: Shifts from prior restrictions where only clearing members could cross-margin, now extending to eligible customers of qualifying firms, with safeguards for customer fund segregation...