12 CFR 327.9 - Assessment pricing methods.

Status message

There is 1 rule appearing in the Federal Register for 12 CFR 327. View below or at eCFR (GPOAccess)
§ 327.9 Assessment pricing methods.
(a) Small institutions—
(1) Risk Categories. Each small insured depository institution shall be assigned to one of the following four Risk Categories based upon the institution's capital evaluation and supervisory evaluation as defined in this section.
(i) Risk Category I. Small institutions in Supervisory Group A that are Well Capitalized will be assigned to Risk Category I.
(ii) Risk Category II. Small institutions in Supervisory Group A that are Adequately Capitalized, and small institutions in Supervisory Group B that are either Well Capitalized or Adequately Capitalized will be assigned to Risk Category II.
(iii) Risk Category III. Small institutions in Supervisory Groups A and B that are Undercapitalized, and small institutions in Supervisory Group C that are Well Capitalized or Adequately Capitalized will be assigned to Risk Category III.
(iv) Risk Category IV. Small institutions in Supervisory Group C that are Undercapitalized will be assigned to Risk Category IV.
(2) Capital evaluations. Each small institution will receive one of the following three capital evaluations on the basis of data reported in the institution's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income or Thrift Financial Report (or successor report, as appropriate) dated as of March 31 for the assessment period beginning the preceding January 1; dated as of June 30 for the assessment period beginning the preceding April 1; dated as of September 30 for the assessment period beginning the preceding July 1; and dated as of December 31 for the assessment period beginning the preceding October 1.
(i) Well Capitalized. A Well Capitalized institution is one that satisfies each of the following capital ratio standards: Total risk-based ratio, 10.0 percent or greater; Tier 1 risk-based ratio, 6.0 percent or greater; and Tier 1 leverage ratio, 5.0 percent or greater.
(ii) Adequately Capitalized. An Adequately Capitalized institution is one that does not satisfy the standards of Well Capitalized under this paragraph but satisfies each of the following capital ratio standards: Total risk-based ratio, 8.0 percent or greater; Tier 1 risk-based ratio, 4.0 percent or greater; and Tier 1 leverage ratio, 4.0 percent or greater.
(iii) Undercapitalized. An undercapitalized institution is one that does not qualify as either Well Capitalized or Adequately Capitalized under paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(3) Supervisory evaluations. Each small institution will be assigned to one of three Supervisory Groups based on the Corporation's consideration of supervisory evaluations provided by the institution's primary federal regulator. The supervisory evaluations include the results of examination findings by the primary federal regulator, as well as other information that the primary federal regulator determines to be relevant. In addition, the Corporation will take into consideration such other information (such as state examination findings, as appropriate) as it determines to be relevant to the institution's financial condition and the risk posed to the Deposit Insurance Fund. The three Supervisory Groups are:
(i) Supervisory Group “A.” This Supervisory Group consists of financially sound institutions with only a few minor weaknesses;
(ii) Supervisory Group “B.” This Supervisory Group consists of institutions that demonstrate weaknesses which, if not corrected, could result in significant deterioration of the institution and increased risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund; and
(iii) Supervisory Group “C.” This Supervisory Group consists of institutions that pose a substantial probability of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund unless effective corrective action is taken.
(4) Financial ratios method. A small insured depository institution in Risk Category I shall have its initial base assessment rate determined using the financial ratios method.
(i) Under the financial ratios method, each of six financial ratios and a weighted average of CAMELS component ratings will be multiplied by a corresponding pricing multiplier. The sum of these products will be added to a uniform amount. The resulting sum shall equal the institution's initial base assessment rate; provided, however, that no institution's initial base assessment rate shall be less than the minimum initial base assessment rate in effect for Risk Category I institutions for that quarter nor greater than the maximum initial base assessment rate in effect for Risk Category I institutions for that quarter. An institution's initial base assessment rate, subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, as appropriate (resulting in the institution's total base assessment rate, which in no case can be lower than 50 percent of the institution's initial base assessment rate), and adjusted for the actual assessment rates set by the Board under § 327.10(f), will equal an institution's assessment rate. The six financial ratios are: Tier 1 Leverage Ratio; Loans past due 30-89 days/gross assets; Nonperforming assets/gross assets; Net loan charge-offs/gross assets; Net income before taxes/risk-weighted assets; and the Adjusted brokered deposit ratio. The ratios are defined in Table A.1 of Appendix A to this subpart. The ratios will be determined for an assessment period based upon information contained in an institution's report of condition filed as of the last day of the assessment period as set out in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The weighted average of CAMELS component ratings is created by multiplying each component by the following percentages and adding the products: Capital adequacy—25%, Asset quality—20%, Management—25%, Earnings—10%, Liquidity—10%, and Sensitivity to market risk—10%. The following table sets forth the initial values of the pricing multipliers:
Risk measures * Pricingmultipliers **
* Ratios are expressed as percentages.
** Multipliers are rounded to three decimal places.
Tier 1 Leverage Ratio (0.056)
Loans Past Due 30-89 Days/Gross Assets 0.575
Nonperforming Assets/Gross Assets 1.074
Net Loan Charge-Offs/Gross Assets 1.210
Net Income before Taxes/Risk-Weighted Assets (0.764)
Adjusted brokered deposit ratio 0.065
Weighted Average CAMELS Component Rating 1.095
(ii) The six financial ratios and the weighted average CAMELS component rating will be multiplied by the respective pricing multiplier, and the products will be summed. To this result will be added the uniform amount. The resulting sum shall equal the institution's initial base assessment rate; provided, however, that no institution's initial base assessment rate shall be less than the minimum initial base assessment rate in effect for Risk Category I institutions for that quarter nor greater than the maximum initial base assessment rate in effect for Risk Category I institutions for that quarter.
(iii) Uniform amount and pricing multipliers. Except as adjusted for the actual assessment rates set by the Board under § 327.10(f), the uniform amount shall be:
(A) 4.861 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(a) is in effect;
(B) 2.861 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(b) is in effect;
(C) 1.861 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(c) is in effect; or
(D) 0.861 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(d) is in effect.
(iv) Implementation of CAMELS rating changes—
(A) Changes between risk categories. If, during a quarter, a CAMELS composite rating change occurs that results in a Risk Category I institution moving from Risk Category I to Risk Category II, III or IV, the institution's initial base assessment rate for the portion of the quarter that it was in Risk Category I shall be determined using the supervisory ratings in effect before the change and the financial ratios as of the end of the quarter, subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, as appropriate, and adjusted for the actual assessment rates set by the Board under § 327.10(f). For the portion of the quarter that the institution was not in Risk Category I, the institution's initial base assessment rate, which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3), shall be determined under the assessment schedule for the appropriate Risk Category. If, during a quarter, a CAMELS composite rating change occurs that results in an institution moving from Risk Category II, III or IV to Risk Category I, then the financial ratios method shall apply for the portion of the quarter that it was in Risk Category I, subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (2) and (3) of this section, as appropriate, and adjusted for the actual assessment rates set by the Board under § 327.10(f). For the portion of the quarter that the institution was not in Risk Category I, the institution's initial base assessment rate, which shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3) of this section shall be determined under the assessment schedule for the appropriate Risk Category.
(B) Changes within Risk Category I. If, during a quarter, an institution's CAMELS component ratings change in a way that will change the institution's initial base assessment rate within Risk Category I, the initial base assessment rate for the period before the change shall be determined under the financial ratios method using the CAMELS component ratings in effect before the change, subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, as appropriate. Beginning on the date of the CAMELS component ratings change, the initial base assessment rate for the remainder of the quarter shall be determined using the CAMELS component ratings in effect after the change, again subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3) of this section, as appropriate.
(b) Large and Highly Complex institutions—
(1) Assessment scorecard for large institutions (other than highly complex institutions). (i) A large institution other than a highly complex institution shall have its initial base assessment rate determined using the scorecard for large institutions.
Scorecard for Large Institutions
Scorecard measures and components Measure weights(percent) Component weights(percent)
* Average of five quarter-end total assets (most recent and four prior quarters)
P Performance Score
P.1 Weighted Average CAMELS Rating 100 30
P.2 Ability to Withstand Asset-Related Stress 50
Tier 1 Leverage Ratio 10
Concentration Measure 35
Core Earnings/Average Quarter-End Total Assets * 20
Credit Quality Measure 35
P.3 Ability to Withstand Funding-Related Stress 20
Core Deposits/Total Liabilities 60
Balance Sheet Liquidity Ratio 40
L Loss Severity Score
L.1 Loss Severity Measure 100
(ii) The scorecard for large institutions produces two scores: performance score and loss severity score.
(A) Performance score for large institutions. The performance score for large institutions is a weighted average of the scores for three measures: the weighted average CAMELS rating score, weighted at 30 percent; the ability to withstand asset-related stress score, weighted at 50 percent; and the ability to withstand funding-related stress score, weighted at 20 percent.
(1) Weighted average CAMELS rating score.(i) To compute the weighted average CAMELS rating score, a weighted average of an institution's CAMELS component ratings is calculated using the following weights:
(ii) A weighted average CAMELS rating converts to a score that ranges from 25 to 100. A weighted average rating of 1 equals a score of 25 and a weighted average of 3.5 or greater equals a score of 100. Weighted average CAMELS ratings between 1 and 3.5 are assigned a score between 25 and 100. The score increases at an increasing rate as the weighted average CAMELS rating increases. Appendix B of this subpart describes the conversion of a weighted average CAMELS rating to a score.
(2) Ability to withstand asset-related stress score.(i) The ability to withstand asset-related stress score is a weighted average of the scores for four measures: Tier 1 leverage ratio; concentration measure; the ratio of core earnings to average quarter-end total assets; and the credit quality measure. Appendices A and C of this subpart define these measures.
(ii) The Tier 1 leverage ratio and the ratio of core earnings to average quarter-end total assets are described in appendix A and the method of calculating the scores is described in appendix C of this subpart.
(iii) The score for the concentration measure is the greater of the higher-risk assets to Tier 1 capital and reserves score or the growth-adjusted portfolio concentrations score. Both ratios are described in appendix C.
(iv) The score for the credit quality measure is the greater of the criticized and classified items to Tier 1 capital and reserves score or the underperforming assets to Tier 1 capital and reserves score.
(v) The following table shows the cutoff values and weights for the measures used to calculate the ability to withstand asset-related stress score. Appendix B of this subpart describes how each measure is converted to a score between 0 and 100 based upon the minimum and maximum cutoff values, where a score of 0 reflects the lowest risk and a score of 100 reflects the highest risk.
Cutoff Values and Weights for Measures To Calculate Ability To Withstand Asset-Related Stress Score
Measures of the ability to withstand asset-related stress Cutoff values Weights(percent)
Minimum(percent) Maximum(percent)
* Average of five quarter-end total assets (most recent and four prior quarters).
Tier 1 Leverage Ratio 6 13 10
Concentration Measure 35
Higher-Risk Assets to Tier 1 Capital and Reserves; or 0 135
Growth-Adjusted Portfolio Concentrations 4 56
Core Earnings/Average Quarter-End Total Assets * 0 2 20
Credit Quality Measure 35
Criticized and Classified Items/Tier 1 Capital and Reserves; or 7 100
Underperforming Assets/Tier 1 Capital and Reserves 2 35
(vi) The score for each measure in the table in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(2)(v) is multiplied by its respective weight and the resulting weighted score is summed to arrive at the score for an ability to withstand asset-related stress, which can range from 0 to 100, where a score of 0 reflects the lowest risk and a score of 100 reflects the highest risk.
(3) Ability to withstand funding-related stress score. Two measures are used to compute the ability to withstand funding-related stress score: a core deposits to total liabilities ratio, and a balance sheet liquidity ratio. Appendix A of this subpart describes these measures. Appendix B of this subpart describes how these measures are converted to a score between 0 and 100, where a score of 0 reflects the lowest risk and a score of 100 reflects the highest risk. The ability to withstand funding-related stress score is the weighted average of the scores for the two measures. In the following table, cutoff values and weights are used to derive an institution's ability to withstand funding-related stress score:
Cutoff Values and Weights To Calculate Ability To Withstand Funding-Related Stress Score
Measures of the ability to withstand funding-related stress Cutoff values Weights(percent)
Minimum(percent) Maximum(percent)
Core Deposits/Total Liabilities 5 87 60
Balance Sheet Liquidity Ratio 7 243 40
(4) Calculation of Performance Score. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A)(3), the scores for the weighted average CAMELS rating, the ability to withstand asset-related stress, and the ability to withstand funding-related stress are multiplied by their respective weights (30 percent, 50 percent and 20 percent, respectively) and the results are summed to arrive at the performance score. The performance score cannot be less than 0 or more than 100, where a score of 0 reflects the lowest risk and a score of 100 reflects the highest risk.
(B) Loss severity score. The loss severity score is based on a loss severity measure that is described in appendix D of this subpart. Appendix B also describes how the loss severity measure is converted to a score between 0 and 100. The loss severity score cannot be less than 0 or more than 100, where a score of 0 reflects the lowest risk and a score of 100 reflects the highest risk. Cutoff values for the loss severity measure are:
Cutoff Values To Calculate Loss Severity Score
Measure of loss severity Cutoff values
Minimum(percent) Maximum(percent)
Loss Severity 0 28
(C) Total Score. The performance and loss severity scores are combined to produce a total score. The loss severity score is converted into a loss severity factor that ranges from 0.8 (score of 5 or lower) to 1.2 (score of 85 or higher). Scores at or below the minimum cutoff of 5 receive a loss severity factor of 0.8, and scores at or above the maximum cutoff of 85 receive a loss severity factor of 1.2. The following linear interpolation converts loss severity scores between the cutoffs into a loss severity factor:
(Loss Severity Factor = 0.8 [0.005 * (Loss Severity Score − 5)].
The performance score is multiplied by the loss severity factor to produce a total score (total score = performance score * loss severity factor). The total score can be up to 20 percent higher or lower than the performance score but cannot be less than 30 or more than 90. The total score is subject to adjustment, up or down, by a maximum of 15 points, as set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The resulting total score after adjustment cannot be less than 30 or more than 90.
(D) Initial base assessment rate. A large institution with a total score of 30 pays the minimum initial base assessment rate and an institution with a total score of 90 pays the maximum initial base assessment rate. For total scores between 30 and 90, initial base assessment rates rise at an increasing rate as the total score increases, calculated according to the following formula:
where Rate is the initial base assessment rate (expressed in basis points), Maximum Rate is the maximum initial base assessment rate then in effect (expressed in basis points), and Minimum Rate is the minimum initial base assessment rate then in effect (expressed in basis points). Initial base assessment rates are subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3), (d)(1), (d)(2), of this section; large institutions that are not well capitalized or have a CAMELS composite rating of 3, 4 or 5 shall be subject to the adjustment at paragraph (d)(3); these adjustments shall result in the institution's total base assessment rate, which in no case can be lower than 50 percent of the institution's initial base assessment rate.
(2) Assessment scorecard for highly complex institutions.
(i) A highly complex institution shall have its initial base assessment rate determined using the scorecard for highly complex institutions.
Scorecard for Highly Complex Institutions
Measures and components Measure weights(percent) Component weights(percent)
P Performance Score
P.1 Weighted Average CAMELS Rating 100 30
P.2 Ability To Withstand Asset-Related Stress 50
Tier 1 Leverage Ratio 10
Concentration Measure 35
Core Earnings/Average Quarter-End Total Assets 20
Credit Quality Measure and Market Risk Measure 35
P.3 Ability To Withstand Funding-Related Stress 20
Core Deposits/Total Liabilities 50
Balance Sheet Liquidity Ratio 30
Average Short-Term Funding/Average Total Assets 20
L Loss Severity Score
L.1 Loss Severity 100
(ii) The scorecard for highly complex institutions produces two scores: performance and loss severity.
(A) Performance score for highly complex institutions. The performance score for highly complex institutions is the weighted average of the scores for three components: weighted average CAMELS rating, weighted at 30 percent; ability to withstand asset-related stress score, weighted at 50 percent; and ability to withstand funding-related stress score, weighted at 20 percent.
(1) Weighted average CAMELS rating score. (i) To compute the score for the weighted average CAMELS rating, a weighted average of an institution's CAMELS component ratings is calculated using the following weights:
(ii) A weighted average CAMELS rating converts to a score that ranges from 25 to 100. A weighted average rating of 1 equals a score of 25 and a weighted average of 3.5 or greater equals a score of 100. Weighted average CAMELS ratings between 1 and 3.5 are assigned a score between 25 and 100. The score increases at an increasing rate as the weighted average CAMELS rating increases. Appendix B of this subpart describes the conversion of a weighted average CAMELS rating to a score.
(2) Ability to withstand asset-related stress score. (i) The ability to withstand asset-related stress score is a weighted average of the scores for four measures: Tier 1 leverage ratio; concentration measure; ratio of core earnings to average quarter-end total assets; credit quality measure and market risk measure. Appendix A of this subpart describes these measures.
(ii) The Tier 1 leverage ratio and the ratio of core earnings to average quarter-end total assets are described in appendix A and the method of calculating the scores is described in appendix B of this subpart.
(iii) The score for the concentration measure for highly complex institutions is the greatest of the higher-risk assets to the sum of Tier 1 capital and reserves score, the top 20 counterparty exposure to the sum of Tier 1 capital and reserves score, or the largest counterparty exposure to the sum of Tier 1 capital and reserves score. Each ratio is described in appendix A of this subpart. The method used to convert the concentration measure into a score is described in appendix C of this subpart.
(iv) The credit quality score is the greater of the criticized and classified items to Tier 1 capital and reserves score or the underperforming assets to Tier 1 capital and reserves score. The market risk score is the weighted average of three scores—the trading revenue volatility to Tier 1 capital score, the market risk capital to Tier 1 capital score, and the level 3 trading assets to Tier 1 capital score. All of these ratios are described in appendix A of this subpart and the method of calculating the scores is described in appendix B. Each score is multiplied by its respective weight, and the resulting weighted score is summed to compute the score for the market risk measure. An overall weight of 35 percent is allocated between the scores for the credit quality measure and market risk measure. The allocation depends on the ratio of average trading assets to the sum of average securities, loans and trading assets (trading asset ratio) as follows:
(v) Weight for credit quality score = 35 percent * (1—trading asset ratio); and,
(vi) Weight for market risk score = 35 percent * trading asset ratio.
(vii) Each of the measures used to calculate the ability to withstand asset-related stress score is assigned the following cutoff values and weights:
Cutoff Values and Weights for Measures To Calculate the Ability To Withstand Asset-Related Stress Score
Measures of the ability to withstand asset-related stress Cutoff values Market risk measure(percent) Weights(percent)
Minimum(percent) Maximum(percent)
* Combined, the credit quality measure and the market risk measure are assigned a 35 percent weight. The relative weight of each of the two scores depends on the ratio of average trading assets to the sum of average securities, loans and trading assets (trading asset ratio).
Tier 1 Leverage Ratio 6 13 10.
Concentration Measure 35.
Higher Risk Assets/Tier 1 Capital and Reserves; 0 135
Top 20 Counterparty Exposure/Tier 1 Capital and Reserves; or 0 125
Largest Counterparty Exposure/Tier 1 Capital and Reserves 0 20
Core Earnings/Average Quarter-end Total Assets 0 2 20.
Credit Quality Measure * 35 * (1 − Trading Asset Ratio).
Criticized and Classified Items to Tier 1 Capital and Reserves; or 7 100
Underperforming Assets/Tier 1 Capital and Reserves 2 35
Market Risk Measure * 35 * Trading Asset Ratio.
Trading Revenue Volatility/Tier 1 Capital 0 2 60
Market Risk Capital/Tier 1 Capital 0 10 20
Level 3 Trading Assets/Tier 1 Capital 0 35 20
(viii) [Reserved]
(ix) The score of each measure is multiplied by its respective weight and the resulting weighted score is summed to compute the ability to withstand asset-related stress score, which can range from 0 to 100, where a score of 0 reflects the lowest risk and a score of 100 reflects the highest risk.
(3) Ability to withstand funding related stress score. Three measures are used to calculate the score for the ability to withstand funding-related stress: a core deposits to total liabilities ratio, a balance sheet liquidity ratio, and average short-term funding to average total assets ratio. Appendix A of this subpart describes these ratios. Appendix B of this subpart describes how each measure is converted to a score. The ability to withstand funding-related stress score is the weighted average of the scores for the three measures. In the following table, cutoff values and weights are used to derive an institution's ability to withstand funding-related stress score:
Cutoff Values and Weights To Calculate Ability To Withstand Funding-Related Stress Measures
Measures of the ability to withstand funding-related stress Cutoff values Weights(percent)
Minimum(percent) Maximum(percent)
Core Deposits/Total Liabilities 5 87 50
Balance Sheet Liquidity Ratio 7 243 30
Average Short-term Funding/Average Total Assets 2 19 20
(4) Calculation of Performance Score. The weighted average CAMELS score, the ability to withstand asset-related stress score, and the ability to withstand funding-related stress score are multiplied by their respective weights (30 percent, 50 percent and 20 percent, respectively) and the results are summed to arrive at the performance score, which cannot be less than 0 or more than 100.
(B) Loss severity score. The loss severity score is based on a loss severity measure described in appendix D of this subpart. Appendix B of this subpart also describes how the loss severity measure is converted to a score between 0 and 100. Cutoff values for the loss severity measure are:
Cutoff Values for Loss Severity Measure
Measure of loss severity Cutoff values
Minimum(percent) Maximum(percent)
Loss Severity 0 28
(C) Total Score. The performance and loss severity scores are combined to produce a total score. The loss severity score is converted into a loss severity factor that ranges from 0.8 (score of 5 or lower) to 1.2 (score of 85 or higher). Scores at or below the minimum cutoff of 5 receive a loss severity factor of 0.8, and scores at or above the maximum cutoff of 85 receive a loss severity factor of 1.2. The following linear interpolation converts loss severity scores between the cutoffs into a loss severity factor: (Loss Severity Factor = 0.8 [0.005 * (Loss Severity Score − 5)]. The performance score is multiplied by the loss severity factor to produce a total score (total score = performance score * loss severity factor). The total score can be up to 20 percent higher or lower than the performance score but cannot be less than 30 or more than 90. The total score is subject to adjustment, up or down, by a maximum of 15 points, as set forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The resulting total score after adjustment cannot be less than 30 or more than 90.
(D) Initial base assessment rate. A highly complex institution with a total score of 30 pays the minimum initial base assessment rate and an institution with a total score of 90 pays the maximum initial base assessment rate. For total scores between 30 and 90, initial base assessment rates rise at an increasing rate as the total score increases, calculated according to the following formula:
where Rate is the initial base assessment rate (expressed in basis points), Maximum Rate is the maximum initial base assessment rate then in effect (expressed in basis points), and Minimum Rate is the minimum initial base assessment rate then in effect (expressed in basis points). Initial base assessment rates are subject to adjustment pursuant to paragraphs (b)(3), (d)(1), and (d)(2) of this section; highly complex institutions that are not well capitalized or have a CAMELS composite rating of 3, 4 or 5 shall be subject to the adjustment at paragraph (d)(3); these adjustments shall result in the institution's total base assessment rate, which in no case can be lower than 50 percent of the institution's initial base assessment rate.
(3) Adjustment to total score for large institutions and highly complex institutions. The total score for large institutions and highly complex institutions is subject to adjustment, up or down, by a maximum of 15 points, based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the appropriate scorecard. In making such adjustments, the FDIC may consider such information as financial performance and condition information and other market or supervisory information. The FDIC will also consult with an institution's primary federal regulator and, for state chartered institutions, state banking supervisor.
(i) Prior notice of adjustments—
(A) Prior notice of upward adjustment. Prior to making any upward adjustment to an institution's total score because of considerations of additional risk information, the FDIC will formally notify the institution and its primary federal regulator and provide an opportunity to respond. This notification will include the reasons for the adjustment and when the adjustment will take effect.
(B) Prior notice of downward adjustment. Prior to making any downward adjustment to an institution's total score because of considerations of additional risk information, the FDIC will formally notify the institution's primary federal regulator and provide an opportunity to respond.
(ii) Determination whether to adjust upward; effective period of adjustment. After considering an institution's and the primary federal regulator's responses to the notice, the FDIC will determine whether the adjustment to an institution's total score is warranted, taking into account any revisions to scorecard measures, as well as any actions taken by the institution to address the FDIC's concerns described in the notice. The FDIC will evaluate the need for the adjustment each subsequent assessment period. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section, the amount of adjustment cannot exceed the proposed adjustment amount contained in the initial notice unless additional notice is provided so that the primary federal regulator and the institution may respond.
(iii) Determination whether to adjust downward; effective period of adjustment. After considering the primary federal regulator's responses to the notice, the FDIC will determine whether the adjustment to total score is warranted, taking into account any revisions to scorecard measures. Any downward adjustment in an institution's total score will remain in effect for subsequent assessment periods until the FDIC determines that an adjustment is no longer warranted. Downward adjustments will be made without notification to the institution. However, the FDIC will provide advance notice to an institution and its primary federal regulator and give them an opportunity to respond before removing a downward adjustment.
(iv) Adjustment without notice. Notwithstanding the notice provisions set forth above, the FDIC may change an institution's total score without advance notice under this paragraph, if the institution's supervisory ratings or the scorecard measures deteriorate.
(c) Insured branches of foreign banks—
(1) Risk categories for insured branches of foreign banks. Insured branches of foreign banks shall be assigned to risk categories as set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) Capital evaluations for insured branches of foreign banks. Each insured branch of a foreign bank will receive one of the following three capital evaluations on the basis of data reported in the institution's Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks dated as of March 31 for the assessment period beginning the preceding January 1; dated as of June 30 for the assessment period beginning the preceding April 1; dated as of September 30 for the assessment period beginning the preceding July 1; and dated as of December 31 for the assessment period beginning the preceding October 1.
(i) Well Capitalized. An insured branch of a foreign bank is Well Capitalized if the insured branch:
(A) Maintains the pledge of assets required under § 347.209 of this chapter; and
(B) Maintains the eligible assets prescribed under § 347.210 of this chapter at 108 percent or more of the average book value of the insured branch's third-party liabilities for the quarter ending on the report date specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(ii) Adequately Capitalized. An insured branch of a foreign bank is Adequately Capitalized if the insured branch:
(A) Maintains the pledge of assets required under § 347.209 of this chapter; and
(B) Maintains the eligible assets prescribed under § 347.210 of this chapter at 106 percent or more of the average book value of the insured branch's third-party liabilities for the quarter ending on the report date specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
(C) Does not meet the definition of a Well Capitalized insured branch of a foreign bank.
(iii) Undercapitalized. An insured branch of a foreign bank is undercapitalized institution if it does not qualify as either Well Capitalized or Adequately Capitalized under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(3) Supervisory evaluations for insured branches of foreign banks. Each insured branch of a foreign bank will be assigned to one of three supervisory groups as set forth in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(4) Assessment method for insured branches of foreign banks in Risk Category I. Insured branches of foreign banks in Risk Category I shall be assessed using the weighted average ROCA component rating.
(i) Weighted average ROCA component rating. The weighted average ROCA component rating shall equal the sum of the products that result from multiplying ROCA component ratings by the following percentages: Risk Management—35%, Operational Controls—25%, Compliance—25%, and Asset Quality—15%. The weighted average ROCA rating will be multiplied by 5.076 (which shall be the pricing multiplier). To this result will be added a uniform amount. The resulting sum—the initial base assessment rate—will equal an institution's total base assessment rate; provided, however, that no institution's total base assessment rate will be less than the minimum total base assessment rate in effect for Risk Category I institutions for that quarter nor greater than the maximum total base assessment rate in effect for Risk Category I institutions for that quarter.
(ii) Uniform amount. Except as adjusted for the actual assessment rates set by the Board under § 327.10(f), the uniform amount for all insured branches of foreign banks shall be:
(A) −3.127 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(a) is in effect;
(B) −5.127 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(b) is in effect;
(C) −-6.127 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(c) is in effect; or
(D) −7.127 whenever the assessment rate schedule set forth in § 327.10(d) is in effect.
(iii) Insured branches of foreign banks not subject to certain adjustments. No insured branch of a foreign bank in any risk category shall be subject to the adjustments in paragraphs (b)(3), (d)(1), or (d)(3) of this section.
(iv) Implementation of changes between Risk Categories for insured branches of foreign banks. If, during a quarter, a ROCA rating change occurs that results in an insured branch of a foreign bank moving from Risk Category I to Risk Category II, III or IV, the institution's initial base assessment rate for the portion of the quarter that it was in Risk Category I shall be determined using the weighted average ROCA component rating. For the portion of the quarter that the institution was not in Risk Category I, the institution's initial base assessment rate shall be determined under the assessment schedule for the appropriate Risk Category. If, during a quarter, a ROCA rating change occurs that results in an insured branch of a foreign bank moving from Risk Category II, III or IV to Risk Category I, the institution's assessment rate for the portion of the quarter that it was in Risk Category I shall equal the rate determined as provided using the weighted average ROCA component rating. For the portion of the quarter that the institution was not in Risk Category I, the institution's initial base assessment rate shall be determined under the assessment schedule for the appropriate Risk Category.
(v) Implementation of changes within Risk Category I for insured branches of foreign banks. If, during a quarter, an insured branch of a foreign bank remains in Risk Category I, but a ROCA component rating changes that will affect the institution's initial base assessment rate, separate assessment rates for the portion(s) of the quarter before and after the change(s) shall be determined under this paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(d) Adjustments—
(1) Unsecured debt adjustment to initial base assessment rate for all institutions. All institutions, except new institutions as provided under paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section and insured branches of foreign banks as provided under paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section, shall be subject to an adjustment of assessment rates for unsecured debt. Any unsecured debt adjustment shall be made after any adjustment under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(i) Application of unsecured debt adjustment. The unsecured debt adjustment shall be determined as the sum of the initial base assessment rate plus 40 basis points; that sum shall be multiplied by the ratio of an insured depository institution's long-term unsecured debt to its assessment base. The amount of the reduction in the assessment rate due to the adjustment is equal to the dollar amount of the adjustment divided by the amount of the assessment base.
(ii) Limitation— No unsecured debt adjustment for any institution shall exceed the lesser of 5 basis points or 50 percent of the institution's initial base assessment rate.
(iii) Applicable quarterly reports of condition— Unsecured debt adjustment ratios for any given quarter shall be calculated from quarterly reports of condition (Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income and Thrift Financial Reports, or any successor reports to either, as appropriate) filed by each institution as of the last day of the quarter.
(2) Depository institution debt adjustment to initial base assessment rate for all institutions. All institutions shall be subject to an adjustment of assessment rates for unsecured debt held that is issued by another depository institution. Any such depository institution debt adjustment shall be made after any adjustment under paragraphs (b)(3) and (d)(1) of this section.
(i) Application of depository institution debt adjustment. An insured depository institution shall pay a 50 basis point adjustment on the amount of unsecured debt it holds that was issued by another insured depository institution to the extent that such debt exceeds 3 percent of the institution's Tier 1 capital. The amount of long-term unsecured debt issued by another insured depository institution shall be calculated using the same valuation methodology used to calculate the amount of such debt for reporting on the asset side of the balance sheets.
(ii) Applicable quarterly reports of condition. Depository institution debt adjustment ratios for any given quarter shall be calculated from quarterly reports of condition (Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income and Thrift Financial Reports, or any successor reports to either, as appropriate) filed by each institution as of the last day of the quarter.
(3) Brokered Deposit Adjustment. All small institutions in Risk Categories II, III, and IV, all large institutions and all highly complex institutions, except large and highly complex institutions (including new large and new highly complex institutions) that are well capitalized and have a CAMELS composite rating of 1 or 2, shall be subject to an assessment rate adjustment for brokered deposits. Any such brokered deposit adjustment shall be made after any adjustment under paragraphs (b)(3), (d)(1), and (d)(2) of this section. The brokered deposit adjustment includes all brokered deposits as defined in Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831f), and 12 CFR 337.6, including reciprocal deposits as defined in § 327.8(p), and brokered deposits that consist of balances swept into an insured institution from another institution. The adjustment under this paragraph is limited to those institutions whose ratio of brokered deposits to domestic deposits is greater than 10 percent; asset growth rates do not affect the adjustment. Insured branches of foreign banks are not subject to the brokered deposit adjustment as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section.
(i) Application of brokered deposit adjustment. The brokered deposit adjustment shall be determined by multiplying 25 basis points by the ratio of the difference between an insured depository institution's brokered deposits and 10 percent of its domestic deposits to its assessment base.
(ii) Limitation. The maximum brokered deposit adjustment will be 10 basis points; the minimum brokered deposit adjustment will be 0.
(iii) Applicable quarterly reports of condition. Brokered deposit ratios for any given quarter shall be calculated from the quarterly reports of condition (Call Reports and Thrift Financial Reports, or any successor reports to either, as appropriate) filed by each institution as of the last day of the quarter.
(e) Request to be treated as a large institution—
(1) Procedure. Any institution with assets of between $5 billion and $10 billion may request that the FDIC determine its assessment rate as a large institution. The FDIC will consider such a request provided that it has sufficient information to do so. Any such request must be made to the FDIC's Division of Insurance and Research. Any approved change will become effective within one year from the date of the request. If an institution whose request has been granted subsequently reports assets of less than $5 billion in its report of condition for four consecutive quarters, the institution shall be deemed a small institution for assessment purposes.
(2) Time limit on subsequent request for alternate method. An institution whose request to be assessed as a large institution is granted by the FDIC shall not be eligible to request that it be assessed as a small institution for a period of three years from the first quarter in which its approved request to be assessed as a large institution became effective. Any request to be assessed as a small institution must be made to the FDIC's Division of Insurance and Research.
(3) An institution that disagrees with the FDIC's determination that it is a large, highly complex, or small institution may request review of that determination pursuant to § 327.4(c).
(f) New and established institutions and exceptions—
(1) New small institutions. A new small Risk Category I institution shall be assessed the Risk Category I maximum initial base assessment rate for the relevant assessment period. No new small institution in any risk category shall be subject to the unsecured debt adjustment as determined under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. All new small institutions in any Risk Category shall be subject to the depository institution debt adjustment as determined under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. All new small institutions in Risk Categories II, III, and IV shall be subject to the brokered deposit adjustment as determined under paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
(2) New large institutions and new highly complex institutions. All new large institutions and all new highly complex institutions shall be assessed under the appropriate method provided at paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section and subject to the adjustments provided at paragraphs (b)(3), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of this section. No new highly complex or large institutions are entitled to adjustment under paragraph (d)(1) of this section. If a large or highly complex institution has not yet received CAMELS ratings, it will be given a weighted CAMELS rating of 2 for assessment purposes until actual CAMELS ratings are assigned.
(3) CAMELS ratings for the surviving institution in a merger or consolidation. When an established institution merges with or consolidates into a new institution, if the FDIC determines the resulting institution to be an established institution under § 327.8(k)(1), its CAMELS ratings for assessment purposes will be based upon the established institution's ratings prior to the merger or consolidation until new ratings become available.
(4) Rate applicable to institutions subject to subsidiary or credit union exception. A small Risk Category I institution that is established under § 327.8(k)(4) or (5), but does not have CAMELS component ratings, shall be assessed at 2 basis points above the minimum initial base assessment rate applicable to Risk Category I institutions until it receives CAMELS component ratings. Thereafter, the assessment rate will be determined by annualizing, where appropriate, financial ratios obtained from all quarterly reports of condition that have been filed, until the institution files four quarterly reports of condition. If a large or highly complex institution is considered established under § 327.8(k)(4) or (5), but does not have CAMELS component ratings, it will be given a weighted CAMELS rating of 2 for assessment purposes until actual CAMELS ratings are assigned.
(5) Request for review. An institution that disagrees with the FDIC's determination that it is a new institution may request review of that determination pursuant to § 327.4(c).
(g) Assessment rates for bridge depository institutions and conservatorships. Institutions that are bridge depository institutions under 12 U.S.C. 1821(n) and institutions for which the Corporation has been appointed or serves as conservator shall, in all cases, be assessed at the Risk Category I minimum initial base assessment rate, which shall not be subject to adjustment under paragraphs (b)(3), (d)(1), (2) or (3) of this section.
[76 FR 10708, Feb. 25, 2011]

Title 12 published on 2014-01-01

The following are only the Rules published in the Federal Register after the published date of Title 12.

For a complete list of all Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices view the Rulemaking tab.

  • 2014-04-14; vol. 79 # 71 - Monday, April 14, 2014
    1. 79 FR 20754 - Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Implementation of Basel III, Capital Adequacy, Transition Provisions, Prompt Corrective Action, Standardized Approach for Risk-Weighted Assets, Market Discipline and Disclosure Requirements, Advanced Approaches Risk-Based Capital Rule, and Market Risk Capital Rule
      GPO FDSys XML | Text
      FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
      Final rule.
      Effective date: April 14, 2014. Mandatory compliance date: January 1, 2014 for advanced approaches FDIC-supervised institutions; January 1, 2015 for all other FDIC-supervised institutions.
      12 CFR Parts 303, 308, 324, 327, 333, 337, 347, 349, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 390, and 391

This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.

This list is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules provided by GPO [Government Printing Office].

It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the GPO site.


United States Code
Statutes at Large
Public Laws

Title 12 published on 2014-01-01

The following are ALL rules, proposed rules, and notices (chronologically) published in the Federal Register relating to 12 CFR 327 after this date.

  • 2014-04-14; vol. 79 # 71 - Monday, April 14, 2014
    1. 79 FR 20754 - Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Implementation of Basel III, Capital Adequacy, Transition Provisions, Prompt Corrective Action, Standardized Approach for Risk-Weighted Assets, Market Discipline and Disclosure Requirements, Advanced Approaches Risk-Based Capital Rule, and Market Risk Capital Rule
      GPO FDSys XML | Text
      FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
      Final rule.
      Effective date: April 14, 2014. Mandatory compliance date: January 1, 2014 for advanced approaches FDIC-supervised institutions; January 1, 2015 for all other FDIC-supervised institutions.
      12 CFR Parts 303, 308, 324, 327, 333, 337, 347, 349, 360, 362, 363, 364, 365, 390, and 391