The New Era of Bank Supervision: Material Risk and Regulatory Reform

Overview

Between June and November 2025, federal banking regulators executed a fundamental reset of supervisory practice. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Federal Reserve coordinated a shift away from broad, process-heavy supervision toward a framework centered on material financial risks and clear legal violations. This transformation affects how examiners issue Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs), how banks structure governance and compliance functions, and how enforcement actions are prioritized.

The Regulatory Framework Shift

Defining 'Unsafe or Unsound Practice'

The most consequential development is the OCC/FDIC joint proposal to formally define "unsafe or unsound practice" by regulation. Under this proposal, such practices are limited to conduct that:

•       Presents material risk of harm to an institution's financial condition

•       Creates material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund

This regulatory definition explicitly rejects MRAs based on remote hypotheticals or violations of non-banking laws. The proposal emphasizes that MRA-worthy issues should demonstrate a clear and predictable relationship to capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, or market-risk sensitivity.

New MRA Standards

MRAs may now only be issued where a practice could reasonably be expected—under current or reasonably foreseeable conditions—to become unsafe or unsound, or where it violates specified banking-related laws. This standard represents a significant tightening of supervisory criteria and requires examiners to articulate a causal path from observed weaknesses to material financial harm.

Elimination of Reputation Risk as a Standalone Basis

The agencies have proposed prohibiting "reputation risk" as a standalone basis for supervisory criticism or enforcement. Staff must now tie any reputational concerns back to concrete financial risks or statutory violations. Additionally, the FDIC removed disparate-impact concepts from its Consumer Compliance Examination Manual, narrowing the doctrinal bases for consumer-compliance criticism.

Federal Reserve's Supervisory Operating Principles

The Federal Reserve's November 2025 Statement of Supervisory Operating Principles aligns the Fed with the OCC and FDIC reforms. The Principles direct supervisors to:

•       Focus examinations and MRAs/MRIAs on material financial risks

•       Reduce duplication with primary regulators

•       Rely more heavily on bank internal audit and risk-control structures

•       Provide clear, specific supervisory communications

•       Take earlier and proportionate actions

Importantly, the Principles emphasize reliance on satisfactory internal audit functions to validate remediation and support issue closure, rather than extended supervisory testing.

Current Enforcement Priorities

Despite the framework changes, enforcement volumes have remained moderate and concentrated among smaller institutions. Mid-2025 enforcement activity centered on three primary areas:

BSA/AML and Sanctions Compliance

Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance continue to generate significant enforcement activity. OCC actions have focused on unsafe or unsound BSA/AML practices combined with governance deficiencies. These enforcement orders typically require comprehensive board-level remediation of:

•       Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) processes

•       Correspondent banking due diligence

•       Compliance staffing levels

•       Independent testing programs

Recent high-profile orders have tied sanctions gaps directly to "unsafe or unsound" practices, demonstrating how BSA/AML deficiencies meet the new materiality standards.

Governance and Risk Management Weaknesses

Safety and soundness concerns related to governance structures and risk-management frameworks remain core enforcement themes. These actions often target board-level oversight failures, inadequate risk assessment processes, and deficient internal control structures that implicate institutional financial condition.

Consumer Harm Issues

Consumer compliance enforcement has continued, particularly at community and regional banks. FDIC releases from June through September 2025 show steady flows of consent orders, civil money penalties, and enforcement actions targeting:

•       Flood insurance compliance

•       Credit administration weaknesses

•       Consumer compliance violations

However, with the removal of disparate-impact analysis from FDIC examination procedures, consumer-harm cases now focus on clear harm scenarios involving overdrafts, fees, add-on products, and servicing practices.

Enforcement Distribution

Enforcement actions remain concentrated among institutions under $10 billion in assets. The FDIC's published enforcement actions show consent orders, cease and desist orders, civil money penalties, and deposit insurance terminations predominantly affecting smaller institutions.

The Federal Reserve has issued relatively few public institutional actions during this period. For large, complex institutions, the Fed emphasizes that its primary supervisory leverage operates through MRAs/MRIAs, ratings, and program supervision rather than through high volumes of public enforcement orders.

Practical Implications for Financial Institutions

Enhanced Evidentiary Standards

Examiners now operate under increased pressure to articulate a causal path from observed weaknesses to material financial harm. This raises the analytical bar for supervisory findings but creates a clearer framework for banks to contest, prioritize, and remediate issues. The "currency" of MRAs and Section 8 actions is being revalued toward fewer, better-documented findings with higher evidentiary expectations.

Elevated Role of Internal Audit

Internal audit functions have become central to supervisory strategy. Agencies expect to rely more heavily on banks' own control frameworks and on primary regulators' findings to avoid duplicative examinations. A satisfactory internal audit function can validate remediation efforts and support issue closure, reducing the need for extended supervisory testing.

Board-Level Risk Reporting

Issue-management programs and board-level risk reporting require recalibration. Board reporting should emphasize material risk indicators and remediation status for issues that meet the new MRA and Section 8 standards, while de-emphasizing minor process issues that can be tracked through management committees.

Strategic and Capital Planning Integration

Banks must integrate supervisory-sensitive metrics—ratings, MRAs, enforcement status, and trends—into strategic and capital plans. Less-than-satisfactory CAMELS ratings remain tightly linked to material MRAs and enforcement orders and continue to constrain merger and acquisition activity and growth initiatives.

Audit BSA/AML and Sanctions Programs

Conduct comprehensive reviews of customer due diligence, transaction monitoring, SAR quality, sanctions screening, and correspondent banking relationships. These reviews should assess whether existing controls can demonstrate effective risk mitigation under the heightened materiality standards.

Strengthen Internal Audit Independence

Ensure internal audit has appropriate independence, resources, and board access. Audit findings should be comprehensive, well-documented, and capable of supporting supervisory reliance. Management should demonstrate responsiveness to audit findings with clear remediation timelines.

Refine MRA Management Processes

Review existing MRAs to identify those that meet the new materiality threshold versus process-oriented findings. Develop closure strategies that emphasize demonstrated control effectiveness and sustainable remediation rather than documenting process improvements without measurable risk reduction.

Enhance Consumer Harm Controls

Update fair-lending and UDAAP (Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices) frameworks to focus on clear consumer-harm scenarios. Build integrated conduct-risk dashboards that flag concentrations of complaints, charge-offs, fee income, and product changes, enabling proactive remediation before patterns form the basis for enforcement findings.

Revise Board Reporting

Recalibrate board-level risk and compliance reporting to emphasize material risk indicators and remediation status for issues that plausibly meet the new MRA and Section 8 standards. De-emphasize minor process issues, tracking them instead through management committees.

Conclusion

The coordinated regulatory reset of 2025 represents a fundamental shift in bank supervision philosophy. The movement toward material financial risk as the organizing principle for MRAs, enforcement actions, and supervisory attention creates both opportunities and challenges for financial institutions.

Institutions that successfully operationalize these adjustments—particularly around MRA materiality, internal audit reliance, and BSA/AML and consumer-harm controls—will be positioned to benefit from fewer but more consequential supervisory actions, faster issue closure, and more constructive examination relationships. For banks supervised by multiple federal and state authorities, the emerging cross-agency consensus around materiality standards and reduced duplication creates a clearer regulatory landscape. However, the elevated evidentiary standards for supervisory findings require more sophisticated internal control frameworks and more rigorous documentation of risk-management practices.

The transition from broad, process-heavy supervision to a framework centered on material financial risks and clear legal violations represents a significant recalibration of the regulatory-institution relationship. Institutions that recognize this shift and adapt their governance, compliance, and risk-management functions accordingly will be better positioned to navigate the evolving supervisory environment.

Note: This analysis reflects regulatory developments through November 2025. Financial institutions should consult with legal counsel and compliance advisors regarding specific applications of these supervisory changes. The opinions expressed regarding optimal institutional responses represent analytical observations and should not be construed as legal or regulatory advice. Regulatory proposals referenced herein remain subject to finalization and may be modified through the rulemaking process.

Silicon Valley Bank Revisited

Executive Summary

When I delivered the original presentation to the Suncoast Bankers' Compliance Group in June 2023, Silicon Valley Bank's failure was still weeks old, regulators were still implementing emergency responses, and the full scope of deposit insurance reform remained uncertain. Nearly two and a half years later, the landscape has settled into new rules, completed assessments, and shifted priorities.

This update examines three major changes:

•       The restructuring of FDIC trust account coverage

•       The completion of special assessments to recover losses

•       The evolution from crisis response to a regulatory environment defined by deregulation at the federal level, heightened technology and AI governance expectations, and simplified—but still demanding—baseline risk management standards

Part 1: From Crisis to Regulatory Architecture

The SVB Collapse in Context

Silicon Valley Bank's March 2023 failure represented a rare convergence of internal governance failures and external rate-environment shock.

The bank doubled in size between 2020 and 2023, invested heavily in long-duration fixed-rate securities during a near-zero interest-rate environment, and funded itself almost entirely with rate-sensitive deposits. When the Federal Reserve began raising rates in 2022, SVB's unrealized losses on securities mounted: approximately$16.6 billion in depreciation on a held-to-maturity portfolio of $91.3 billion against Tier 1 capital of only $17 billion. These losses were invisible to the public because of accounting rules that allowed SVB to avoid mark-to-market treatment on securities designated as held-to-maturity.

On March 8, 2023, SVB announced a $1.8 billion after-tax loss on available-for-sale securities and attempted a capital raise—a disclosure that triggered a bank run. Approximately $42 billion in deposits left the bank over 48 hours, almost entirely from uninsured, rate-sensitive accounts. Within days, SVB was in receivership. The Federal Reserve Board's Office of Inspector General later found that SVB's failure stemmed from "several factors," including:

•       The bank's concentrated business model

•       High uninsured deposits

•       Ineffective governance

•       The Federal Reserve's supervisory approach, which "did not evolve with SVB's growth and increased complexity"

The Lessons Became Rules

Regulators responded with concrete changes to both supervisory practice and deposit insurance frameworks.

The OCC revised its examination handbook on liquidity (May 2023), updated enforcement procedures to address persistent weaknesses, and invoked the "Too Big to Manage" doctrine—a statement that effective management is not infinitely scalable and that enterprises can become so complex that control failures occur regardless of management quality.

The Federal Reserve undertook a comprehensive review, identifying three major supervisory findings:

•       The supervisory approach for SVB did not adapt to the bank's growth

•       The transition to large-bank supervision was ineffective

•       Examiners should have more closely scrutinized interest-rate risk on securities portfolios

These findings, published in April 2023, set the stage for a sustained elevation in expectations around interest-rate risk management, governance, and the composition of deposit funding.

Part 2: FDIC Deposit Insurance Restructuring

The Trust Account Rule: April 1, 2024

The most concrete change to deposit insurance since SVB took effect on April 1, 2024. The FDIC consolidated revocable and irrevocable trust accounts into a single insurance category, eliminating decades of complex and often confusing rules.

The New Framework

Under 12 C.F.R. § 330.10, each trust owner receives coverage of up to $250,000 per eligible beneficiary, with a maximum of five beneficiaries, yielding a cap of $1.25 million per owner at a single institution. A sixth or additional beneficiary still generates the same $1.25 million maximum per owner—not a cumulative increase.

What Changed

Previously, a depositor could structure a revocable trust account and an irrevocable trust account at the same institution and receive $250,000 coverage for each, totaling $500,000. Under the new rules, those same two accounts now count as a single $1.25 million trust category, and only the $1.25 million combined limit applies.

For most depositors with trust balances under $1.25 million, coverage is unchanged or improved. For those with larger trust portfolios, especially those who previously split trusts across revocable and irrevocable designations to maximize coverage, the new rule can reduce effective insurance protection.

The FDIC intentionally published these rules more than two years before the April 2024 effective date to give depositors and bankers time to adjust account structures. Nevertheless, many trust relationships required review and, in some cases, restructuring to avoid coverage gaps.

Special Assessment: Cost Socialized Across the Industry

While the trust rule simplified insurance mechanics, the special assessment rule socialized the cost of SVB's failure across all FDIC-insured institutions.

In November 2023, the FDIC issued a final rule on special assessments pursuant to the systemic risk determination applied to SVB and Signature Bank. When regulators invoked the systemic risk exception in March 2023, they protected all depositors at SVB and Signature—including those far above the $250,000 standard insurance limit.

This extraordinary action prevented broader contagion but at a cost: approximately $16.3 billion in losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund. The FDIC estimated that the bulk of these losses could be attributed to the decision to protect uninsured depositors. The special assessment rule allocated that cost across approximately 114 banking organizations, with larger and higher uninsured-deposit institutions bearing proportionally more of the burden.

For bankers, the result was permanently higher insurance premiums on a forward basis. The special assessment was phased in over multiple quarters but is now absorbed into the baseline cost of FDIC insurance for all institutions.

The message to boards and senior management was explicit: extraordinary systemic support will be followed by industry-wide costs, and the asymmetry between risk-taking institutions and the broader banking system will not be quietly absorbed by the federal government.

Part 3: Uninsured Deposits and Systemic Risk

The Concentration Problem

One of the most revealing—and persistent—findings from post-SVB analysis is the degree to which the American banking system had become dependent on uninsured funding. According to the FDIC's "Options for Deposit Insurance Reform" report (May 2023), uninsured deposits reached a peak of 46.6 percent of total system deposits in 2021—the highest share since 1949. These deposits are not evenly distributed. They are heavily concentrated in the largest 10 percent of banks by asset size and are often tied to rate-sensitive depositors—venture capital firms, private equity funds, and technology companies—who move balances rapidly in response to market conditions or news. SVB exemplified this concentration: roughly 90 percent of its deposits were uninsured, and they came almost entirely from a handful of industries. The bank had no retail deposit base to cushion outflows and no traditional relationship depositors with behavioral stickiness.

Systemic Risk Exception and the Precedent Question

The decision to protect all uninsured deposits at SVB and Signature Bank marked the first invocation of the systemic risk exception since the 2008 financial crisis. It was made by unanimous agreement of the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and FDIC—an extraordinary consensus that the alternative (a disorderly failure with uncontrolled contagion) outweighed the cost. However, regulators have been careful to frame this action as an exception, not a new standard. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act permits such determinations only when necessary to prevent or mitigate systemic risk and when the Secretary of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board, and the FDIC all agree. The bar is intentionally high, and regulators have signaled that they do not intend for this to become routine. Nonetheless, the precedent raises questions that remain unresolved:

•       If uninsured depositors at large, systemically important institutions have reason to believe they will be protected in a crisis, does this weaken incentives for risk discipline?

•       How do regulators manage the expectation asymmetry between large institutions and smaller ones?

These questions continue to inform the debate over deposit insurance reform, which remains open. The FDIC has outlined three general approaches:

•       Maintaining the current $250,000 standard limit

•       Expanding coverage to insure all deposits

•       Creating targeted coverage for specific account types (such as business payment accounts)

No final decision has been made, and the reform discussion has been periodic and incomplete.

Part 4: Supervisory Evolution and Regulatory Shifts

The Post-SVB Baseline

Between 2023 and 2025, supervisory frameworks evolved in ways both subtle and significant. The immediate post-SVB period saw heightened focus on liquidity, interest-rate risk, and the governance structures (especially chief risk officer independence and board-level risk reporting) that SVB had lacked.

By 2024, that focus had broadened. Examiners continued to expect strong interest-rate risk management and transparent contingency funding planning, but the agenda expanded to include cybersecurity, data protection, third-party vendor risk, and artificial intelligence governance.

The OCC's revised enforcement manual (May 2023) and liquidity handbook (May 2023) established clearer expectations for how regulators would respond to persistent deficiencies. The message was explicit: banks that exhibited recurring supervisory findings without sustained remediation would face escalated enforcement action.

AI Governance and the New Frontier

By 2025, artificial intelligence has become a first-tier compliance priority in ways that scarcely registered in the original June 2023 presentation.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has issued guidance on AI and lending bias. Federal banking agencies have begun examining banks' use of AI in credit decisions, fraud detection, and customer service. Model risk management frameworks—long established for quantitative models—are being extended to machine learning systems.

The practical regulatory expectation is clear: banks deploying AI must:

•       Document the systems

•       Establish governance

•       Test for bias and data quality issues

•       Maintain transparency

•       Ensure accountability for model outputs

These requirements do not require entirely new frameworks; they apply established risk-management principles to a new domain.

The Deregulation Pendulum

A significant shift occurred between mid-2024 and late 2025. After a period of elevated regulatory expectations and increased enforcement activity (2023-2024), a new federal administration took office in January 2025 with a stated deregulatory agenda. The practical effect has been mixed. Certain rules have been repealed or delayed. The Community Reinvestment Act modernization rule, finalized in 2023, is being rescinded, with regulators proposing to revert to the long-standing 1995 framework with technical updates. Tailoring discussions have resumed, with attention to whether regulatory thresholds and requirements appropriately calibrate to bank size and complexity. However, regulators have been explicit that deregulation does not mean reduced expectations around core risk management. The Federal Reserve and OCC have signaled that they expect banks to maintain rigorous governance, transparent liquidity and interest-rate risk management, and credible contingency planning—regardless of the broader regulatory environment.

The practical reading (opinion): lighten the procedural burden, reduce certain technical requirements, but do not lower the floor on fundamental risk management. Supervisory findings must still be addressed promptly and credibly. The shift is one of burden reduction, not baseline relaxation.

Part 5: Commercial Real Estate and Emerging Risks

Office CRE: A Known Challenge

The office commercial real estate market, which the original presentation identified as a potential future source of stress, has not developed into a systemic crisis.

Instead, it has priced in a permanent structural change: the return-to-office adoption has plateaued at roughly 50-60 percent, foreclosures and distressed sales have increased, and rents in many markets have come under pressure.

Banks that held significant office CRE concentrations have had two years to adjust portfolios, reserve for losses, or manage amortization.

The expected cascade of defaults and contagion has not materialized, in part because banks saw the risk coming and impart because long-term holders of office properties have accepted a downward repricing rather than forced liquidation.

This is a lesson in how regulatory and market visibility can change outcomes. When the original presentation flagged office CRE as a risk to watch, it was forward-looking but not yet crisis-mode. By 2025, the market has adjusted to a new equilibrium that reflects lower demand, lower valuations, and stabilized (if depressed) market clearing prices.

Housing Market Volatility

Interest rates have remained elevated relative to the near-zero levels of 2020-2021, continuing to constrain housing affordability and new construction.

However, the anticipated crisis in residential real estate has similarly not materialized at systemic scale, in part because household balance sheets remained strong through 2024 and because mortgage lending standards remained sound.

The risks identified in the original presentation—supply and demand mismatches, interest-rate barriers to both buyers and sellers, geographic winners and losers—remain relevant but are playing out as structural adjustment rather than acute crisis.

Part 6: Strategic Implications for 2026 and Beyond

FDIC and Deposit Management

For compliance officers and relationship managers, the FDIC trust rule changes are now fully in effect, and any residual coverage gaps should have been resolved. The substantive lesson is that deposit insurance is no longer simply a $250,000-per-account fact; it requires active management, especially for clients with complex family structures, multiple trust designations, or large deposit balances.

Equally important is the message from the special assessment: uninsured deposits are no longer free. They carry the cost of potential systemic intervention and, more broadly, underscore the fact that deposit concentration and composition are material risk factors in both regulatory examinations and bank solvency stress testing.

Interest Rate Risk Governance

Despite rate stabilization and the fact that rates are no longer rising sharply, interest-rate risk remains a core supervisory priority. The baseline expectation is that banks maintain current, documented economic value calculations, board-level reporting on earnings-at-risk and economic value metrics, and strategic decisions about duration and funding match that are actively managed rather than passively accepted. The SVB episode did not occur because interest-rate risk management tools do not exist; it occurred because governance failures prevented their use. That insight has translated into persistent emphasis on board oversight, CRO independence, and transparent communication between risk and business leadership.

Cybersecurity and Third-Party Risk

By 2025, cybersecurity and data protection are as much a compliance responsibility as capital and liquidity.

Regulatory expectations include:

•       Documented risk assessments

•       Vendor management frameworks

•       Incident response capabilities

•       Clear accountability for data breaches or unauthorized access

The shift reflects both the increasing sophistication of cyber threats and the growing dependence of banks on digital channels and third-party service providers. A bank may have excellent balance-sheet risk management but face reputational and operational damage from a significant data breach or the failure of a critical technology vendor.

AI Governance Framework

Building on model risk management practices, banks are expected to establish AI governance frameworks that address several dimensions:

•       Selection and validation of models

•       Testing for bias and fairness

•       Ongoing monitoring and performance tracking

•       Transparency to internal and external stakeholders

•       Clear accountability for model outputs

The regulatory message is not that banks should avoid AI; it is that they should implement AI thoughtfully, with governance structures commensurate to the risk and visibility that the tool provides.

Conclusion

The regulatory environment for banks in January 2026 is neither the crisis-driven urgency of June 2023 nor a return to the lighter-touch frameworks of the pre-2008 era.

Instead, it reflects a maturation of post-SVB lessons into permanent regulatory structures (trust account rules, special assessments), persistent heightened expectations around governance and transparency, and an expanding—rather than narrowing—set of compliance domains.

Key developments include:

•       Deposit insurance has been simplified and strategically reassessed

•       Interest-rate risk governance is now explicitly embedded in supervisory expectations

•       Cybersecurity and AI are first-tier compliance topics, not emerging issues

•       While deregulation at the federal level may reduce certain procedural burdens, the floor on fundamental risk management—transparency, governance, contingency planning—remains elevated

For boards, senior management, and compliance functions, the lesson is clear: the fundamentals that the original presentation emphasized—strong risk governance, clear board oversight, transparent communication, credible contingency planning—remain as relevant in February 2026 as they were in June 2023. What has changed is the set of risks being monitored and the regulatory domain in which compliance expectations extend.

Appendix: Sources and Citations

Federal Reserve and OIG Reports

Federal Reserve Board, Office of Inspector General. "Material Loss Review of Silicon Valley Bank." Report 2023-SR-B-013, September 24, 2023. https://oig.federalreserve.gov/reports/board-material-loss-review-silicon-valley-bank-sep2023.pdf

Federal Reserve Board. "Review of the Federal Reserve's Supervision and Regulation of Silicon Valley Bank." April 28,2023. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/svb-review-20230428.pdf

FDIC Rules and Guidance

FDIC. "Options for Deposit Insurance Reform." Release dated May 1, 2023. https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/options-deposit-insurance-reforms/report/options-deposit-insurance-reform-full.pdf

FDIC. "Final Rule on Special Assessment Pursuant to Systemic Risk Determination." Federal Register, Vol. 88, No. 221, November 15, 2023. https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2023/fil23058.html

FDIC. "Simplification of Deposit Insurance Rules." Guidance on trust accounts and mortgage servicing accounts effective April 1, 2024. https://www.fdic.gov/media/411

FDIC. "Your Insured Deposits: Revocable and Irrevocable Trusts." April 1, 2024.https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit-insurance/brochures/insured-deposits

FDIC Board of Directors. "Press Release: FDIC Board of Directors Issues a Final Rule on Special Assessment." November 15, 2023. https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23092.html

OCC Guidance and Enforcement

OCC. "PPM 5310-3: Revised Bank Enforcement Manual." May 25, 2023. OCC. "Revised Examination Handbook on Liquidity Risk." May 25, 2023.

OCC. "Acting Comptroller Discusses Management of Large Banks." Speech, January 2023. https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/speeches/2023/pub-speech-2023-7.pdf

Senate and Congressional Reports

U.S. Senate, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Minority Staff. "Regional Bank Failures Report: KPMG Audits of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank." September 16, 2025.https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025_09_17-Regional-Bank-Failures-Report-1.pdf

U.S. Senate, Office of Senator Richard Blumenthal. "New Senate Report Reveals KPMG's Willful Ignorance in Lead-Up to Collapses." Press Release, September 16, 2025.

Practitioner and Industry Analyses

Loeb & Associates. "New FDIC Rules Change Coverage for Trust Accounts." March 31, 2024.https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2023/06/new-fdic-rules-may-change-coverage-for-trust-accounts

Okrent Law. "FDIC Updates Rules for Trusts Effective April 1, 2024." https://www.okrentlaw.com/fdic-updates-rules-for-trusts-effective-april-1-2024/

This document is intended as a reference for banking professionals reviewing regulatory developments since June 2023 and does not constitute legal or regulatory advice. Readers should consult with internal compliance functions and external counsel for guidance specific to their institutions.