United States: Things The Media Believes The Volcker Rule Says … But It Actually Doesn’t

This is a piece in our continuing series exploring the effects of the Volcker Rule; for previous alerts please click here.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act1 (commonly known as the "Volcker Rule") is an extremely complicated piece of legislation and financial regulation. The statutory provision runs to 4,615 words.2 The proposed rulemaking, released in November 2011, generated over 18,000 comments.3 The final rulemaking, released in December 2013, included 2,826 footnotes.4 Banking entities5 impacted by the Volcker Rule have spent considerable time preparing to comply with its requirements. Even now, more than four and a half years following the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Act, many of the Volcker Rule's provisions remain stubbornly opaque and hard to interpret.

Notwithstanding all of the above, we note that much of the popular discourse surrounding the Volcker Rule misinterprets what it actually says. As evidenced by recent media articles and opinion pieces, many observers and commentators appear to have read into the Volcker Rule a blanket prohibition against a bank making any trade or investment that carries risk. This view is simply not true. The Volcker Rule is a weighty interpretive beast, reflecting value decisions made by Congress concerning the correct manner in which banking entities should conduct their activities. However, as we discuss below, it is far from a total ban on any activities that could carry risk. Instead, it is a delicate balance of policies. One may argue that Congress should have adopted a stricter ban on bank activities, but it did not, and nor did the regulatory agencies instructed to implement Congressional intent.

Furthermore, there is a real danger in reading the Volcker Rule as the total ban on risk that many suggest it is. When a bank does make permitted trades or investments, it is liable to be criticized as if it were somehow breaking the law. This fuels a public view of banks as bad actors or morally questionable entities, when in reality they are simply engaged in activities permissible under a complex balance of financial regulatory policies. We would like to help clear up this misconception with a few short examples below.

1. WRONGFUL ASSUMPTION #1: BANKS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE MERCHANT BANKING INVESTMENTS IN COMPANIES.

Recently, the New York Times prominently featured an article saying that a large bank was making investments that "Test the Volcker Rule."6 The investments at issue included apartment buildings, a shopping mall and an ink company. The article noted that "[t]hese are the sorts of investments that many ... had assumed would be prohibited by ... the Volcker Rule."

That assumption is incorrect. The Volcker Rule, codified as Chapter 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the "BHC Act"), generally prohibits banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading or in making certain investments in (or having certain relationships with) so-called "covered funds."7 Since the adoption of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 (the "GLB Act"), bank holding companies that have elected to become "financial holding companies" ("FHCs") have had the ability to make passive investments, for profit, in commercial companies, whether directly or through private equity fund structures. This provision—an FHC's merchant banking authority—is found in Section 4(k) of the BHC Act, as implemented through Subpart J of Federal Reserve Regulation Y.8

It is true that the Volcker Rule rolled back a significant component of an FHC's merchant banking authority—namely, its former ability to make merchant banking investments through a private equity fund. What the Volcker Rule did not do, however, is change an FHC's ability to make such investments directly. For example, while a banking entity cannot invest indirectly through a covered fund structure to gain exposure to Company ABC, it can directly acquire and hold up to 100 percent of the equity interests of Company ABC (so long as it follows the passivity requirements and holding period limitations of the merchant banking rules).9

This seeming anomaly makes perfect sense when considered in light of the Volcker Rule's proposed purposes, which were to ban proprietary trading, whether done directly by the bank or indirectly through bank investments in covered funds. The Volcker Rule was never intended to ban all bank proprietary investing, and any attempt to interpret it as such would be a misreading of both Congressional intent and the ultimate statutory and regulatory language.10 Again, FHCs have had the ability to directly make merchant banking investments ever since the GLB Act was adopted in 1999; the Volcker Rule did not prohibit such direct investments, and FHCs can continue to make them.

So these types of investments do not actually "test the Volcker Rule" at all, and they are not "a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of Dodd-Frank."11 What the New York Times seems to believe is that banks should self-interpret the Volcker Rule as banning such investments, while ignoring the provision in Chapter 4 of the BHC Act that expressly permits them.

2. WRONGFUL ASSUMPTION #2: BANKS CANNOT INVEST IN COLLATERALIZED LOAN OBLIGATIONS ("CLOS") BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO RISKY.

A recent New York Times article discussed a bill that had been introduced into the House of Representatives; among other provisions, the bill would provide an additional two year period for covered banking entities to dispose of certain CLO investments prohibited by the Volcker Rule.12 The article states that the bill would let banks "hold onto certain risky securities until 2019" and that "C.L.O.s can pose high risk for banks." Adding to the confusion, this bill, meant only to extend the conformance period during which banks would be allowed to hold legacy investments in a single type of vehicle prohibited under one part of the Volcker Rule, was alternately painted by politicians as a delay of the Volcker Rule entirely13 or as a giveaway to Wall Street banks that would allow them to "make more risky bets using taxpayer-backed money."14

It is an opinion whether a CLO, or CLOs in general, are "risky". But the article makes several factual misstatements. It notes the increased issuance of CLOs in 2014and states that the size of these banks' position in CLOs is the reason for their desire to hold onto them for a longer period. But, of course, this conclusion mixes up the fact that (i) the extended conformance period would only apply to "legacy" CLOs issued prior to January 31, 2014 and (ii) the extended period would not apply to almost all of the issuances whose statistics are cited in the article.15

In fact, many CLOs issued since the final rules implementing the Volcker Rule were issued are structured to comply with the Volcker Rule's requirements.16 Therefore, banks only need an extension to extend conformance with legacy holdings. And the article offers no evidence to back up its assertion that any of these CLOs are "risky"; in fact, the author notes that several of the largest issuers have unrealized gains in their CLO portfolios. This is backed up from statistics from the Loan Syndications & Trading Association ("LSTA"), which find that not only do open market CLOs not have the characteristics of securitizations that ran into difficulties during the financial crisis, but in fact, that their credit performance has been "phenomenal."17

In reality, many banks and commentators were caught unaware by the inclusion of CLOs by the Volcker Rule, given the rule's express policy of excluding from its effects loan products.18 It was only through the broad application of the exclusions contained in Sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the broad interpretation of the phrase "ownership interest" and the narrow interpretation of the "loan securitization exemption" that such products were captured by the definition of a covered fund.19

The House bill proposal then would have provided an additional two years for banks to hold CLOs in which they had invested prior to January 31, 2014. The banks have argued that being forced to prematurely sell performing CLOs would impose unnecessary losses on them and impair their capital.

3. WRONGFUL ASSUMPTION #3: ELIMINATING THE "PUSH-OUT" PROVISION OF DODD-FRANK WILL PERMIT BANKS TO TRADE RISKY DERIVATIVES SUPPORTED BY INSURED DEPOSITS.

One of the last acts of Congress in 2014 was to pass a bill that eliminated Section 716 of the Dodd-Frank Act, widely known as the "push-out" provision.20 This provision would have required banking entities to move certain derivatives trading businesses from an insured depository institution to another affiliated entity. Dodd-Frank is an extremely long law, totaling more than 200 pages. Many experts nominated Section 716 as its most poorly drafted provision. It was almost certainly thrown together in the middle of the night, as evidenced by its poor drafting. It used different terms to refer to the same types of entities, sometimes within a single sentence. And, most importantly, the supposed policy underpinnings failed to take into account the effect of the Volcker Rule.

As noted, the Volcker Rule prohibits any covered banking entity from engaging in the proprietary trading of derivatives, unless the transaction falls into one of the Volcker Rule's exemptions or exclusions. Therefore, the only derivatives a banking entity will be permitted to transact in are those that Congress has not deemed to be risky, proprietary trades. So what is the point of forcing these banks to move existing, safe, client-based trading operations from their insured depository subsidiaries to new derivatives trading subsidiaries? The increased costs associated with such moves would inevitably be passed on to counterparties and clients.

According to the New York Times, this change dismantled a "signature overhaul" from Dodd-Frank.21 Again, this is not true. Covered banking entities will still be subject to the Volcker Rule's prohibitions, and will only be permitted to engage in derivatives trading of the kind that the Volcker Rule has explicitly deemed safe enough to exclude from its prohibitions. Therefore, the effect of the deletion of Section 716 will only be to permit banks to continue trading safe derivatives in their insured depository subsidiaries.

4. CONCLUSION

As the examples above show, there is much that the popular discourse gets wrong about the Volcker Rule. Beyond simply the media, political rhetoric often—through what are perhaps mischaracterizations calculated to achieve political ends—sensationalizes or caricaturizes key points surrounding financial reform. All of this overheated discourse fuels the perception of banks as bad actors seeking to take inappropriate risks at the expense of taxpayers, and impedes legitimate efforts to effect reasonable legislative and regulatory reform. The conversation surrounding financial regulation is an important one; it should not be held on the basis of exaggerated or erroneous premises. Rather, it should be held with an accurate understanding of the issues and a clear view of what exactly is at stake.

Footnotes

1. Section 619, Prohibitions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Relationships with Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1. (2010).

2. Id.

3. 76 Fed. Reg. 68846 (Nov. 7, 2011).

4. Prohibitions and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge Funds and Private Equity Funds, 79 Fed. Reg. 5536 (Jan. 31, 2014).

5. The final rule defines covered "banking entities" to include any of the following, unless otherwise exempted:

(i) Any insured depository institution;

(ii) Any company that controls an insured depository institution;

(iii) Any company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of the International Banking Act of 1978; and

(iv) Any affiliate or subsidiary of an entity described above.

12 C.F.R. § 248.2(c).

6. Nathaniel Popper, The New York Times, Goldman Sachs Investments Test the Volcker Rule, (Jan. 21, 2015), http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/21/goldman-investments-are-testing-volcker-rule/.

7. 12 C.F.R. § 248. The final rulemaking generally defines "covered fund" to include any issuer that would be an Investment Company within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940, but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act. We note as well that the Volcker Rule prohibits "short-term" proprietary trading (generally speaking, trades of 60 days or less), which then means that longer term trading, or investing, is not prohibited. See 12 C.F.R. 248.3(b).

8. 12 CFR § 225.170-77.

9. Id. The BHC Act contains several provisions that permit banking entities to make and hold investments in non-financial companies. See, e.g., BHC Act § 4(c)(6).

10. The scope of permissible proprietary bank investments is itself the subject of regulatory consideration; for example, the Federal Reserve issued last year an advance notice of proposed rulemaking related to physical commodity activities conducted by FHCs. See Complementary Activities, Merchant Banking Activities, and Other Activities of Financial Holding Companies related to Physical Commodities, 79 Fed. Reg. 3329 (Jan. 21, 2014). Section 620 of the Dodd-Frank Act also mandated that the Federal banking agencies review and prepare a report on bank investment activities.

11. The Editorial Board, The New York Times, An Uncertain Future for Dodd-Frank, (Jan. 24, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/opinion/sunday/an-uncertain-future-for-dodd-frank.html.

12. Gretchen Morgenson, The New York Times, Kicking Dodd-Frank in the Teeth, (Jan. 10, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/business/kicking-dodd-frank-in-the-teeth.html.

13. Pelosi Statement on Republicans' Latest Wall Street Giveaway, (Jan. 7, 2015), http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/pelosi-statement-republicans-latest-wall-street-giveaway/.

14. Zach Carter, The Huffington Post, Democrats Rail Against GOP Bill to Delay Volcker Rule, (Jan. 7, 2015), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/democrats-volcker-rule-revision_n_6431146.html.

15. H.R. 37, 114th Cong. (2015).

16. See, e.g., Tracy Alloway, Financial Times, Banks Respond to New Rules with Volcker-friendly CLOs, (Jan. 14, 2014), http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/057865a6-7c83-11e3-b514-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3QbICdUH2.

17. See comment letter from LSTA to the European Banking Authority regarding the EBA Discussion Paper on simple standard and transparent securitisations, (Jan. 14, 2015).

18. See, e.g., Victoria Finkle, American Banker, How Dodd-Frank Might Kill the CLO Market, (Feb. 24, 2014), http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/179_37/how-dodd-frank-might-kill-the-clo-market-1065802-1.html.

19. 12 C.F.R. § 248.10.

20. H.R. 83, 113th Cong. (2014).

21. Jonathan Weisman, The New York Times, A Window Into Washington in an Effort to Undo a Dodd-Frank Rule, (Dec. 15, 2014), http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/in-push-out-provision-example-of-how-congress-does-its-job/.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions