§ 221.120. Allocation of stock collateral to purpose and nonpurpose credits to same customer.
336 words·~2 min read·
/us/cfr/t12/s§ 221.120·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
(a)A bank proposes to extend two credits (Credits A and B) to its customer. Although the two credits are proposed to be extended at the same time, each would be evidenced by a separate agreement. Credit A would be extended for the purpose of providing the customer with working capital (nonpurpose credit), collateralized by margin stock. Credit B would be extended for the purpose of purchasing or carrying margin stock (purpose credit), without collateral or on collateral other than stock.
(b)This part allows a bank to extend purpose and nonpurpose credits simultaneously or successively to the same customer. This rule is expressed in § 221.3(d)(4) which provides in substance that for any nonpurpose credit to the same customer, the lender shall in good faith require as much collateral not already identified to the customer's purpose credit as the lender would require if it held neither the purpose loan nor the identified collateral. This rule in § 221.3(d)(4) also takes into account that the lender would not necessarily be required to hold collateral for the nonpurpose credit if, consistent with good faith banking practices, it would normally make this kind of nonpurpose loan without collateral.
(c)The Board views § 221.3(d)(4), when read in conjunction with § 221.3(c) and (f), as requiring that whenever a lender extends two credits to the same customer, one a purpose credit and the other nonpurpose, any margin stock collateral must first be identified with and attributed to the purpose loan by taking into account the maximum loan value of such collateral as prescribed in § 221.7 (the Supplement).
(d)The Board is further of the opinion that under the foregoing circumstances Credit B would be indirectly secured by stock, despite the fact that there would be separate loan agreements for both credits. This conclusion flows from the circumstance that the lender would hold in its possession stock collateral to which it would have access with respect to Credit B, despite any ostensible allocation of such collateral to Credit A.