
|
FDIC Federal Register Citations
[Federal Register: May 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 96)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28790-28804]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18my06-15]
=======================================================================
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 327
RIN-3064-AD03
Assessments
AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FDIC proposes to amend 12 CFR part 327 to make the deposit
insurance assessment system react more quickly and more accurately to
changes in institutions' risk profiles, and in so doing to eliminate
several causes for complaint by insured depository institutions. The
proposed revisions would provide for assessment collection after each
quarter ends, which would allow for consideration of more current
supervisory information. The computation of institutions' assessment
bases would change in the following ways: institutions with $300
million or more in assets would be required to determine their
assessment bases using average daily deposit balances, and the float
deduction used to determine the assessment base would be eliminated. In
addition, the rules governing assessments of institutions that go out
of business would be simplified; newly insured institutions would be
assessed for the assessment period they become insured; prepayment and
double payment options would be eliminated; institutions would have 90
days from each quarterly certified statement invoice to file requests
for review and requests for revision; the rules governing quarterly
certified statement invoices would be adjusted for a quarterly
assessment system and for a three-year retention period rather than the
present five-year period.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number by any of
the following methods:
Agency Web Site: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.
Follow instructions for submitting comments on
the Agency Web site.
E-mail: Comments@FDIC.gov. Include the RIN number in the
subject line of the message.
Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention:
Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20429.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard station at the rear of the
550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between
7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html
including any personal information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Munsell W. St. Clair, Senior Policy
Analyst, Division of Insurance and Research, (202) 898-8967; Donna M.
Saulnier, Senior Assessment Policy Specialist, Division of Finance,
(703)
[[Page 28791]]
562-6167; and Christopher Bellotto, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-
3801.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Prior to passage of the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of
2005 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Conforming Amendments Act
of 2005 (collectively, the Reform Act),\1\ the FDIC was statutorily
required to set assessments semiannually. The FDIC did so by setting
assessment rates and assigning institutions to risk classes prior to
each semiannual assessment period. The semiannual assessment was
collected in two installments, one near the start of the semiannual
period and the other three months into the period, so that, in
practice, assessment collection was accomplished prospectively every
quarter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, Public Law
109-171, 120 Stat. 9; Federal Deposit Insurance Conforming
Amendments Act of 2005, Pubic Law 109-173, 119 Stat. 3601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provisions in the Reform Act have removed longstanding restraints
on the format of the deposit insurance assessment system and granted
the FDIC discretion to revamp and improve the manner in which
assessments are determined and collected from insured depository
institutions. The FDIC has been vested with discretion to set
assessment rates, classify institutions for risk-based assessment
purposes and collect assessments within a system and on a schedule
designed to track more accurately the degree of risk to the deposit
insurance fund posed by depository institutions. The Reform Act also
eliminated any requirement that the assessment system be semiannual.
The risk-based system has been in operation for 13 years. The
FDIC's experience with that system and with approaches and arguments
made by institutions that have filed requests for review with the
FDIC's Division of Insurance and Research (DIR) and subsequent appeals
to the FDIC's Assessment Appeals Committee (AAC) have prompted some of
the present proposals to revise the FDIC's deposit insurance assessment
system. For example, many appeals to the AAC involved assertions by
insured institutions that the FDIC's system did not take into account
their improved condition quickly enough. The proposed changes to the
assessment system will enable the FDIC to make changes to an
institution's assessment rate closer in time to changes in the
institution's risk profile. The revisions will enhance the assessment
process for institutions and eliminate many of the bases for requests
for review filed with DIR by insured institutions as well as appeals
filed with the AAC. These proposals would become effective on January
1, 2007, except for the use of average daily assessment bases which may
be delayed pending appropriate changes to the reports of condition.
The amendments to the FDIC's operational processes governing
assessments affect 12 CFR 327.1 through 12 CFR 327.8.\2\ These sections
detail the procedures governing deposit insurance assessment and
collection as well as calculation of the assessment base; risk
differentiation and pricing of deposit insurance will be the subject of
a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Reform Act requires the FDIC, within 270 days of
enactment, to prescribe final regulations, after notice and
opportunity for comment, providing for assessments under section
7(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. See Section 2109(a)(5) of
the Reform Act. Section 2109 also requires the FDIC to prescribe,
within 270 days, rules on the designated reserve ratio, changes to
deposit insurance coverage, the one-time assessment credit, and
dividends. An interim final rule on deposit insurance coverage was
published on March 23, 2006. See 71 FR 14629. A notice of proposed
rulemaking on the one-assessment credit and a notice of proposed
rulemaking on dividends are both being considered by the Board of
Directors at the same time as this notice on operational changes to
part 327. Additional rulemakings on the designated reserve ratio and
risk-based assessments are expected to be proposed in the near
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Description of the Proposal
A. Collect Quarterly Assessments in Arrears
Under the present system assessments are collected from insured
institutions on a semiannual basis in two installments. The first
collection is made at the beginning of the semiannual period; the
second collection is made in the middle of the semiannual period.\3\
The FDIC proposes changing this approach to collect assessments in
arrears, that is, after the period being insured. The assessment for
each quarter would be due approximately at the end of the following
quarter, on the specified payment date.\4\ The charts below present a
comparison of the current and proposed processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In December of 1994, the FDIC modified the procedure for
collecting deposit insurance assessments, changing from semiannual
to quarterly collection.
\4\ Adjustments to prior period invoices will continue to be
reflected in invoices for later periods.
\5\ That is, the date of the report of condition on which the
assessment base is determined.
\6\ Under the existing process, December 30, 2006 is the
alternate payment date.
Quarterly Installment
|
Date of capital and
supervisory evaluation |
Assessment base5
|
Invoice date
|
Payment date
|
First Semiannual Period: January 1-June 30,
2007 |
1 |
September 30, 2006 |
September 30, 2006 |
December 15, 2006 |
January 2, 20076 |
2 |
September 30, 2006 |
December 31, 2007 |
March 15, 2007 |
March 30, 2007 |
Second Semiannual Period: July 1-December 31,
2007 |
1 |
March 31, 2007 |
March 31, 2007 |
June 15, 2007 |
June 30, 2007 |
2 |
March 31, 2007 |
June 30, 2007 |
September 15, 2007 |
September 30, 2007 |
Quarter |
Date of capital evaluation7 |
Assessment base8
|
Invoice date
|
Payment date
|
1 |
March 31, 2007 |
March 31, 2007 |
June 15, 2007 |
June 30, 2007 |
2 |
June 30, 2007 |
June 30, 2007 |
September 15, 2007 |
September 30, 2007 |
3 |
September 30, 2007 |
September 30, 2007 |
December 15, 2007 |
December 30, 2007 |
4 |
December 31, 2007 |
December 31, 2007 |
March 15, 2008 |
March 30, 2008 |
The FDIC proposes that the new rule take effect January 1, 2007.
The last deposit insurance collection under the present system (made on
September 30, 2006, in the middle of the semiannual period before the
new system becomes effective) would represent payment for insurance
coverage through December 31, 2006. The first deposit insurance
collection under the new system (made on June 30, 2007, at the end of
the second quarter under the new system) would represent payment for
insurance coverage from January 1 through March 31, 2007. No deposit
insurance assessments would be based upon September 30 or December 31,
2006 reported assessment bases. However, institutions would continue to
make the scheduled quarterly FICO payments on January 2 and March 30,
2007, using, respectively, these two reported assessment bases. No
changes to the way FICO payments are charged or collected are
proposed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The FDIC is proposing that supervisory rating changes would
become effective as they occur. In connection with rulemaking on
risk differentiation and assessment rates, the FDIC is contemplating
proposing that an institution's capital evaluation be determined
based upon information in its report of condition as of the last day
of each quarter.
\8\ That is, the date of the report of condition on which the
assessment base is determined.
\9\ Pursuant to statute and a memorandum of understanding with
the Financing Corporation (FICO), the FDIC collects FICO assessments
from insured depository institutions based upon quarterly report
dates. See 12 U.S.C. 1441(f)(2). FICO payments represent funds
remitted to FICO to ensure sufficient funding to distribute interest
payments for the outstanding FICO obligations. FICO collections will
continue during the transition period and will not be affected by
the FDIC's proposals. (The method for determining assessment bases
would change for institutions that report average daily assessment
bases, but the date of the assessment base on which FICO payments
are based would not change.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) will allow the FDIC
to estimate and recognize income in advance of receipt, which will
diminish any effect on the Deposit Insurance Fund reserve ratio in the
transition between systems.
Invoices would continue to be presented using FDICconnect, and
institutions would continue to be required to designate and fund
deposit accounts from which the FDIC could make direct debits. Invoices
would, as at present, be made available no later than 15 days prior to
the payment date on FDICconnect. However, the payment dates themselves,
in relation to the coverage period, would shift in keeping with the
proposal. Collections would be made at or near the end of the following
quarter (i.e., June 30, September 30, December 30, and March 30). In
this way, the proposed assessment system would synchronize the
insurance coverage period with the reporting dates and the
institutions' risk classifications.
The FDIC would set assessment rates for each risk classification no
later than 30 days before the date of the invoice for the quarter,
which would give the FDIC's Board of Directors the option of setting
rates before the beginning of a quarter or after its completion. For
example, the FDIC could set rates for the first quarter of the year in
December of the prior year (or earlier if it so chose) or any time up
to May 16 of the following year (30 days before the June 15 invoice
date). However, the FDIC would not necessarily need to continually
reconsider or update assessment rates. Once set, rates would remain in
effect until changed by the FDIC's Board. Institutions would have at
least 45 days notice of the applicable rates before assessment payments
are due.
The FDIC invites comment on whether to adopt the proposed system of
assessing in arrears or whether to keep the present assessment process
of collecting premiums in advance.
B. Ratings Changes Effective When the Change Occurs
An insured institution at present retains its supervisory and
capital group ratings throughout a semiannual period. Any change is
reflected in the next semiannual period; in this way, an examination
can remain the basis for an institution's assessment rating long after
newer information has become available. The FDIC proposes that any
changes to an institution's supervisory rating be reflected when the
change occurs.\10\ If an examination (or targeted examination) led to a
change in an institution's CAMELS composite rating that would affect
the institution's insurance risk classification, the institution's risk
classification would change as of the date the examination or targeted
examination began, if such a date existed.\11\ Otherwise, it would
change as of the date the institution was notified of its rating change
by its primary federal regulator (or state authority), assuming in
either case that the FDIC, after taking into account other information
that could affect the rating, agreed with the classification implied by
the examination, or it would change as of the date that the FDIC
determines that the change in the supervisory rating occurred.\12\ In
this way, assessments for prior quarters might increase or decrease if
an examination is started during a quarter but not completed until some
time after the quarter ends, which could result in institutions being
billed additional amounts for earlier quarters or refunded amounts
already paid for earlier quarters. Interest as provided at 12 CFR 327.7
would be charged on additional amounts billed and would be paid on any
amounts refunded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ As discussed in an earlier footnote, the FDIC is
contemplating proposing in another rulemaking that capital
evaluations be determined based upon information in reports of
condition as of the last day of the quarter. The FDIC is also
contemplating proposing that, as at present, the FDIC continue to
have the discretion to determine an institution's risk rating.
\11\ Small institutions generally have an examination start
date; very infrequently, however, a smaller bank's CAMELS rating can
change without an exam, or there may be no exam start date. Large
institutions, on the other hand--especially those with resident
examiners--often have no exam start date.
\12\ An examination that began before the proposed amendments
are implemented (i.e., before January 1, 2007) would be deemed to
have begun on the first day of the first assessment period subject
to the amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, an institution's primary federal regulator might begin
an examination of an institution one month into a quarter. If the
examination results in an upgrade to the institution's CAMELS composite
rating that would affect the institution's risk classification, the
institution would obtain the benefit of the improved risk rating for
the last two months of the quarter, rather than waiting until the next
period. In a similar situation, if the institution were downgraded, the
effect would be an increased assessment for the last two months.
The FDIC proposes that this new rule take effect January 1, 2007.
[[Page 28793]]
C. Minor Modifications to the Present Assessment Base
At present, an institution's assessment base is principally derived
from total domestic deposits. The current definition of the assessment
base is detailed in 12 CFR 327.5. Generally, the definition is deposit
liabilities as defined by section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act (FDI Act) (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)) with some adjustments. However,
because the total deposits that institutions report in their reports of
condition do not coincide with the section 3(l) definition,
institutions report several adjustments elsewhere in their reports of
condition; these adjustments are used to determine the assessment base.
For example, banks are specifically instructed to exclude
Uninvested Trust Funds from deposit liabilities as reported on Schedule
RC-E of their Reports of Income and Condition (Call Reports). However,
these funds are considered deposits as defined by section 3(l) and are
therefore included in the assessment base. Line item 3 on Schedule RC-O
of the Call Report was included to facilitate the reporting of these
funds. For this line item and for the many others, banks simply report
the amount of each item that was excluded from the RC-E calculation.
Other line items require the restoration of amounts that were netted
for reporting purposes on Schedule RC-E. For example, when banks were
instructed to file Call Reports in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP), they were permitted to offset deposit
liabilities against assets in certain circumstances. In order to comply
with the statutory definition of deposits, lines 12a and 12b were added
to Schedule RC-O to recapture those amounts.
The FDIC proposes retaining the current assessment base as applied
in practice with minor modifications. The definition would be reworded
in concert with a proposed simplification of the associated reporting
requirements on insured institutions' reports of condition.\13\ The
assessment base definition would continue to be deposit liabilities as
defined by section 3(l) of the FDI Act with enumerated allowable
adjustments. These adjustments would include drafts drawn on other
depository institutions, which meet the definition of deposits per
section 3(l) of the FDI Act but are specifically excluded from the
assessment base in section 7(a)(4) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C.
1817(a)(4)). Similarly, although depository institution investment
contracts meet the definition of deposits as defined by section 3(l),
they are presently excluded from the assessment base under section
327.5 and would continue to be excluded, as would pass through
reserves. Certain reciprocal bank balances would also be excluded.
Unposted debits and unposted credits would be excluded from the
definition of the assessment base for institutions that report average
daily balances because these debits and credits are captured in the
next day's deposits (and thus reflected in the averages). For
consistency and because they should not materially affect assessment
bases, unposted debits and unposted credits would be excluded from the
definition of the assessment base for institutions that report quarter
end balances. The FDIC, however, is concerned that excluding unposted
credits from the assessment base could lead to manipulation of
assessment bases by institutions that report quarter end balances and
requests comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ At present, 26 items are required in the Reports of
Condition and Income (Call Reports) to determine a bank's assessment
base and 11 items are required in the Thrift Financial Report (TFRs)
to determine a thrift's assessment base. The FDIC is contemplating
proposing changes to the way the assessment base is reported that
could reduce these items to as few as two. Essentially, instead of
starting with deposits as reported in the report of condition and
making adjustments, banks would start with a balance that
approximates the statutory definition of deposits. The FDIC believes
that this balance is typically found within most insured
institutions' deposit systems. In this way, institutions would be
required to track far fewer adjustments. In any case, this approach
should impose no additional burden on insured institutions since the
items required to be reported would remain essentially the same
under the revised regulatory definition. The changes to reporting
requirements should also allow institutions to report daily average
deposits more easily, since they will not have to track and average
adjustment items separately. As now, the Call Report and TFR
instructions would continue to specify the items required to meet
the requirements of section 3(l) for reporting purposes. The FDIC is
contemplating proposing that appropriate changes to reports of
condition become effective March 31, 2007, and will coordinate with
the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) on
the necessary changes to the reports of condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current definition of the assessment base as detailed in 12 CFR
327.5 has been driven by reporting requirements that have evolved over
time. These requirements have changed because of the evolving reporting
needs of all of the Federal regulators. As a result, the FDIC's
regulatory definition of the assessment base has required periodic
updates when reporting requirements in reports of condition are changed
for other purposes.\14\ By rewording the definition of the assessment
base to deposit liabilities as defined by section 3(l) of the FDI Act
with allowable exclusions, the FDIC will not be required to update its
regulation periodically in response to outside factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In fact, the regulatory definition has not kept pace with
these reporting changes. In practice, however, the assessment base
is calculated as if the regulatory definition had kept pace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC proposes that the new rule take effect on January 1, 2007.
The FDIC invites comment on whether this proposal should be adopted
or whether the current regulatory language and regulation should remain
in place.
D. Average Daily Deposit Balance for Institutions With Assets of $300
Million or More
Currently, an insured institution's assessment base is computed
using quarter-end deposit balances. Most schedules of the Call Report
and the TFR are based on quarter-end data, but there are drawbacks to
using quarter-end balances for assessment determinations. Under the
current system, deposits at quarter-end are used as a proxy for
deposits for an entire quarter, but balances on a single day in a
quarter may not accurately reflect an institution's typical deposit
level. For example, if an institution receives an unusually large
deposit at the end of a quarter and holds it only briefly, the
institution's assessment base and deposit insurance assessment may
increase disproportionately to the amount of deposits it typically
holds. A misdirected wire transfer received at the end of a quarter can
create a similar result. Using quarter-end balances creates incentives
to temporarily reduce deposit levels at the end of a quarter for the
sole purpose of avoiding assessments. Institutions of various sizes
have raised these issues with the FDIC.
Instead of using quarter-end deposits, therefore, the FDIC proposes
using average daily balances over the quarter, which should give a more
accurate depiction of an institution's deposits. This proposal, when
combined with the FDIC's previous proposals, will provide a more
realistic and timely depiction of actual events.
Institutions do not at present report average daily balances on
Call Reports and TFRs. Reporting average assessment bases will
therefore necessitate changes to Call Reports and TFRs requiring the
approval of the FFIEC and time to implement. Until these changes to the
Call Report and TFR are made, the FDIC proposes continuing to determine
[[Page 28794]]
assessment bases using quarter end balances.
In addition, for one year after the necessary changes to the Call
Report and TFR have been made, the FDIC proposes giving each existing
institution the option of using average balances to determine its
assessment base. Thereafter, institutions with $300 million or more in
assets would be required to report average daily balances. To avoid
burdening smaller institutions, which might have to modify their
accounting and reporting systems, existing institutions with less than
$300 million in assets would continue to be offered the option of using
average daily balances to determine their assessment bases.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In those instances where a parent bank or savings
association files its Call Report or TFR on a consolidated basis by
including a subsidiary bank(s) or savings association(s), all
institutions included in the consolidated reporting must file in the
same manner. For example, if the parent bank submits a consolidated
Call Report and must report daily averages on the Call Report, then
all subsidiary banks that have been consolidated must also report
daily averages on their respective Call Reports. Each institution's
daily averages must be determined separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If its assessment base were growing, a smaller institution would
pay smaller assessments if it reported daily averages rather than
quarter-end balances, all else equal. Nevertheless, a smaller
institution that elected to report quarter-end balances could continue
to do so, so long as its assets, as reported in its Call Report or TFR
did not equal or exceed $300 million in two consecutive reports.
Otherwise, the institution would be required to begin reporting average
daily balances for the quarter that begins six months after the end of
the quarter in which the institution reported that its assets equaled
or exceeded $300 million for the second consecutive time. An
institution with less than $300 million in assets would be allowed to
switch from reporting quarter-end balances to reporting average daily
balances for an upcoming quarter.
Any institution, once having begun to report average daily
balances, either voluntarily or because required to, would not be
allowed to switch back to reporting quarter-end balances. Any
institution that becomes insured after the necessary modifications to
the Call Report and TRF have been made would be required to report
average daily balances for assessment purposes.
E. Eliminate the Float Deduction
The largest overall adjustments to the current assessment base are
deductions for float, deposits reported as such for assessment purposes
that were created by deposits of cash items (checks) for which the
institution has not itself received credit or payment. These deductions
are currently a 16\2/3\ percent float deduction for demand deposits and
a 1 percent float deduction for time and savings deposits. Two basic
rationales exist for allowing institutions to deduct float. First,
without a float deduction, institutions would be assessed for balances
created by deposits of checks for which they had not actually been
paid. Second, crediting an uncollected cash item (a check) to a deposit
account can temporarily create double counting in the aggregate
assessment base--once at the institution that credited the cash item to
the deposit account, and again at the payee insured institution on
which the cash item is drawn. Deducting float from deposits when
calculating the assessment base reduces this double counting.
Before 1960, institutions computed actual float and deducted it
from deposits when computing their assessment bases. This proved to be
onerous at the time. In 1960, Congress by statute established the
standardized float deductions in an effort to simplify and streamline
the assessment-base calculation. Section 7(b) of the FDI Act defined
the deposit insurance assessment base until passage of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), which
removed the statutory definition. Since then, the FDIC's regulations
alone have defined the assessment base. The current definition, at 12
CFR 327.5, generally tracks the former statutory definition.
The basis for the percentages chosen by Congress is not clear. Even
if the percentages were a realistic approximation of average bank float
when they were selected over 40 years ago, legal, technological and
payment systems changes--such as Check 21--that have accelerated check
clearing should have reduced float, everything else equal, and made the
existing standard float deductions obsolete, at least in theory.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Congress enacted Check 21 on October 28, 2004. Check 21
allows banks to electronically transfer check images instead of
physically transferring paper checks. The Federal Reserve Board,
What You Should Know About Your Checks, http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/check21/shouldknow.htm
(updated Feb. 16,
2005). As a result, the transmission and processing of electronic
checks can be done faster than transferring paper checks through the
clearing process. A recent Federal Reserve payment survey indicates
that, for the first time, bank-to-bank electronic payments have
exceeded payments by check. Treasury and Risk Management, Just
Another Step Along the Way to a Checkless Economy, http://www.treasuryandrisk.com
, September 2005. With Check 21, the volume
of paper checks processed is expected to continue to decline with
more payments processed electronically resulting in a smaller float.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC does not collect information on actual float from
institutions. However, commercial banks and FDIC-supervised savings
banks that have $300 million or more in total assets or that have
foreign offices report an item on the Call Report called ``Cash items
in process of collection.'' This item appears to include actual float,
but includes other amounts as well.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For example, this item includes, among other things: (1)
redeemed United States savings bonds and food stamps; and (2)
brokers' security drafts and commodity or bill-of-lading drafts
payable immediately upon presentation in the U.S. The full Call
Report instructions for ``Cash items in process of collection'' are
included in Attachment A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash items in the process of collection as a percent of domestic
deposits for commercial banks with total assets greater than or equal
to $300 million has been decreasing. Over the long term, the ratio of
cash items to total domestic deposits has fallen significantly, as
Table 1 illustrates:
Table 1.--Ratio of Cash Items to Total Domestic Deposits\18
Year-end |
Cash items as a
percent of total domestic deposits |
1985 |
7.35 |
1990 |
5.19 |
1995 |
4.97 |
2000 |
4.18 |
2005 |
2.93 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FDIC proposes eliminating the float deductions on the grounds
that, based on available information, the standard float deductions
appear to be obsolete and arbitrary, actual float appears to be small
and decreasing as the result of legal, technological and payment
systems changes, and requiring institutions to calculate actual float
would appear to increase regulatory burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Table 1 includes all Call Report filers with $300 million
or more in assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminating the float deductions would favor some institutions over
others. Institutions with larger percentages of time and savings
deposits would see the least increase in their assessment bases;
conversely, those with large percentages of demand deposits would see
the greatest increases in their assessment bases. However, eliminating
the float deductions would only minimally affect the relative
distribution of the aggregate assessment base among institutions of
different asset sizes and between banks and thrifts (although it would
have a
[[Page 28795]]
greater effect on the assessment bases of some individual
institutions).\19\ While eliminating the float deductions would
increase assessment bases and affect the distribution of the assessment
burden among institutions, it should not, in itself, increase
assessments. The assessment rates that the FDIC will propose in the new
pricing system will take into account the elimination of the float
deduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Attachment B for further analysis of the effect of
eliminating the float deductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon available information, the FDIC proposes to eliminate
the float deduction, with the new rule taking effect January 1, 2007.
However, in light of the alternatives discussed below, the FDIC
believes that comment would be particularly helpful in evaluating this
proposal, especially on how much float remains, how accurate the
present float deductions are, and how burdensome calculation of actual
float would be. The FDIC invites comment on the following two
alternatives, as well as on the proposal to eliminate the float
deduction.
Deduct Actual Float
One alternative to eliminating the float deduction would be to
deduct actual float to determine the assessment base.\20\ While legal,
technological and payment systems changes that have accelerated check
clearing appear to have reduced float, there is evidence that actual
float has not been completely eliminated as indicated in Table 1 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ One possible basic definition of actual float would be
limited to the actual amount of cash items in process of collection:
(1) included in the assessment base; and (2) for which the
institution has not been paid. As soon as an institution received
payment or credit for a cash item, the item would no longer be
eligible for the float deduction. A variation on this definition
would limit float to cash items in process of collection: (1)
included in the assessment base; (2) due from another insured
depository institution, a clearinghouse, or the Federal Reserve
System; and (3) for which the institution has not been paid. A third
alternative would be similar to the second alternative except that
the actual amount of cash items in the process of collection would
have to be credited to customer deposit accounts. Other definitions
are possible and any definition adopted would probably be complex.
Comments are particularly sought on the definition that should be
used if actual float were deducted in determining the assessment
base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deducting actual float rather than the standard float deductions to
arrive at the assessment base would favor some institutions over other
institutions. Institutions with float percentages on demand deposits
that exceed 16\2/3\ percent would have a larger assessment base
deduction than they currently have. Institutions with float percentages
on demand deposits less than 16\2/3\ percent would have a smaller
assessment base deduction than they currently have.
The smallest banks (and all savings associations, which file TFRs)
do not report cash items in process of collection separately. All other
banks separately report cash items in process of collection, and among
these banks the assessment bases of medium-sized banks would, as a
whole, increase by the greatest percentage if institutions deducted
actual float rather than 16\2/3\ percent. It appears unlikely that
using actual float would result in a major change in the relative
distribution of the aggregate assessment base among institutions of
different sizes, at least among the medium to largest institutions.
However, the FDIC has no proxy for actual float at smaller banks or for
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) supervised savings institutions of
any size, and thus cannot estimate the distributional effects on these
institutions as a group.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Attachment B for further analysis of the effect of
deducting actual float.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deducting actual float rather than the standard float deductions to
arrive at the assessment base would require that institutions report
actual float. Institutions that determine their assessment base using
average daily balances would be required to report average daily float.
This would necessitate a new information requirement for float
data.\22\ Before 1960, institutions computed actual float and deducted
it from deposits when computing their assessment bases. Because this
proved to be onerous at one time, Congress established the standardized
float deductions by statute. Asking institutions to again report actual
float could create significant regulatory burden. In addition, if
actual float were deducted, institutions that report their assessment
bases using average daily balances would be required to report their
float deduction the same way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ The Call Report item ``Cash items in process of
collection'' could not be used to determine the actual float
deduction for individual institutions. Because ``Cash items in
process of collection'' contains items other than float, it may
overstate actual float. For a few institutions, ``Cash items in
process of collection,'' exceeds the institutions' assessment bases.
(These institutions' ``Cash items'' are not included in the
approximation of actual float in the text.) Conversely, given the
small size of the ``Cash items in process of collection'' reported
by many institutions, this item may understate float at some
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retain the Existing Float Deduction
The FDIC considered retaining the current float deduction. The
current deduction has largely been in place for over 40 years and is
well known. This option would impose no conversion costs and would
neither increase nor decrease record keeping or reporting costs at
present.\23\ Current standardized float deductions, however, probably
do not reflect real float for most institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For assessment base reporting, the FDIC would need to
retain a breakout of demand deposits and time and savings deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Modify the Terminating Transfer Rule
At present, complex rules apply to terminating transfers \24\ to
ensure that the assessment of a terminating institution is paid.
Determining and collecting assessments after the end of each quarter
and using average daily assessment bases make these complex rules
obsolete and unnecessary. An acquiring institution (or institutions)
would remain liable for the assessment owed by a terminating
institution, but the assessment base of the disappearing institution
would be zero for the remainder of the quarter after the terminating
transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Generally speaking, a terminating transfer occurs when an
institution assumes another institution's liability for deposits--
often through merger or consolidation--when the terminating
institution essentially goes out of business. Neither the assumption
of liability for deposits from the estate of a failed institution
nor a transaction in which the FDIC contributes its own resources in
order to induce a surviving institution to assume liabilities of a
terminating institution is a terminating transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed terminating transfer provision would deal with a few
remaining situations. When a terminating transfer occurs, if the
terminating institution does not file a report of condition for the
quarter in which the terminating transfer occurred or for the prior
quarter, calculation of its quarterly certified statement invoices for
those quarters would be based on its assessment base from its most
recently filed report of condition. For the quarter before the
terminating transfer occurred, the acquired institution's assessment
premium would be determined using its rate, but for the quarter in
which the terminating transfer occurs, the acquired institution's
assessment premium would be pro rated according to the portion of the
quarter in which it existed and assessed at the rate of the acquiring
institution.
Under the proposal, once institutions begin reporting average daily
deposits, the average assessment base of the acquiring institution will
properly reflect the terminating transfer and will increase after the
terminating transfer. For an acquiring institution that does not report
average daily deposits, however, the FDIC proposes that its assessment
base as reported at the end of the quarter be reduced to reflect that
[[Page 28796]]
the acquiring institution did not hold the acquired institution's
assessment base for the full quarter. Thus, for example, an institution
that reports end-of-quarter balances might acquire another institution
by merger one month (one-third of the way) into a quarter. In that
case, the acquiring institution's assessment base for that quarter
would be decreased by one-third of the acquired institution's
assessment base.
The FDIC proposes that this rule become effective January 1, 2007.
G. Assess Newly Insured Institutions for the Quarter They Become
Insured
At present, a newly insured institution is not liable for
assessments for the semiannual period in which it becomes insured, but
is liable for assessments for the following semiannual period. The
institution's assessment base as of the day before the following
semiannual period begins is deemed to be its assessment base for the
entire semiannual period. These special rules are needed because, at
present, assessments are based upon assessment bases that an
institution has reported in the past. A newly insured institution
reports an assessment base at the end of the quarter in which it
becomes insured but that assessment base is not used to calculate its
assessment until the following semiannual period. Further, if an
institution becomes insured in the second half of a semiannual period,
it will have no reported assessment base on which to calculate the
first installment of its premium for the next semiannual period.
Under the FDIC's proposals, each quarterly assessment will be based
upon the assessment base that an institution reports at the end of that
quarter. Thus, a newly insured institution will have reported an
assessment base for the quarter in which it becomes insured and the
special assessment rules for newly insured institutions will no longer
be needed.
The FDIC proposes that the special assessment rules for newly
chartered institutions be eliminated, that the normal rules for
determining assessment bases apply to newly chartered institutions and
that these new rules go into effect January 1, 2007.
H. Allow 90 Days Each Quarter To File a Request for Review or Request
for Revision
The current deadline for an institution to request a review of its
assessment risk classification is 90 days from the invoice date for the
first quarterly installment of a semiannual period. Under the FDIC's
proposal, each quarterly assessment will be separately computed in the
future. Consequently, a conforming change is needed to the rules for
requesting review, so that institutions would have 90 days from the
date of each quarterly certified statement invoice to file a request
for review. Institutions would also have 90 days from the date of any
subsequent invoice that adjusted the assessment of an earlier
assessment period to request a review.
A parallel amendment would be made so that requests for revision of
an institution's quarterly assessment payment computation would be made
within 90 days of the quarterly assessment invoice for which revision
is requested (rather than the present 60 days).
The FDIC proposes that these amendments go into effect January 1,
2007.
I. Conforming Changes to the Certified Statement Rules
The Reform Act eliminated the requirement that the deposit
insurance assessment system be semiannual and provided a new three-year
statute of limitations for assessments. Accordingly, the FDIC proposes
to revise the provisions of 12 CFR 327.2 to clarify that the certified
statement is the quarterly certified statement invoice and to provide
for the retention of the quarterly certified statement invoice by
insured institutions for three years, rather than five years under the
prior law.
The FDIC proposes that these amendments take effect January 1,
2007.
J. Eliminate the Prepayment and Double Payment Options
When the present assessment system was proposed more than 10 years
ago, the original quarterly dates for payment of assessments were:
March 30, June 30, September 30, and December 30. The FDIC recognized
that the December 1995 collection date could present a one-time problem
for institutions using cash-basis accounting, since these institutions
would, in effect, be paying assessments for five quarters in 1995. The
FDIC believed that few institutions would be adversely affected. Soon
after the new system was adopted, however, the FDIC began to receive
information that more institutions than had originally been identified
would be adversely affected by the December collection date. As a
result, the FDIC amended the regulation in 1995 to move the collection
date to January 2, but allowed institutions to elect to pay on December
30, thus establishing the prepayment date.
The FDIC proposes eliminating the prepayment option. With
implementation of the revamped assessment system, a transition period
will be created in which institutions will not be subject to deposit
insurance assessment premiums after the September 30, 2006 payment date
until June 30, 2007. Consequently, reestablishing the original December
30 payment date should have no adverse consequences for institutions
that use cash-basis accounting. No institution would make more than
four insurance payments in calendar year 2006; those using the December
30, 2005 payment date would make only three payments in 2006. All
institutions would make four payments annually thereafter. This change
will keep all assessment payments within each calendar year.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ The allowance for payment on the following business day--
should January 2 fall on a non-business day--will be eliminated as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, insured institutions presently have the regulatory
option of making double payments on any payment date except January 2.
Under the proposed system, this option would also be eliminated. The
double payment option has its origins in the 1995 amendment, when the
payment date was modified from December 30, 1995 to January 2, 1996.
The double payment option was adopted to provide cash basis
institutions the opportunity to pay the full amount of their semiannual
assessment premium on December 30 so as to have the complete benefit of
this modification. The transition period from September 30, 2006 to
June 30, 2007 and four payments annually beginning in 2007 should
eliminate the need for the double payment option. Moreover, the FDIC
will no longer be charging semiannual premiums.
The FDIC proposes that these amendments take effect January 1,
2007. Comment from interested parties is elicited on the elimination of
the prepayment and double payment options.
III. Regulatory Analysis and Procedure
A. Solicitation of Comments on Use of Plain Language
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public Law 106-102, 113
Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the Federal banking agencies
to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after
January 1, 2000. We invite your comments on how to make this proposal
easier to understand. For example:
Have we organized the material to suit your needs? If not,
how could this material be better organized?
[[Page 28797]]
Are the requirements in the proposed regulation clearly
stated? If not, how could the regulation be more clearly stated?
Does the proposed regulation contain language or jargon
that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to
understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the regulation
easier to understand?
What else could we do to make the regulation easier to
understand?
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal
agency either certify that a proposed rule would not, if adopted in
final form, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities or prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
of the proposal and publish the analysis for comment. See 5 U.S.C. 603,
604, 605. Certain types of rules, such as rules of particular
applicability relating to rates or corporate or financial structures,
or practices relating to such rates or structures, are expressly
excluded from the definition of ``rule'' for purposes of the RFA. 5
U.S.C. 601. The proposed rule provides operational procedures governing
assessments and relates directly to the rates imposed on insured
depository institutions for deposit insurance, by providing for the
determination of assessment bases to which the rates will apply.
Consequently, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
Moreover, if adopted in final form, the proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
institutions within the meaning of those terms as used in the RFA. The
proposed rule would provide the operational format for the FDIC's
assessment system for the collection of deposit insurance assessments.
Most of the processes within this proposed regulation are analogous to
existing FDIC assessment processes; variances occur largely in timing,
not in the processes themselves; no additional reporting requirements
or record retention requirements are created by the proposed rules.
The provisions dealing with determining assessment bases using
average daily balances include an opt-out for insured institutions with
assets of less than $300 million, which would permit small institutions
under the RFA (i.e., those with $165 million or less in assets) to
continue (as they do now) reporting quarter end balances. Newly insured
institutions with $165 million or less in assets, however, would be
required to report average daily balances. Most small, newly insured
institutions (for the period from 2001 through 2005, the average number
of small institutions that became insured each year was approximately
126) will ordinarily implement systems permitting calculation of
average daily balances and therefore will not be significantly burdened
by this requirement.
Similarly, elimination of the float deduction in calculating
assessment bases would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small ($165 million in assets or less) insured
depository institutions within the meaning of the RFA. Based on
December 31, 2005 reports of condition, small institutions represented
5.09 percent of the total assessment base, with large institutions
(i.e., those with more than $165 million in assets) representing 94.91
percent. Without the existing float deduction, those percentages would
have been 5.14 and 94.86, respectively, a change of only .05 percent.
By way of example, if a flat 2 basis point annual charge had been
assessed on the December 31, 2005 assessment base without the float
deduction (i.e., with the float deduction added back to the assessment
base), the amount collected would have been approximately $1.267
billion. To collect the same amount from the industry on the same
assessment base, but allowing the float deduction, approximately a 2.05
basis point charge would have been required, since the assessment base
would have been smaller. The average difference in assessment charged a
small institution for one year if the float deduction were eliminated
(charging 2 basis points) versus allowing the float deduction (charging
2.05 basis points) would be about $110. The actual increase in
assessments charged small institutions for one year if the float
deduction were eliminated (charging 2 basis points) versus allowing the
float deduction (charging 2.05 basis points) would be greater than or
equal to $1,000 for only 38 out of 5,362 small institutions.\26\ The
largest resulting increase for any small institution would be about
$2,500. In addition, the actual amount collected would in many cases be
reduced by one-time credit use while these credits last. Accordingly,
pursuant to section 605 of the RFA, the FDIC is not required to do an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Of the 8,832 insured depository institutions, there were
5,362 small insured depository institutions (i.e., those with $165
million or less in assets) as of December 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters are invited to provide the FDIC with any information
they may have about the likely quantitative effects of the proposal on
small insured depository institutions.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) are contained in the proposed rule. Any
paperwork created as the result of the conversion to reporting average
daily assessment balances will be submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval as an adjustment to the
Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (call reports), an
existing collection of information approved by OMB under Control No.
3064-0052.
D. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999--
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
The FDIC has determined that the proposed rule will not affect
family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999
(Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 327
Bank deposit insurance, Banks, banking, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the FDIC proposes to
amend chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 327--ASSESSMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 327 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1441, 1813, 1815, 1817-1819, 1821; Sec.
2101-2109, Pub. L. 109-171, 120 Stat. 9-21 , and Sec. 3, Pub. L.
109-173, 119 Stat. 3605.
2. Revise Sec. Sec. 327.1 through 327.8 of Subpart A to read as
follows:
Sec. 327.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) Scope. This part 327 applies to any insured depository
institution, including any insured branch of a foreign bank.
(b) Purpose. (1) Except as specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, this part 327 sets forth the rules for:
(i) The time and manner of filing certified statements by insured
depository institutions;
(ii) The time and manner of payment of assessments by such
institutions; and
[[Page 28798]]
(iii) The payment of assessments by depository institutions whose
insured status has terminated.
(2) Deductions from the assessment base of an insured branch of a
foreign bank are stated in subpart B part 347 of this chapter.
Sec. 327.2 Certified statements.
(a) Required. (1) The certified statement shall also be known as
the quarterly certified statement invoice. Each insured depository
institution shall file and certify its quarterly certified statement
invoice in the manner and form set forth in this section.
(2) The quarterly certified statement invoice shall reflect the
institution's assessment base, assessment computation, and assessment
amount, for each quarterly assessment period.
(b) Availability and access. (1) The Corporation shall make
available to each insured depository institution via the FDIC's e-
business Web site FDICconnect a quarterly certified statement invoice
each assessment period.
(2) Insured depository institutions shall access their quarterly
certified statement invoices via FDICconnect, unless the FDIC provides
notice to insured depository institutions of a successor system. In the
event of a contingency, the FDIC may employ an alternative means of
delivering the quarterly certified statement invoices. A quarterly
certified statement invoice delivered by any alternative means will be
treated as if it had been downloaded from FDICconnect.
(3) Institutions that do not have Internet access may request a
renewable one-year exemption from the requirement that quarterly
certified statement invoices be accessed through FDICconnect. Any
exemption request must be submitted in writing to the Chief of the
Assessments Section.
(4) Each assessment period, the FDIC will provide courtesy e-mail
notification to insured depository institutions indicating that new
quarterly certified statement invoices are available and may be
accessed on FDICconnect. E-mail notification will be sent to all
individuals with FDICconnect access to quarterly certified statement
invoices.
(5) E-mail notification may be used by the FDIC to communicate with
insured depository institutions regarding quarterly certified statement
invoices and other assessment-related matters.
(c) Review by institution. The president of each insured depository
institution, or such other officer as the institution's president or
board of directors or trustees may designate, shall review the
information shown on each quarterly certified statement invoice.
(d) Retention by institution. If the appropriate officer of the
insured depository institution agrees that to the best of his or her
knowledge and belief the information shown on the quarterly certified
statement invoice is true, correct and complete and in accordance with
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the regulations issued under it,
the institution shall pay the amount specified on the quarterly
certified statement invoice and shall retain it in the institution's
files for three years as specified in section 7(b)(4) of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act.
(e) Amendment by institution. If the appropriate officer of the
insured depository institution determines that to the best of his or
her knowledge and belief the information shown on the quarterly
certified statement invoice is not true, correct and complete and in
accordance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the regulations
issued under it, the institution shall pay the amount specified on the
quarterly certified statement invoice, and may:
(1) Amend its Report of Condition, or other similar report, to
correct any data believed to be inaccurate on the quarterly certified
statement invoice; amendments to such reports timely filed under
section 7(g) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act but not permitted to
be made by an institution's primary Federal regulator may be filed with
the FDIC for consideration in determining deposit insurance
assessments; or
(2) Amend and sign its quarterly certified statement invoice to
correct a calculation believed to be inaccurate and return it to the
FDIC by the applicable payment date specified in Sec. 327.3(c).
(f) Certification. Data used by the Corporation to complete the
quarterly certified statement invoice has been previously attested to
by the institution in its Reports of Condition, or other similar
reports, filed with the institution's primary Federal regulator. When
an insured institution pays the amount shown on the quarterly certified
statement invoice and does not correct that invoice as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section, the information on that invoice shall be
deemed true, correct, complete, and certified for purposes of paragraph
(a) of this section and section 7(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Act.
(g) Requests for revision of assessment computation. (1) The timely
filing of an amended Report of Condition or other similar report, or an
amended quarterly certified statement invoice, that will result in a
change to deposit insurance assessments owed or paid by an insured
depository institution shall be treated as a timely filed request for
revision of computation of quarterly assessment payment under Sec.
327.3(f).
(2) The rate multiplier on the quarterly certified statement
invoice shall be amended only if it is inconsistent with the assessment
risk classification assigned to the institution by the Corporation for
the assessment period in question pursuant to Sec. 327.4(a). Agreement
with the rate multiplier shall not be deemed to constitute agreement
with the assessment risk classification assigned.
Sec. 327.3 Payment of assessments.
(a) Required--(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (b)
of this section, each insured depository institution shall pay to the
Corporation for each assessment period an assessment determined in
accordance with this part 327.
(2) Notice of designated deposit account. For the purpose of making
such payments, each insured depository institution shall designate a
deposit account for direct debit by the Corporation. No later than 30
days prior to the next payment date specified in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, each institution shall provide written notice to the
Corporation of the account designated, including all information and
authorizations needed by the Corporation for direct debit of the
account. After the initial notice of the designated account, no further
notice is required unless the institution designates a different
account for assessment debit by the Corporation, in which case the
requirements of the preceding sentence apply.
(b) Assessment payment--(1) Quarterly certified statement invoice.
Starting with the first assessment period of 2007, no later than 15
days prior to the payment date specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, the Corporation will provide to each insured depository
institution a quarterly certified statement invoice showing the amount
of the assessment payment due from the institution for the prior
quarter (net of credits or dividends, if any), and the computation of
that amount. Subject to paragraph (e) of this section, the invoiced
amount on the quarterly certified statement invoice shall be the
product of the following: The assessment base of the institution for
the prior quarter computed in accordance with Sec. 327.5 multiplied by
the institution's rate for that prior quarter as assigned to the
institution pursuant to Sec. Sec. 327.4(a) and 327.9.
[[Page 28799]]
(2) Quarterly payment date and manner. The Corporation will cause
the amount stated in the applicable quarterly certified statement
invoice to be directly debited on the appropriate payment date from the
deposit account designated by the insured depository institution for
that purpose, as follows:
(i) In the case of the assessment payment for the quarter that
begins on January 1, the payment date is the following June 30;
(ii) In the case of the assessment payment for the quarter that
begins on April 1, the payment date is the following September 30;
(iii) In the case of the assessment payment for the quarter that
begins on July 1, the payment date is the following December 30; and
(iv) In the case of the assessment payment for the quarter that
begins on October 1, the payment date is the following March 30.
(c) Necessary action, sufficient funding by institution. Each
insured depository institution shall take all actions necessary to
allow the Corporation to debit assessments from the insured depository
institution's designated deposit account. Each insured depository
institution shall, prior to each payment date indicated in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section, ensure that funds in an amount at least equal
to the amount on the quarterly certified statement invoice are
available in the designated account for direct debit by the
Corporation. Failure to take any such action or to provide such funding
of the account shall be deemed to constitute nonpayment of the
assessment.
(d) Business days. If a payment date specified in paragraph (b)(2)
falls on a date that is not a business day, the applicable date shall
be the previous business day.
(e) Payment adjustments in succeeding quarters. Quarterly certified
statement invoices provided by the Corporation may reflect adjustments,
initiated by the Corporation or an institution, resulting from such
factors as amendments to prior quarterly reports of condition,
retroactive revision of the institution's assessment risk
classification, and revision of the Corporation's assessment
computations for prior quarters.
(f) Request for revision of computation of quarterly assessment
payment.
(1) In general. An institution may submit a written request for
revision of the computation of the institution's quarterly assessment
payment as shown on the quarterly certified statement invoice in the
following circumstances:
(i) The institution disagrees with the computation of the
assessment base as stated on the quarterly certified statement invoice;
(ii) The institution determines that the rate multiplier applied by
the Corporation is inconsistent with the assessment risk classification
assigned to the institution in writing by the Corporation for the
assessment period for which the payment is due; or
(iii) The institution believes that the quarterly certified
statement invoice does not fully or accurately reflect adjustments
provided for in paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Inapplicability. This paragraph (f) is not applicable to
requests for review of an institution's assessment risk classification,
which are covered by Sec. 327.4(c).
(3) Requirements. Any such request for revision must be submitted
within 90 days of the date of the quarterly assessment invoice for
which revision is requested. The request for revision shall be
submitted to the Chief of the Assessments Section and shall provide
documentation sufficient to support the revision sought by the
institution. If additional information is requested by the Corporation,
such information shall be provided by the institution within 21 days of
the date of the request for additional information. Any institution
submitting a timely request for revision will receive written notice
from the Corporation regarding the outcome of its request. Upon
completion of a review, the DOF Director shall promptly notify the
institution in writing of his or her determination of whether revision
is warranted.
(g) Quarterly certified statement invoice unavailable. Any
institution whose quarterly certified statement invoice is unavailable
on FDICconnect by the fifteenth day of the month in which the payment
is due shall promptly notify the Corporation. Failure to provide prompt
notice to the Corporation shall not affect the institution's obligation
to make full and timely assessment payment. Unless otherwise directed
by the Corporation, the institution shall preliminarily pay the amount
shown on its quarterly certified statement invoice for the preceding
assessment period, subject to subsequent correction.
Sec. 327.4 Assessment rates.
(a) Assessment risk classification. For the purpose of determining
the annual assessment rate for insured depository institutions under
Sec. 327.9, each insured depository institution will be assigned an
``assessment risk classification.'' Notice of an institution's current
assessment risk classification will be provided to the institution with
each quarterly certified statement invoice. Adjusted assessment risk
classifications for prior periods may also be provided by the
Corporation. Notice of the procedures applicable to requests for review
will be included with the assessment risk classification.
(b) Payment of assessment at rate assigned. Institutions shall make
timely payment of assessments based on the assessment risk
classification assigned in the notice provided to the institution
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. Timely payment is required
notwithstanding any request for review filed pursuant to paragraph (c)
of this section. If the classification assigned to an institution in
the notice is subsequently changed, any excess assessment paid by the
institution will be credited by the Corporation, with interest, and any
additional assessment owed shall be paid by the institution, with
interest, in the next assessment payment after such subsequent
assignment or change. Interest payable under this paragraph shall be
determined in accordance with Sec. 327.7.
(c) Requests for review. An institution that believes any
assessment risk classification provided by the Corporation pursuant to
paragraph (a) if this section is incorrect and seeks to change it must
submit a written request for review of that assessment risk
classification. Any such request must be submitted within 90 days of
the date of the assessment risk classification being challenged
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. The request shall be
submitted to the Corporation's Director of the Division of Insurance
and Research in Washington, DC, and shall include documentation
sufficient to support the reclassification sought by the institution.
If additional information is requested by the Corporation, such
information shall be provided by the institution within 21 days of the
date of the request for additional information. Any institution
submitting a timely request for review will receive written notice from
the Corporation regarding the outcome of its request. Upon completion
of a review, the Director of the Division of Insurance and Research (or
designee) or the Director of the Division of Supervision and Consumer
Protection (or designee), as appropriate, shall promptly notify the
institution in writing of his or her determination of whether
reclassification is warranted. Notice of the procedures applicable to
reviews will be included with the assessment risk classification notice
to be provided pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
[[Page 28800]]
(d) Disclosure restrictions. The portion of an assessment risk
classification assigned to an institution by the Corporation pursuant
to paragraph (a) of this section that reflects any supervisory
evaluation or confidential information is deemed to be exempt
information within the scope of Sec. 309.5(g)(8) of this chapter and,
accordingly, is governed by the disclosure restrictions set out at
Sec. 309.6 of this chapter.
(e) Limited use of assessment risk classification. The assignment
of a particular assessment risk classification to a depository
institution under this part 327 is for purposes of implementing and
operating a risk-based assessment system. Unless permitted by the
Corporation or otherwise required by law, no institution may state in
any advertisement or promotional material the assessment risk
classification assigned to it pursuant to this part.
(f) Effective date for changes to risk classification. Any change
in risk classification that results from a change in an institution's
supervisory rating shall be applied to the institution's assessment:
(1) If an examination causes the change in an institution's
supervisory rating and an examination start date exists, as of the
examination start date;
(2) If an examination causes the change in an institution's
supervisory rating and no examination start date exists, as of the date
the institution's supervisory rating (CAMELS) change is transmitted to
the institution; or
(3) Otherwise, as of the date that the FDIC determines that the
change in the supervisory rating occurred.
Sec. 327.5 Assessment base.
(a) Quarter end balances and average daily balances. An insured
depository institution shall determine its assessment base using
quarter end balances until changes in the quarterly report of condition
allow it to report average daily deposit balances on the quarterly
report of condition, after which--
(1) An institution that becomes newly insured after the first
report of condition allowing for average daily balances shall determine
its assessment base using average daily balances; otherwise,
(2) An insured depository institution reporting assets of $300
million or more on the first report of condition allowing for average
daily balances shall within one year determine its assessment base
using average daily balances;
(3) An insured depository institution reporting less than $300
million in assets on the first report of condition allowing for average
daily balances ``
(i) May continue to determine its assessment base using quarter end
balances; or
(ii) May opt permanently to determine its assessment base using
average daily balances after notice to the Corporation, but
(iii) Shall use average daily balances as the permanent method for
determining its assessment base for any quarter beginning six months
after the institution reported that its assets equaled or exceeded $300
million for two consecutive quarters; and
(4) In any event, an insured depository institution that is a
subsidiary of another insured depository institution that determines
its assessment base using average daily balances and files its report
of condition on a consolidated basis by including a subsidiary bank(s)
or savings association(s) shall use average daily balances as the
permanent method for determining its assessment base; assessment bases
shall be determined separately for each consolidated institution.
(b) Computation of assessment base. Whether computed on a quarter-
end balance or an average daily balance, the assessment base for any
insured institution that is required to file a quarterly report of
condition shall be computed by:
(1) Adding all deposit liabilities as defined in section 3(l) of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, to include deposits that are held in
any insured branches of the institution that are located in the
territories and possessions of the United States; and
(2) Subtracting the following allowable exclusions, in the case of
any institution that maintains such records as will readily permit
verification of the correctness of its assessment base--
(i) Any demand deposit balance due from or cash item in the process
of collection due from any depository institution (not including a
foreign bank or foreign office of another U.S. depository institution)
up to the total of the amount of deposit balances due to and cash items
in the process of collection due to such depository institution that
are included in paragraph (b)(1) of this section;
(ii) Any outstanding drafts (including advices and authorization to
charge deposit institution's balance in another bank) drawn in the
regular course of business;
(iii) Any pass-through reserve balances; and
(iv) Liabilities arising from a depository institution investment
contract that are not treated as insured deposits under section
11(a)(5) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)(5)).
(c) Newly insured institutions. A newly insured institution shall
pay an assessment for any assessment period during which it became a
newly insured institution.
Sec. 327.6 Terminating transfers; other terminations of insurance.
(a) Terminating institution's final two quarterly certified
statement invoices. If a terminating institution does not file a report
of condition for the quarter prior to the quarter in which the
terminating transfer occurs or for the quarter in which the terminating
transfer occurs, its assessment base for the quarterly certified
statement invoice or invoices for which it failed to file a report of
condition shall be deemed to be its assessment base for the last
quarter for which the institution filed a report of condition. The
acquiring institution in a terminating transfer is liable for paying
the final invoices of the terminating institution. The terminating
institution's assessment for the quarter in which the terminating
transfer occurs shall be reduced by the percentage of the quarter
remaining after the terminating transfer and calculated at the
acquiring institution's rate. The terminating institution's assessment
for the quarter prior to the quarter in which the terminating transfer
occurs shall be calculated at the terminating institution's rate.
(b) Terminating transfer--Assessment base computation. In a
terminating transfer, if an acquiring institution's assessment base is
computed as a quarter-end balance pursuant to Sec. 327.5, its
assessment base for the assessment period in which the terminating
transfer occurred shall be reduced by an amount equal to the percentage
of the assessment period prior to the terminating transfer multiplied
by the amount of the deposits acquired from the terminating
institution.
(c) Other terminations. When the insured status of an institution
is terminated, and the deposit liabilities of such institution are not
assumed by another insured depository institution--
(1) Payment of assessments; quarterly certified statement invoices.
The terminating depository institution shall continue to file and
certify its quarterly certified statement invoice and pay assessments
for the assessment period its deposits are insured. Such terminating
institution shall not be required to file and certify its quarterly
certified statement invoice and pay further assessments after the
depository
[[Page 28801]]
institution has paid in full its deposit liabilities and the assessment
to the Corporation required to be paid for the assessment period in
which its deposit liabilities are paid in full, and after it, under
applicable law, has ceased to have authority to transact a banking
business and to have existence, except for the purpose of, and to the
extent permitted by law for, winding up its affairs.
(2) Payment of deposits; certification to Corporation. When the
deposit liabilities of the depository institution have been paid in
full, the depository institution shall certify to the Corporation that
the deposit liabilities have been paid in full and give the date of the
final payment. When the depository institution has unclaimed deposits,
the certification shall further state the amount of the unclaimed
deposits and the disposition made of the funds to be held to meet the
claims. For assessment purposes, the following will be considered as
payment of the unclaimed deposits:
(i) The transfer of cash funds in an amount sufficient to pay the
unclaimed and unpaid deposits to the public official authorized by law
to receive the same; or
(ii) If no law provides for the transfer of funds to a public
official, the transfer of cash funds or compensatory assets to an
insured depository institution in an amount sufficient to pay the
unclaimed and unpaid deposits in consideration for the assumption of
the deposit obligations by the insured depository institution.
(3) Notice to depositors. (i) The terminating depository
institution shall give sufficient advance notice of the intended
transfer to the owners of the unclaimed deposits to enable the
depositors to obtain their deposits prior to the transfer. The notice
shall be mailed to each depositor and shall be published in a local
newspaper of general circulation. The notice shall advise the
depositors of the liquidation of the depository institution, request
them to call for and accept payment of their deposits, and state the
disposition to be made of their deposits if they fail to promptly claim
the deposits.
(ii) If the unclaimed and unpaid deposits are disposed of as
provided in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, a certified copy of
the public official's receipt issued for the funds shall be furnished
to the Corporation.
(iii) If the unclaimed and unpaid deposits are disposed of as
provided in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, an affidavit of the
publication and of the mailing of the notice to the depositors,
together with a copy of the notice and a certified copy of the contract
of assumption, shall be furnished to the Corporation.
(4) Notice to Corporation. The terminating depository institution
shall advise the Corporation of the date on which the authority or
right of the depository institution to do a banking business has
terminated and the method whereby the termination has been affected
(i.e., whether the termination has been effected by the surrender of
the charter, the cancellation of its authority or license to do a
banking business by the supervisory authority, or otherwise).
(c) Resumption of insured status before insurance of deposits
ceases. If a depository institution whose insured status has been
terminated is permitted by the Corporation to continue or resume its
status as an insured depository institution before the insurance of its
deposits has ceased, the institution will be deemed, for assessment
purposes, to continue as an insured depository institution and must
thereafter file and certify its quarterly certified statement invoices
and pay assessments as though its insured status had not been
terminated. The procedure for applying for the continuance or
resumption of insured status is set forth in Sec. 303.5 of this
chapter.
Sec. 327.7 Payment of interest on assessment underpayments and
overpayments.
(a) Payment of interest--(1) Payment by institutions. Each insured
depository institution shall pay interest to the Corporation on any
underpayment of the institution's assessment.
(2) Payment by Corporation. The Corporation will pay interest on
any overpayment by the institution of its assessment.
(3) Accrual of interest. (i) Interest on an amount owed to or by
the Corporation for the underpayment or overpayment of an assessment
shall accrue interest at the relevant interest rate.
(ii) Interest on an amount specified in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this
section shall begin to accrue on the day following the regular payment
date, as provided for in Sec. 327.3(c)(2), for the amount so overpaid
or underpaid, provided, however, that interest shall not begin to
accrue on any overpayment until the day following the date such
overpayment was received by the Corporation. Interest shall continue to
accrue through the date on which the overpayment or underpayment
(together with any interest thereon) is paid.
(iii) The relevant interest rate shall be redetermined for each
quarterly assessment interval. A quarterly assessment interval begins
on the day following a regular payment date, as specified in Sec.
327.3(c)(2), and ends on the immediately following regular payment
date.
(b) Rates after the first payment date in 1996. (1) On and after
January 3, 1996, the relevant interest rate for a quarterly assessment
interval that includes the month of January, April, July, and October,
respectively, is the coupon equivalent yield of the average discount
rate set on the 3-month Treasury bill at the last auction held by the
United States Treasury Department during the preceding December, March,
June, and September, respectively.
(2) The relevant interest rate for a quarterly assessment interval
will apply to any amounts overpaid or underpaid on the payment date
(whether regular or alternate) immediately prior to the beginning of
the quarterly assessment interval. The relevant interest rate will also
apply to any amounts owed for previous overpayments or underpayments
(including any interest thereon) that remain outstanding, after any
adjustments to such overpayments or underpayments have been made
thereon, at the end of the regular payment date immediately prior to
the beginning of the quarterly assessment interval.
Sec. 327.8 Definitions.
For the purpose of this part 327:
(a) Deposits--(1) Deposit. The term deposit has the meaning
specified in section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. In
particular, the term ``deposit'' includes any liability--without regard
for whether the liability is a liability of an insured bank or of an
insured savings association--that is of a kind which, had the liability
been a liability of an insured bank immediately prior to the effective
date of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement
Act of 1989, would have constituted a deposit in such bank within the
meaning of section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act as such
section 3(l) was then in effect.
(2) Demand deposits. The term demand deposits refers to deposits
specified in Sec. 329.1(b) of this chapter, except that any reference
to ``bank'' in such section shall be deemed to refer to ``depository
institution''.
(3) Time and savings deposits. The term time and savings deposits
refers to any deposits other than demand deposits.
(4) Exception. (i) Deposits accumulated for the payment of personal
loans, which represent actual loan payments received by the depository
institution from borrowers and accumulated by the depository
institution in hypothecated deposit
[[Page 28802]]
accounts for payment of the loans at maturity, shall not be reported as
deposits on the quarterly report of condition. The deposit amounts
covered by the exception are to be deducted from the loan amounts for
which these deposits have been accumulated and assigned or pledged to
effectuate payment.
(ii) Time and savings deposits that are pledged as collateral to
secure loans are not ``deposits accumulated for the payment of personal
loans'' and are to be reported in the same manner as if they were not
securing a loan.
(b) Quarterly report of condition. The term quarterly report of
condition means a report required to be filed pursuant to section
7(a)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
(c) Assessment period--In general. The term ``assessment period''
means a period beginning on January 1 of any calendar year and ending
on March 31 of the same year, or a period beginning on April 1 of any
calendar year and ending on June 30 of the same year; or a period
beginning on July 1 of any calendar year and ending on September 30 of
the same year; or a period beginning on October 1 of any calendar year
and ending on December 31 of the same year.
(d) As used in Sec. 327.6(a) and (b), the following terms are
given the following meanings:
(1) Acquiring institution. The term acquiring institution means an
insured depository institution that assumes some or all of the deposits
of another insured depository institution in a terminating transfer.
(2) Terminating institution. The term terminating institution means
an insured depository institution some or all of the deposits of which
are assumed by another insured depository institution in a terminating
transfer.
(3) Terminating transfer. The term terminating transfer means the
assumption by one insured depository institution of another insured
depository institution's liability for deposits, whether by way of
merger, consolidation, or other statutory assumption, or pursuant to
contract, when the terminating institution goes out of business or
transfers all or substantially all its assets and liabilities to other
institutions or otherwise ceases to be obliged to pay subsequent
assessments by or at the end of the assessment period during which such
assumption of liability for deposits occurs. The term terminating
transfer does not refer to the assumption of liability for deposits
from the estate of a failed institution, or to a transaction in which
the FDIC contributes its own resources in order to induce a surviving
institution to assume liabilities of a terminating institution.
Note: The following attachments will not appear in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
Attachment A--Call Report Instructions for Cash Items in Process of
Collection
Cash items in process of collection include:
(1) Checks or drafts in process of collection that are drawn on
another depository institution (or on a Federal Reserve Bank) and
that are payable immediately upon presentation in the United States.
This includes:
(a) Checks or drafts drawn on other institutions that have
already been forwarded for collection but for which the reporting
bank has not yet been given credit (``cash letters'').
(b) Checks or drafts on hand that will be presented for payment
or forwarded for collection on the following business day.
(c) Checks or drafts that have been deposited with the reporting
bank's correspondent and for which the reporting bank has already
been given credit, but for which the amount credited is not subject
to immediate withdrawal (``ledger credit'' items).
However, if the reporting bank has been given immediate credit
by its correspondent for checks or drafts presented for payment or
forwarded for collection and if the funds on deposit are subject to
immediate withdrawal, the amount of such checks or drafts is
considered part of the reporting bank's balances due from depository
institutions.
(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United
States or any other government agency that are payable immediately
upon presentation and that are in process of collection.
(3) Such other items in process of collection that are payable
immediately upon presentation and that are customarily cleared or
collected as cash items by depository institutions in the United
States, such as:
(a) Redeemed United States savings bonds and food stamps.
(b) Amounts associated with automated payment arrangements in
connection with payroll deposits, federal recurring payments, and
other items that are credited to a depositor's account prior to the
payment date to ensure that the funds are available on the payment
date.
(c) Federal Reserve deferred account balances until credit has
been received in accordance with the appropriate time schedules
established by the Federal Reserve Banks. At that time, such
balances are considered part of the reporting bank's balances due
from depository institutions.
(d) Checks or drafts drawn on another depository institution
that have been deposited in one office of the reporting bank and
forwarded for collection to another office of the reporting bank.
(e) Brokers' security drafts and commodity or bill-of-lading
drafts payable immediately upon presentation in the U.S. (See the
Glossary entries for ``broker's security draft'' and ``commodity or
bill-of-lading draft'' for the definitions of these terms.)
Exclude from cash items in process of collection:
(1) Cash items for which the reporting bank has already received
credit, provided that the funds on deposit are subject to immediate
withdrawal. The amount of such cash items is considered part of the
reporting bank's balances due from depository institutions.
(2) Credit or debit card sales slips in process of collection
(report as noncash items in Schedule RC-F, item 5, ``Other''
assets). However, when the reporting bank has been notified that it
has been given credit, the amount of such sales slips is considered
part of the reporting bank's balances due from depository
institutions.
(3) Cash items not conforming to the definition of in process of
collection, whether or not cleared through Federal Reserve Banks
(report in Schedule RC-F, item 5, ``Other'' assets).
(4) Commodity or bill-of-lading drafts (including arrival
drafts) not yet payable (because the merchandise against which the
draft was drawn has not yet arrived), whether or not deposit credit
has been given. (If deposit credit has been given, report as loans
in the appropriate item of Schedule RC-C, part I; if the drafts were
received on a collection basis, they should be excluded entirely
from the bank's balance sheet, Schedule RC, until the funds have
actually been collected.)
Attachment B--Additional Float Analysis
Eliminate the Float Deduction
If the standard float deductions were eliminated, holding all
else equal, the aggregate assessment base would have increased by
about 2.7 percent, as of December 31, 2005. Table 2 illustrates how
individual assessment bases would have changed if the standard float
deductions were eliminated as of that date. Institutions in Table 2
are ranked by percentage change in their assessment bases, from
least change on the left to greatest change on the right. The table
shows, for example, that the median (50th percentile) change would
have been a 3 percent increase. Table 2 also demonstrates that the
assessment bases of the vast majority of institutions would have
increased between 1.3 and 6.1 percent, but the assessment bases of a
few institutions would have increased by much larger percentages.
(The largest change for a single institution would have been a 20
percent increase.)
Table 2.--Percentage Increase in Assessment Bases at Various Percentiles if the Current Float
Deduction Were Eliminated
Percentile | 1 |
5
| 10
| 20
| 30
| 40
| 50
| 60
| 70
| 80
| 90
| 95
| 99
Percent change in assessment base |
1.0% |
1.3% |
1.7% |
2.2% |
2.6% |
2.9% |
3.0% |
3.5% |
3.9% |
4.4% |
5.2% |
6.1% |
9.3% |
|
The 100 institutions whose assessment bases would have increased
by the greatest percentage include several bankers' banks and trust
banks and other banks of many different sizes, but no thrifts or
extremely large institutions. Small to medium-sized institutions
(including many thrifts) predominate among the 100 institutions
whose assessment bases would have increased by the smallest
percentage; however, some large institutions are also represented.
Table 3 compares the percentage of the industry aggregate
assessment base held by institutions grouped by asset size, with and
without float deductions, as of December 31, 2005. Based on this
analysis, eliminating the float deductions would only minimally
affect the relative distribution of the aggregate assessment base
among institutions of different asset sizes (although it would have
a greater effect on the assessment bases of some individual
institutions).
Table 3.--Current Float/No Float Comparison by Institution Asset Size
Percentage share of industry assessment base |
All Insured institutions |
Very small
<$100m
(percent) |
Small $100-$300m
(percent) |
Medium $300-$1b
(percent) |
Large
$1b-$100b
(percent) |
Very large
>$100b
(percent) |
With Float Deduction |
2.60 |
6.51 |
9.24 |
37.20 |
44.45 |
Without Float Deduction |
2.62 |
6.56 |
9.25 |
37.18 |
44.40 |
Percent Change |
0.97 |
0.75 |
0.08 |
-0.06 |
-0.13 |
Table 4 compares the percentage of the industry aggregate
assessment base held by charter type (commercial banks versus
thrifts), with and without float deductions, as of December 31,
2005. With the current standard float deductions (16 percent for
demand deposits, 1 percent for time and savings deposits),
institutions that hold a larger percentage of demand deposits'typically,
commercial banks'hold a relatively smaller
percentage of the aggregate assessment base. Nevertheless, given
Table 4, eliminating the float deductions would only minimally
affect the relative distribution of the aggregate assessment base
between banks and thrifts (although, again, it would have a greater
effect on the assessment bases of some individual institutions).
Table 4.--Current Float/No Float Comparison by Charter Type
Percentage share of industry assessment base | Insured commercial banks [In percent] |
Insured savings institutions
[In percent]
|
With Float Deduction |
82.50 |
17.50 |
Without Float Deduction |
82.63 |
17.37 |
Percent Change |
0.16 |
-0.76 |
Deduct Actual Float
Using data as of December 31, 2005, Table 5 illustrates how
individual assessment bases would have changed if institutions
deducted the cash items in process of collection Call Report item as
a proxy for actual float. Institutions in Table 5 are ranked by
percentage change in their assessment bases, from greatest decrease
on the left to greatest increase on the right. The table shows, for
example, that the median (50th percentile) change would have been a
1.6 percent increase. Table 5 also demonstrates that the assessment
bases of the vast majority of banks would have changed between -1.3
and 4.2 percent. (However, the assessment bases of a few banks would
have increased or decreased by much larger percentages.)
Table 5.--Percentage Change in Assessment Bases at Various Percentiles if Cash Items
(as a Proxy for Actual Float) Were Deducted
Percentile | 1 |
5
| 10
| 20
| 30
| 40
| 50
| 60
| 70
| 80
| 90
| 95
| 99
Percent change in assessment base |
-5.8% |
-1.3% |
-0.5% |
0.2% |
0.7% |
1.2% |
1.6% |
2.0% |
2.4% |
2.8% |
3.5% |
4.2% |
6.0% |
|
Medium-sized banks predominate among those institutions whose
assessment bases would have increased by the greatest percentage.
Many large banks are included among the institutions whose
assessment bases would have decreased by the greatest percentage.
Again using data from December 31, 2005, Table 6 compares the
percentage of the aggregate assessment base held by medium-sized,
large, and very large banks (collectively, banks with assets of at
least $300 million) under the current standard float deduction and
the actual float deduction, using the cash items in process of
collection Call Report item as a proxy for actual float. Based on
this analysis, it appears unlikely that using actual float would
result in a major change in the relative distribution of the
aggregate assessment base among institutions of different sizes, at
least among the medium to largest institutions. However, the FDIC
has no proxy for actual float at
[[Page 28804]]
smaller banks or for OTS-supervised savings institutions of any
size.
Table 6.--Comparison of Current Float Deduction to Cash Items (as a Proxy for Actual Float)
Deduction for Medium-Sized, Large, and Very Large Banks
Percentage share of industry Assessment Base** | Banks* |
Medium $300-$1b
(percent) |
Large
$1b-$100b
(percent) |
Very large
>$100b
(percent) |
With Current Standard Float Deduction |
9.78 |
48.62 |
41.60 |
With Estimated Actual Float Deduction |
9.97 |
48.90 |
41.13 |
Percent Change |
1.91 |
0.58 |
-1.12 |
* Banks include commercial banks and FDIC-supervised savings banks. ** Percentages are of the aggregate base of medium, large, and very large commercial and savings banks only.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Dated at Washington, DC this 9th day of May, 2006.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-4657 Filed 5-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
|