View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

FED ER AL RESERVE BANK
O F NEW YORK

[

Circular No. 803 3 1
January 12, 1977 J

INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION Y
Acquisition of Shares Pursuant to §4(c) (6) of the Bank Holding Company Act

To A ll Bank Holding Companies, and Others Concerned,
in the Second Federal Reserve District:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System has issued an interpre­
tation of its Regulation Y, “Bank Holding Companies,” in connection with a pro­
posal under which a number of bank holding companies would each purchase a stock
interest representing less than 5 per cent of the voting shares of an insurance com­
pany that would engage in underwriting or reinsuring credit life and credit accident
and health insurance sold in connection with extensions of credit by each stockholder.
The Board has determined that a bank holding company wishing to become a stock­
holder in the company would be required to obtain the Board’s prior approval to do
so, and that the exemption from such approval provided by section 4 (c )(6 ) of the
Bank Holding Company Act was intended to be limited to passive investments.
Enclosed is a copy of the interpretation. Any inquiries thereon may be directed
to our Domestic Banking Applications Department. Additional copies of the enclo­
sure will be furnished upon request.




P a u l A. V olcker ,

President.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
BANK HOLDING COMPANIES

IN TER PR ETA TIO N OF REGULATION Y
§225.137—Acquisitions of shares pursuant to
§4(c)(6) of the Bank Holding Company
Act.

ing bank holding companies may acquire such
interests in the company without prior approval
of the Board.

(a) The Board has received a request for an
interpretation of §4(c) (6) of the Bank Hold­
ing Company Act ( “Act” )* in connection with
a proposal under which a number of bank hold­
ing companies would purchase interests in an
insurance company to be formed for the pur­
pose of underwriting or reinsuring credit life
and credit accident and health insurance sold
in connection with extensions of credit by the
stockholder bank holding companies and their
affiliates.

(d)
On the basis of a careful review of the
documents submitted, in light of the purposes
and provisions of the Act, the Board has con­
cluded that §4(c) (6) of the Act is inapplicable
to this proposal and that a bank holding com­
pany must obtain the approval of the Board be­
fore participating in such a proposal in the
manner described. The Board’s conclusion is
based upon the following considerations:

(b) Each participating holding company
would own no more than 5 per cent of the out­
standing voting shares of the company. How­
ever, the investment of each holding company
would be represented by a separate class of
voting security, so that each stockholder would
own 100 per cent of its respective class. The
participating companies would execute a formal
“Agreement Among Stockholders” under which
each would agree to use its best efforts at all
times to direct or recommend to customers and
clients the placement of their life, accident and
health insurance directly or indirectly with the
company. Such credit-related insurance placed
with the company would be identified in the
records of the company as having been origi­
nated by the respective stockholder. A separate
capital account would be maintained for each
stockholder consisting of the original capital
contribution increased or decreased from time
to time by the net profit or loss resulting from
the insurance business attributable to each stock­
holder. Thus, each stockholder would receive
a return on its investment based upon the claims
experience and profitability of the insurance
business that it had itself generated. Dividends
declared by the board of directors of the com­
pany would be payable to each stockholder only
out of the earned surplus reflected in the re­
spective stockholder’s capital account.
(c) It has been requested that the Board
issue an interpretation that §4(c) (6) of the Act
provides an exemption under which participat­
* Section 4 (c)(6 ) of the Act provides an exemption from
the Act’s prohibitions on ownership of shares in nonbanking
companies for “shares of any company which do not include
more than S per centum of the outstanding voting shares of such
company.”
[Enc. Cir. No. 8033]




(1)
Section 2 (a )(2 )(A ) of the Act pro­
vides that a company is deemed to have control
over a second company if it owns or controls
“25 per centum or more of any class of voting
securities” of the second company. In the case
presented, the stock interest of each participant
would be evidenced by a different class of stock
and each would, accordingly, own 100 per cent
of a class of voting securities of the company.
Thus, each of the stockholders would be deemed
to “control” the company and prior Board ap­
proval would be required for each stockholder’s
acquisition of stock in the company.
The Board believes that this application of
§ 2 (a)(2 )(A ) of the Act is particularly ap­
propriate on the facts presented here. The com­
pany is, in practical effect, a conglomeration of
separate business ventures each owned 100 per
cent by a stockholder the value of whose eco­
nomic interest in the company is determined by
reference to the profits and losses attributa­
ble to its respective class of stock. Further­
more, it is the Board’s opinion that this ap­
plication of §2(a )(2 )(A ) is not inconsistent
with §4(c)(6). Even assuming that §4(c)(6)
is intended to refer to all outstanding voting
shares, and not merely the outstanding shares
of a particular class of securities, §4(c)(6)
must be viewed as permitting ownership of 5
per cent of a company’s voting stock only when
that ownership does not constitute “control” as
otherwise defined in the Act. For example, it
is entirely possible that a company could exer­
cise a controlling influence over the manage­
ment and policies of a second company, and
thus “control” that company under the Act’s
definitions, even though it held less than 5 per
cent of the voting stock of the second company.
To view §4(c ) ( 6 ) as an unqualified exemption

PRINTED IN NEW YORK

(OVER)

for holdings of less than 5 per cent would thus
create a serious gap in the coverage of the Act.
(2)
The Board believes that §4(c)(6)
should properly be interpreted as creating an
exemption from the general prohibitions in §4
on ownership of stock in nonbank companies
only for passive investments amounting to not
more than 5 per cent of a company’s outstand­
ing stock, and that the exemption was not in­
tended to allow a group of holding companies,
through concerted action, to engage in an ac­
tivity as entrepreneurs. Section 4 of the Act,
of course, prohibits not only owning stock in
nonbank companies, but engaging in activities
other than banking or those activities permitted
by the Board under §4(c)(8) as being closely
related to banking. Thus, if a holding company
may be deemed to be engaging in an activity
through the medium of a company in which it
owns less than 5 per cent of the voting stock it
may nevertheless require Board approval, des­
pite the §4(c)(6) exemption.
(e)
To accept the argument that §4( c ) (6)
is an unqualified grant of permission to a bank
holding company to own 5 per cent of the
shares of any nonbanking company, irrespec­
tive of the nature or extent of the holding com­
pany’s participation in the affairs of the non­
banking company would, in the Board’s view,
create the potential for serious and widespread
evasion of the Act’s controls over nonbanking
activities. Such a construction would allow a
group of 20 bank holding companies — or even
a single bank holding company and one or more




nonbank companies — to engage in entrepre­
neurial joint ventures in businesses prohibited
to bank holding companies, a result the Board
believes to be contrary to the intent of Congress.
(f) In this proposal, each of the participat­
ing stockholders must be viewed as engaging in
the business of insurance underwriting. Each
stockholder would agree to channel to the com­
pany the insurance business it generates, and
the value of the interest of each stockholder
would be determined by reference to the profit­
ability of the business generated by that stock­
holder itself. There is no sharing or pooling
among stockholders of underwriting risks as­
sumed by the company, and profit or loss from
investments is allocated on the basis of each
bank holding company’s allocable underwriting
profit or loss. The interest of each stockholder
is thus clearly that of an entrepreneur rather
than that of an investor.
(g) Accordingly, on the basis of the factual
situation before the Board, and for the reasons
summarized above, the Board has concluded
that §4(c ) ( 6 ) of the Act cannot be interpreted
to exempt the ownership of 5 per cent of the
voting stock of a company under the circum­
stances described, and that a bank holding com­
pany wishing to become a stockholder in a com­
pany under this proposal would be required to
obtain the Board’s approval to do so.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, December 23, 1976.