Fed proposes rules to increase the asset limit under the Small Bank Holding Company Policy from $500 million to $1 billion
Hinshaw Alert | 2 min read
Feb 3, 2015
On January 29th, the Fed proposed rules that would:
- Increase the asset limit under the Small Bank Holding Company Policy from $500 million to $1 billion for qualifying bank holding companies.
- Extend coverage of the Policy to include qualifying savings and loan holding companies with assets of less than $1 billion.
Comments are due by March 4, 2015.
The Policy allows small banking organizations to incur more debt than larger banking organizations. This allows smaller banking organizations to use borrowed funds to make acquisitions rather than trying to raise capital in a private placement or a public offering.
Under the Policy, a qualifying bank holding company:
(i) is exempt from the Fed's risk-based capital and leverage rules applicable to bank holding companies and, therefore, is exempt from Basel III (although its subsidiary banks are not exempt from Basel III); and
(ii) may use debt to finance up to 75% of the purchase price or an acquisition.
A qualifying bank holding company incurring substantial debt must:
(A) reduce the parent company debt so that it is retired within 25 years;
(B) reduce its debt-to-equity ratio to .30:1 or less within 12 years;
(C) ensure that each subsidiary bank is well capitalized; and
(D) refrain from paying dividends until it debt-to-equity ratio is 1.0:1 or less.
In order to be a qualifying bank holding company, a bank holding company must not:
(a) engage in significant nonbanking activities either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary;
(b) conduct significant off-balance sheet activities either directly or indirectly through a nonbank subsidiary; and
(c) have a material amount of debt or equity securities outstanding (other than trust preferred securities) that are registered with the SEC.
The Fed is proposing these revisions to the Policy pursuant to legislation passed late last year directing the Fed to revise the asset limits set out in the Policy.
For further information on this issue, please contact Tim Sullivan or your regular Hinshaw attorney.
Tax advice disclosure: To ensure compliance with the Internal Service Regulations governing the issuance of advise on Federal Tax issues, we advise you that any tax advice in this communication (and any attachments) is not written with the intent that it be used, and cannot be used, to avoid penalties that may be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code.
This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.
Related People
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”


