Defining Unsafe or Unsound Practices: Clarity, Materiality, and Flexibility

This article was developed using publicly available responses submitted to Requests for Information issued by banking regulators. It summarizes and synthesizes themes, perspectives, and information reflected in those public submissions for informational purposes only. The article does not represent the views of any regulator, respondent, institution, or the Firm, and should not be interpreted as legal, regulatory, or compliance advice.

Executive Summary

Across 30 responses, 60% answered to whether the proposed definition of unsafe or unsound practice captures objectionable practices. Supporters highlight alignment with long-standing prudential standards and a focus on material financial harm; critics warn the definition is ambiguous or too narrow to enable proactive oversight. The core challenge is balancing clarity and predictability with sufficient breadth to address foreseeable risks and evolving harms. This article synthesizes those perspectives to directly address the catalog question.

Key takeaways:

• Supporters cite alignment with “generally accepted standards of prudent operation” and focus on practices likely to materially harm financial condition.
• Several respondents endorse consistency with Section 8 and long-standing interpretations.
• Multiple commenters warn key phrases (e.g., “generally accepted standards of prudent operation,” “likely,” “if continued”) are vague or ambiguous.
• Some argue the proposal is too narrow or backward-looking, limiting proactive intervention against foreseeable risks.
• Others support emphasizing material financial harm and objective, demonstrable impacts on solvency, liquidity, capital, operations, or compliance.
• Consumer-focused perspectives urge capturing foreseeable risks of sudden deterioration, including early intervention.
• A few highlight unpredictability from case-by-case application without clearer examples or examiner guidance.

Bottom line:

On balance, the proposed definition largely captures objectionable practices by anchoring to prudential standards and material financial harm, but meaningful concerns about ambiguity and over-narrowness remain. Clarifying key terms and accommodating foreseeable risks would strengthen fit-for-purpose application.

The Question (Ref #2)

Does the proposed definition of unsafe or unsound practice (the agencies would define the term unsafe or unsound practice to mean a practice, act, or failure to act, alone or together with one or more other practices, acts, or failures to act, that (1) is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation; and (2)(i) if continued, is likely to (A) materially harm the financial condition of the institution; or (B) present a material risk of loss to the DIF; or (ii) materially harmed the financial condition of the institution) appropriately capture the types of objectionable practices, acts, or failures to act that should be captured? Please explain.

Direct Response to the Catalog Question

Introduction

Question 2 asks: Does the proposed definition of unsafe or unsound practice appropriately capture the types of objectionable practices, acts, or failures to act that should be captured? The inputs reflect strong support for a definition grounded in prudent operations and material harm, coupled with significant requests to clarify ambiguous terms and ensure the scope remains sufficiently proactive.

Historic Lessons in the Evidence

Respondents’ reasoning converges on two cautions: when standards are vague, outcomes become unpredictable and can hinge on examiner discretion; when criteria are too narrow or backward-looking, supervisors may miss foreseeable deterioration. Conversely, anchoring to well-known prudential benchmarks and material financial harm can enhance clarity and align expectations, provided terms like “likely,” “material,” and “generally accepted standards” are operationalized.

The Challenge

The practical challenge is striking a durable balance: retaining a clear, objective threshold tied to material financial harm while ensuring the definition is not so narrow or ambiguous that it inhibits action on foreseeable risks or invites uneven application. Clarifying ambiguous terms and providing guidance can reduce case-by-case variability without sacrificing the flexibility needed for evolving risk profiles.

Evolving Metrics

Commenters assessed the definition against established legal and prudential benchmarks (e.g., the Horne formulation and Section 8), thresholds like “likely to materially harm the financial condition,” and foreseeability of sudden deterioration. Several urged tying determinations to objective, demonstrable impacts on solvency, liquidity, capital, operations, or compliance, while others advocated explicitly recognizing foreseeable consumer and safety-and-soundness risks.

A Framework Inspired by the Inputs

An implicit two-part approach emerges: first, identify whether a practice is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation; second, assess whether it is likely, particularly if continued, to materially harm the institution’s financial condition or present material risk. Many respondents would augment this with clarified definitions, causation standards, foreseeability considerations, and examiner guidance to ensure consistent application.

Case Study

A representative pattern across comments shows institutions and trade groups largely agreeing that a definition focused on prudent operations and material financial harm can enhance clarity and enable boards to prioritize risks, while urging clarifications to avoid ambiguity. Consumer and public-interest perspectives stress incorporating reasonably foreseeable deterioration to support early intervention, and academics and some state entities warn that excessive narrowing relative to prior interpretations could impede effective supervision.

Recommendations

1. Clarify “generally accepted standards of prudent operation” to reduce ambiguity and examiner subjectivity.
2. Define and illustrate the “likely” and “if continued” causation standards to increase predictability and consistency.
3. Preserve the focus on material financial harm while allowing consideration of reasonably foreseeable deterioration, including consumer-related risk signals.
4. Align text and guidance with long-standing interpretations and Section 8 to avoid conflicts with established precedent.
5. Provide concrete examples and examiner guidance to mitigate case-by-case variability and unpredictability.
6. Emphasize objective, demonstrable impacts (e.g., solvency, liquidity, capital, operations, compliance) to ground determinations in measurable risk.
7. Avoid process-over-substance pitfalls by ensuring the definition targets practices that drive material safety-and-soundness risk rather than mere procedural lapses.
8. Ensure the definition supports proactive supervision so that foreseeable, significant deterioration can be addressed before harm materializes.

Conclusion

Most commenters believe the proposed definition generally captures objectionable practices by focusing on prudent operation standards and material financial harm. However, a substantial minority identify ambiguities and potential over-narrowing that could limit proactive action and consistency. The strongest path forward is to keep the core structure while clarifying key terms and explicitly recognizing foreseeable deterioration. Doing so would directly answer the catalog question in the affirmative while addressing the principal concerns raised.

Follow us, stay informed, stay secure, and let’s navigate the risk landscape together.