(a) The Board of Governors has been asked to consider whether the appointment by a member bank of an agent to sell the bank's money orders, at a location other than the premises of the bank, constitutes the establishment of a branch office.

(b) Section 5155 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 36), which is also applicable to member banks, defines the term branch as including “any branch bank, branch office, branch agency, additional office, or any branch place of business * * * at which deposits are received, or checks paid, or money lent.” The basic question is whether the sale of a bank's money orders by an agent amounts to the receipt of deposits at a branch place of business within the meaning of this statute.

(c) Money orders are classified as deposits for certain purposes. However, they bear a strong resemblance to traveler's checks that are issued by banks and sold off premises. In both cases, the purchaser does not intend to establish a deposit account in the bank, although a liability on the bank's part is created. Even though they result in a deposit liability, the Board is of the opinion that the issuance of a bank's money orders by an authorized agent does not involve the receipt of deposits at a “branch place of business” and accordingly does not require the Board's permission to establish a branch.

(a) As a result of broadened authority provided by the Government Securities Act Amendments of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 78o-3 and 78o-5), the Board is adopting sales practice rules for the government securities market, a market with a particularly broad institutional component. Accordingly, the Board believes it is appropriate to provide further guidance to banks on their suitability obligations when making recommendations to institutional customers.

(b) The Board's Suitability Rule, § 208.37(d), is fundamental to fair dealing and is intended to promote ethical sales practices and high standards of professional conduct. Banks' responsibilities include having a reasonable basis for recommending a particular security or strategy, as well as having reasonable grounds for believing the recommendation is suitable for the customer to whom it is made. Banks are expected to meet the same high standards of competence, professionalism, and good faith regardless of the financial circumstances of the customer.

(c) In recommending to a customer the purchase, sale, or exchange of any government security, the bank shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the customer upon the basis of the facts, if any, disclosed by the customer as to the customer's other security holdings and financial situation and needs.

(d) The interpretation in this section concerns only the manner in which a bank determines that a recommendation is suitable for a particular institutional customer. The manner in which a bank fulfills this suitability obligation will vary, depending on the nature of the customer and the specific transaction. Accordingly, the interpretation in this section deals only with guidance regarding how a bank may fulfill customer-specific suitability obligations under § 208.37(d). 8

8 The interpretation in this section does not address the obligation related to suitability that requires that a bank have”* * * a ‘reasonable basis’ to believe that the recommendation could be suitable for at least some customers.” In the Matter of the Application of F.J. Kaufman and Company of Virginia and Frederick J. Kaufman, Jr., 50 SEC 164 (1989).

(e) While it is difficult to define in advance the scope of a bank's suitability obligation with respect to a specific institutional customer transaction recommended by a bank, the Board has identified certain factors that may be relevant when considering compliance with § 208.37(d). These factors are not intended to be requirements or the only factors to be considered but are offered merely as guidance in determining the scope of a bank's suitability obligations.

(f) The two most important considerations in determining the scope of a bank's suitability obligations in making recommendations to an institutional customer are the customer's capability to evaluate investment risk independently and the extent to which the customer is exercising independent judgement in evaluating a bank's recommendation. A bank must determine, based on the information available to it, the customer's capability to evaluate investment risk. In some cases, the bank may conclude that the customer is not capable of making independent investment decisions in general. In other cases, the institutional customer may have general capability, but may not be able to understand a particular type of instrument or its risk. This is more likely to arise with relatively new types of instruments, or those with significantly different risk or volatility characteristics than other investments generally made by the institution. If a customer is either generally not capable of evaluating investment risk or lacks sufficient capability to evaluate the particular product, the scope of a bank's customer-specific obligations under § 208.37(d) would not be diminished by the fact that the bank was dealing with an institutional customer. On the other hand, the fact that a customer initially needed help understanding a potential investment need not necessarily imply that the customer did not ultimately develop an understanding and make an independent investment decision.

(g) A bank may conclude that a customer is exercising independent judgement if the customer's investment decision will be based on its own independent assessment of the opportunities and risks presented by a potential investment, market factors and other investment considerations. Where the bank has reasonable grounds for concluding that the institutional customer is making independent investment decisions and is capable of independently evaluating investment risk, then a bank's obligations under § 208.25(d) for a particular customer are fulfilled. 9 Where a customer has delegated decision-making authority to an agent, such as an investment advisor or a bank trust department, the interpretation in this section shall be applied to the agent.

9 See footnote 8 in paragraph (d) of this section.

(h) A determination of capability to evaluate investment risk independently will depend on an examination of the customer's capability to make its own investment decisions, including the resources available to the customer to make informed decisions. Relevant considerations could include:

(1) The use of one or more consultants, investment advisers, or bank trust departments;

(2) The general level of experience of the institutional customer in financial markets and specific experience with the type of instruments under consideration;

(3) The customer's ability to understand the economic features of the security involved;

(4) The customer's ability to independently evaluate how market developments would affect the security; and

(5) The complexity of the security or securities involved.

(i) A determination that a customer is making independent investment decisions will depend on the nature of the relationship that exists between the bank and the customer. Relevant considerations could include:

(1) Any written or oral understanding that exists between the bank and the customer regarding the nature of the relationship between the bank and the customer and the services to be rendered by the bank;

(2) The presence or absence of a pattern of acceptance of the bank's recommendations;

(3) The use by the customer of ideas, suggestions, market views and information obtained from other government securities brokers or dealers or market professionals, particularly those relating to the same type of securities; and

(4) The extent to which the bank has received from the customer current comprehensive portfolio information in connection with discussing recommended transactions or has not been provided important information regarding its portfolio or investment objectives.

(j) Banks are reminded that these factors are merely guidelines that will be utilized to determine whether a bank has fulfilled its suitability obligation with respect to a specific institutional customer transaction and that the inclusion or absence of any of these factors is not dispositive of the determination of suitability. Such a determination can only be made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of a particular bank/customer relationship, assessed in the context of a particular transaction.

(k) For purposes of the interpretation in this section, an institutional customer shall be any entity other than a natural person. In determining the applicability of the interpretation in this section to an institutional customer, the Board will consider the dollar value of the securities that the institutional customer has in its portfolio and/or under management. While the interpretation in this section is potentially applicable to any institutional customer, the guidance contained in this section is more appropriately applied to an institutional customer with at least $10 million invested in securities in the aggregate in its portfolio and/or under management.

[Reg. H, 63 FR 37658, July 13, 1998. Redesignated at 65 FR 14814, Mar. 20, 2000. Redesignated further at 65 FR 75841, Dec. 4, 2000. Redesignated further at 75 FR 44688, July 28, 2010; 75 FR 44692, July 28, 2010; 78 FR 62284, Oct. 11, 2013; 80 FR 70672, Nov. 16, 2015]

(a) Under section 9(13) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 330), a state member bank may “exercise all corporate powers granted it by the State in which it was created . . . except that the [Board] may limit the activities of State member banks and subsidiaries of State member banks in a manner consistent with section 24 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.” The Board interprets this provision as vesting the Board with the authority to prohibit or otherwise restrict state member banks and their subsidiaries from engaging as principal in any activity (including acquiring or retaining any investment) that is not permissible for a national bank, unless the activity is permissible for state banks by federal statute or under part 362 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) regulations, 12 CFR part 362. The Board reminds state member banks of the fundamental canon of federal banking law that activities are permissible for a national bank only if authority is provided under federal law, including the National Bank Act.

(b) The Board generally believes that the same bank activity, presenting the same risks, should be subject to the same regulatory framework, regardless of which agency supervises the bank. This principle of equal treatment helps to level the competitive playing field among banks with different charters and different federal supervisors and to mitigate the risks of regulatory arbitrage.

(c) In alignment with this principle, the Board generally presumes that it will exercise its discretion under section 9(13) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 330) to limit state member banks and their subsidiaries to engaging as principal in only those activities that are permissible for national banks—in each case, subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations placed on national banks with respect to the activity—unless those activities are permissible for state banks by federal statute or under 12 CFR part 362. For example, if the OCC conditions permissibility on a national bank demonstrating, to the satisfaction of its supervisory office, that the bank has controls in place to conduct the activity in a safe and sound manner, and receiving a written nonobjection from OCC supervisory staff before engaging in a particular activity, then the activity would not be permissible for a state member bank unless the bank makes the same demonstration and receives a written nonobjection from Federal Reserve supervisory staff before commencing such activity.

(d) If a state member bank or its subsidiary proposes to engage in an activity as principal that is not permissible for a national bank or for an insured state member bank under federal statute or part 362 of this title, the state member bank or subsidiary may not engage in the activity unless the bank has received the prior permission of the Board under § 208.3(d)(2). Under that provision, a state member bank may not, without the permission of the Board, change the general character of its business or the scope of the corporate powers it exercises at the time of its admission. In determining whether to grant permission to engage in an activity under § 208.3(d)(2), the Board will rebuttably presume that a state member bank and its subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging as principal in any activity that is impermissible for national banks, unless the activity is permissible for state banks under federal statute or part 362 of this title. This presumption may be rebutted if there is a clear and compelling rationale for the Board to allow the proposed deviation in regulatory treatment among federally supervised banks, and the state member bank has robust plans for managing the risks of the proposed activity in accordance with principles of safe and sound banking. Depending on the applicant and the activity, an application to the FDIC may also be required under section 24 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831a).

(e) This statement does not impact the legal obligation of insured state member banks to seek approval from the FDIC when required under section 24 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and part 362 of this title. As established under those provisions, insured state banks may not engage as principal in any type of activity that is not permissible for a national bank unless—(1) the FDIC has determined that the activity would pose no significant risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund; and (2) the state bank is, and continues to be, in compliance with applicable capital standards.

(f) The Board also reiterates to state member banks that legal permissibility is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to establish that a state member bank may engage in a particular activity. Under § 208.3(d)(1), a state member bank must at all times conduct its business and exercise its powers with due regard to safety and soundness. Under appendix D-1 of this part, at a minimum, a state member bank should have in place and implement internal controls and information systems that are appropriate for the nature, scope, and risks of its activities. Further, under § 208.3(d)(3), a state member bank must comply at all times with this part and conditions of membership prescribed by the Board; in addition, a state member bank must comply with other applicable laws and regulations, including those related to consumer compliance and anti-money laundering. With respect to any novel and unprecedented activities, appropriate systems to monitor and control risks, including liquidity, credit, market, operational, and compliance risks, are particularly important; Federal Reserve supervisors will expect banks to be able to explain and demonstrate an effective control environment related to such activities.

[Reg. H, 88 FR 7851, Feb. 7, 2023]