Commercial Firm Entrée to the Banking Sector: Industrial Loan Companies

The FDIC this week released a final rule on “industrial banks” or “industrial loan companies” (together, ILCs) that, coupled with recent approvals of FDIC insurance applications by ILCs, indicates a receptivity to ILCs and their corporate parents that historically has not been present (at least at detectable levels).

An ILC is basically a type of bank organized under the laws of one of a handful of states (most notably Utah). While an ILC can offer a full range of lending and deposit products, and its deposit accounts are insured by the FDIC just like those of conventional commercial banks, a company that owns the ILC is not subject to the same level of regulation that the parent company of a bank is. This allows industrial or commercial companies, including, for example, BMW or Pitney Bowes, to directly provide banking products and services to their customers, employees, or other stakeholders. (Many ILCs engage in limited or specialty financial services and do not offer a full range of services to the general public.)

ILCs were started in the early 1900s to provide small loans to industrial workers. Probably due to this niche business model, the corporate parents of ILCs are not regulated as “bank holding companies.” Federal statutes, most pertinently here, the Bank Holding Company Act, have historically separated banking from commerce and thus have limited the lines of business that a banking company can engage in. Bank holding companies can engage only in financial activities (banking, insurance or securities, for the most part) and are regulated and examined by the Federal Reserve. Under the Bank Holding Company Act, however, the definition of “bank” excludes ILCs. Thus, the parents of ILCs are not “bank holding companies” and can engage in any business activity. More than 15 years ago, Walmart famously sought to charter an ILC (and obtain FDIC deposit insurance for it), but was shouted down by the banking industry and regulators. The 2007-2008 financial crisis and then moratoria imposed by the FDIC and Congress dampened further interest in ILCs.

More recently, however, the ILC business model has received renewed attention: the FDIC has received 12 deposit insurance applications by ILCs since early 2017, and it has approved two. The FDIC has stated that it expects continued interest in ILCs, particularly for ILCs with a specialty or limited purpose business model.

The new FDIC rule, which will be effective April 1, 2021, imposes conditions and requires commitments for each deposit insurance application approval from an ILC whose parent company is not subject to Federal Reserve supervision. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that ILC parents serve as the source of strength for their subsidiary ILCs (a requirement of federal statutes) and to provide transparency to future applicants and the broader public as to what the FDIC requires of parent companies of covered industrial banks. Notably, the FDIC rejected objections to the rule based on the mixing of banking and commerce through commercial ownership of an ILC, noting that Congress created the special treatment of ILCs and thus that whether commercial firms should continue to be able to own ILCs is a policy decision for Congress.

In sum, the FDIC rule further indicates a relatively new willingness at the federal level to entertain ILC proposals from non-financial companies. While the process is unlikely to be fast or cheap, ILCs will provide a new opportunity for non-financial firms seeking access to the financial system.

Firm Highlights
Client Alert

Missouri Now Requires Employers to Provide Leave and Accommodations for Victims of Domestic and Sexual Violence

More
News

Neal F. Perryman Named to Missouri’s POWER List in Employment Law by Missouri Lawyers Media

More
Client Alert

First-Issued Interim Final Rule Gives Guidance on No Surprises Act

More
Client Alert

FTC Adds Teeth to the ‘Made in USA’ Rule

More
Client Alert

Property Owners Can Push the Issue Under Illinois Mechanic’s Lien Law

More
News

Claims Filed for Compensation in North Carolina Ecusta Trail Rail-to-Trail Case

More
News

John C. Bodnar Named BTI M&A Client Service All-Star

More
News

Four Lewis Rice Attorneys Named 2022 “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers

More
Client Alert

FTC Reverses Course on Treatment of Debt Payoff Under HSR Act

More
News

Michael R. Thiessen Recognized as Pro Bono Spotlight by KCMBF for August

More
News

Lewis Rice Recognized as Top M&A Firm by BTI Consulting Group

More
News

Brian P. Pezza Quoted in SHRM Articles on Employee Vaccination Status Disclosure and Employer Vaccination Policies

More
News

Lauren R. Carey Creates New Blog for Social Media Influencers

More
Client Alert

OSHA’s New Guidance Regarding Indoor Mask Wearing, COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates, Regular Testing of Unvaccinated Workers, and More

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Limits Ability to Compel Access to Private Property Without Compensation

More
News

David W. Sweeney Represents Advantes Group in $7.2 Million Apartment Project

More
News

61 Lewis Rice Attorneys Named Best Lawyers for 2022, 16 Named Ones to Watch

More
News

Michael D. Mulligan Publishes Article in ACTEC Law Journal Comparing Sales to an Intentionally Defective Irrevocable Trust and a to Beneficiary Intentionally Defective Irrevocable Trust

More
News

Lewis Rice Wins $1.5 Million in Compensation for Covington Landowners

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Golf Foundation of Missouri Awards First Larry L. Deskins, Sr. Scholarship

More