Memorandum
Senate Rolls Back Key Provisions of Dodd-Frank
March 16, 2018

On March 14, 2018, the U.S. Senate passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act (S. 2155), a financial reform bill also known as the “Crapo Bill” for its primary sponsor,
Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID). Although not as sweeping in scope as the Financial CHOICE Act—the financial
reform bill passed by the House of Representatives in June 2017—the Crapo Bill would make targetedchanges to several major provisions of the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and ConsumerProtection Act of 2010.
The Crapo Bill is primarily focused on providing regulatory relief for smaller banks, including an exemption
from the Volcker Rule for smaller banks with limited trading operations, and “off-ramp” relief from capitaland leverage requirements as well as an exemption from “qualifying mortgage” rules for certain banking
organizations with under $10 billion in total assets. For the larger banking organizations, the Crapo Bill
would increase the asset threshold for a bank holding company to be considered a “systemically importantfinancial institution” (“SIFI”)—and therefore subject to certain enhanced prudential regulation by theFederal Reserve—from $50 billion to $250 billion.
The Crapo Bill has earned bipartisan support, with 16 Democratic senators and one Independent senatorvoting in favor of the bill. In light of this bipartisan support in the Senate, it is expected that any financial
reform legislation ultimately passed by both chambers of Congress will more closely resemble the Crapo Bill
than the Financial CHOICE Act. Following is a high-level summary of certain key features of the Crapo Bill.

Volcker Rule
While the Financial CHOICE Act passed by the House of Representatives would repeal the Volcker Rule inits entirety, the Crapo Bill provides more limited relief. In particular, the Crapo Bill would exempt banking
entities from the Volcker Rule if they have (and are not controlled by a company that has) (1) less than $10

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Memorandum – March 16, 20182

billion in total consolidated assets and (2) total trading assets and trading liabilities that are not more than
5% of total consolidated assets.
In addition, with regard to the so-called sponsored funds or asset management exemption of the Volcker
Rule, the Crapo Bill would modify the prohibition on banking entities sharing the same name or a variationof the same name with a covered fund for corporate, marketing, promotional, or other purposes. Instead,covered funds may share the same name or a variation of the same name as a banking entity that is aninvestment adviser to such fund as long as such name does not contain the word “bank” and the investment
adviser is not itself (and does not share the same name or a variation of the same name as) an insureddepository institution, a company that controls an insured depository institution, or a company that isotherwise treated as a bank holding company.

Increased SIFI Threshold
Significantly, the Crapo Bill would raise the total asset threshold for bank holding companies to qualify as
SIFIs subject to enhanced prudential standards from $50 billion to $250 billion. Bank holding companies
with total consolidated assets of between $50 billion and $100 billion would be exempt from the Federal
Reserve’s enhanced prudential standards immediately, while bank holding companies with totalconsolidated assets of between $100 billion and $250 billion would be exempt from such standards 18
months after the date of the bill’s enactment (although the Federal Reserve would be able to exempt such
firms from enhanced prudential standards prior to the conclusion of the 18-month period on a case-by-casebasis). The Federal Reserve would also retain the authority to apply enhanced prudential standards to bankholding companies with total assets between $100 billion and $250 billion on a case-by-case basis.
The Crapo Bill does not affect the Federal Reserve’s enhanced prudential standards as applied to foreignbanking organizations (“FBOs”) with total consolidated assets of at least $100 billion, including the Federal
Reserve’s authority to require that such an FBO establish a U.S. intermediate holding company if it has atleast $50 billion in U.S. non-branch assets (which was not required by Dodd-Frank). This will create adichotomy where FBOs with more than $50 billion in U.S. non-branch assets will remain subject to theFederal Reserve’s enhanced prudential standards for their U.S. operations, while a comparably sized U.S.
bank holding company with less than $250 billion in total assets generally will not. Although the Crapo Bill
provides some regulatory relief for FBOs with less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets, most such
FBOs are not currently subject to the more stringent provisions of the Federal Reserve’s enhanced prudentialstandards.
It should be noted that the Crapo Bill’s increase in the SIFI asset threshold would not automaticallyeliminate the $50 billion threshold used elsewhere in regulations and guidance issued by the federal bankingagencies (such as in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s “heightened standards”). We expect a

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Memorandum – March 16, 20183

statutory change to the SIFI asset threshold would encourage the federal banking agencies to revisit the $50
billion threshold used in other regulatory contexts.

Stress Testing
Under the Crapo Bill, bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of between $10 billion and$250 billion would no longer be required to conduct company-run stress tests. Bank holding companies withmore than $250 billion in assets (or more than $100 billion in assets that the Federal Reserve has deemedsubject to enhanced prudential standards) and nonbank SIFIs would be required to conduct company-run
stress tests on a “periodic,” rather than annual or semi-annual, basis. Because the bill does not specify any
minimum frequency for the company-run stress testing requirement, the Federal Reserve would havediscretion in setting the maximum intervals between company-run stress tests.
The Federal Reserve would be required to conduct tests, on a periodic basis, for bank holding companieswith total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more and less than $250 billion. However, bank holding
companies with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets and nonbank SIFIs would continue to besubject to annual Federal Reserve-run stress tests. Bank holding companies with total consolidated assets ofless than $100 billion would not be subject to these stress tests.
For both company-run and Federal Reserve-run stress tests, the Crapo Bill would reduce the number ofrequired test scenarios from three to two (baseline and “severely adverse”), eliminating the “adverse”
scenario.

“Off-Ramp” Relief for Qualifying Community Banks
One of the most notable aspects of the Financial CHOICE Act is its regulatory “off-ramp” feature, allowing aqualifying banking organization of any size to elect to be exempt from a wide variety of risk-weighted capitalrequirements, liquidity requirements and a variety of other regulations if the organization maintains anaverage non-risk weighted leverage ratio of at least 10%. The Crapo Bill adopts a similar, but more limited,feature, allowing a qualifying community bank with less than $10 billion in total assets to be exempt fromgenerally applicable capital and leverage requirements if the bank complies with a leverage ratio between 810% (to be determined by the federal banking agencies).
The Crapo Bill’s off-ramp provision would provide relief for qualifying banks only with respect to theminimum capital and leverage ratios otherwise applicable under prompt corrective action standards. Unlike
the Financial CHOICE Act, it would not relieve qualifying banks from other regulatory requirements, such asenhanced liquidity standards, resolution planning, and stress testing requirements.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Memorandum – March 16, 2018

4

Other Key Bank Regulatory Reforms• Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement. The Crapo Bill would require the Federal
Reserve to increase the asset threshold for application of its Small Bank Holding Company Policy
Statement from $1 billion to $3 billion, thereby permitting a greater number of community banking
institutions to finance the acquisition of banks or other companies with debt levels higher than would
be permitted for larger holding companies.
• Federal Savings Association Charter Flexibility. The Crapo Bill would allow federal savings
associations with $20 billion or less in total assets to elect, upon 60 days’ prior notice to the OCC, tobe subject to the same rights, privileges, duties and restrictions as a national bank. This would exempt
electing federal savings associations from, among other things, certain asset-based limitations such as
those applicable to commercial and consumer loans, unsecured construction loans, and nonresidential real property loans.
• Supervisory Ratio Calculations. The Crapo Bill would adjust the calculation of certain
supervisory ratios, including the supplementary leverage ratio and liquidity coverage ratio. In
particular, the bill specifies that a custodial bank may exclude funds deposited with a central bankfrom the custodial bank’s total assets for purposes of calculating the custodial bank’s supplementary
leverage ratio (thus eliminating the need for custodial banks to set aside capital for funds held atcentral banks). The Crapo Bill also permits all banks to include certain investment-grade municipal
securities as “level 2B” liquid assets for purposes of calculating the bank’s the liquidity coverage ratio.
• Real Estate Lending Relief. The Crapo Bill provides a qualified mortgage safe harbor from Truthin Lending Act requirements for mortgage loans that are originated and retained in portfolio by aninsured depository institution with less than $10 billion in total assets. The qualified mortgage safe
harbor is generally not available for mortgage loans that a bank sells on the secondary market. TheCrapo Bill also limits the ability of federal banking agencies to assign a heightened risk weighting tohigh volatility commercial real estate assets other than acquisition, development and constructionloans, while also clarifying the scope of loans considered to be commercial real estate acquisition,
development or construction loans.

Prospects for Enactment
The Crapo Bill was approved by the Senate by a vote of 67 to 31, with 16 Democratic senators and one
independent senator voting in favor of the bill. The bill is expected to be voted on by the House ofRepresentatives in the coming months. Given the significant differences between the Crapo Bill and theFinancial CHOICE Act, it is unlikely that the House of Representatives will pass the Crapo Bill without anymodification. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, the sponsor of the Financial
CHOICE Act, has expressed a desire to include more significant regulatory relief provisions in the ultimate

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Memorandum – March 16, 2018

5legislation. However, any legislation ultimately passed by both chambers of Congress would likely closely
resemble the Crapo Bill in order to maintain the delicate balance of bipartisan support that the bill has
earned in the Senate.

For further information about this decision, please contact one of the following members of the Firm’s
Financial Institutions Group.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONSLee A. Meyerson+1-212-455-3675
lmeyerson@stblaw.com
Keith A. Noreika+1-202-636-5864
keith.noreika@stblaw.com
Mark Chorazak+1-212-455-7613
mchorazak@stblaw.com
Spencer A. Sloan+1-212-455-7821
spencer.sloan@stblaw.com

The contents of this publication are for informational purposes only. Neither this publication nor the lawyers who authoredit are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters, nor does the distribution of thispublication to any person constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
assumes no liability in connection with the use of this publication. Please contact your relationship partner if we can be ofassistance regarding these important developments. The names and office locations of all of our partners, as well as ourrecent memoranda, can be obtained from our website, www.simpsonthacher.com.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Memorandum – March 16, 2018

6

UNITED STATESEUROPE

SOUTH AMERICANew York
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017+1-212-455-2000

LondonCityPoint
One Ropemaker StreetLondon EC2Y 9HUEngland+44-(0)20-7275-6500

São Paulo
Av. Presidente Juscelino
Kubitschek, 1455
São Paulo, SP 04543-011
Brazil+55-11-3546-1000

Houston
600 Travis Street, Suite 5400
Houston, TX 77002+1-713-821-5650
Los Angeles
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067+1-310-407-7500
Palo Alto
2475 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304+1-650-251-5000
Washington, D.C.
900 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001+1-202-636-5500

ASIABeijing
3901 China World Tower
1 Jian Guo Men Wai Avenue
Beijing 100004
China+86-10-5965-2999
Hong Kong
ICBC Tower
3 Garden Road, Central
Hong Kong+852-2514-7600
Seoul
25th Floor, West Tower
Mirae Asset Center 1
26 Eulji-ro 5-Gil, Jung-Gu
Seoul 100-210
Korea+82-2-6030-3800
TokyoArk Hills Sengokuyama Mori Tower
9-10, Roppongi 1-Chome
Minato-Ku, Tokyo 106-0032
Japan+81-3-5562-6200

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP