AuguryRegulators Pull Leveraged‑Lending Guidance — What Banks, Credit Investors and CLO Markets Should Expect
This article was written by the Augury Times
Agencies quietly rescind guidance, signaling looser supervisory tone today
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced today that they are withdrawing long‑standing interagency leveraged‑lending guidance. The agencies said the documents no longer reflect current supervisory practice and are being removed from the official set of interagency issuances. The withdrawal takes effect immediately and applies to the core leveraged‑lending guidance and related frequently asked questions that shaped bank underwriting and exam expectations for more than a decade.
Which documents were pulled and what this actually changes
Regulators made a targeted decision: they rescinded the interagency leveraged‑lending guidance that had guided bank behavior since the early 2010s and the companion FAQ material that examiners used to assess loans to highly leveraged firms. Those issuances framed what examiners expected in areas such as underwriting standards, collateral valuation, covenant design and risk management for large commercial and sponsor‑backed loans.
Importantly, the withdrawal removes the guidance as a formal supervisory floor. It does not erase statutory rules or bank capital standards, nor does it change accounting or legal obligations. Examiners still have broad discretion to judge the safety and soundness of loans. But the explicit, prescriptive language that had anchored supervisory conversations around leveraged lending will no longer be the default reference in exams and enforcement actions.
How this shift plays out across loans, CLOs and banks
For investors, the move is a clear nudge toward easier origination and more activity in the leveraged‑loan market. Banks that underwrite and syndicate these loans — from large bulge‑bracket firms to regional lenders — should see fewer immediate supervisory hurdles when arranging big, sponsor‑backed deals. That can mean faster deal flow, higher fee income and a pickup in secondary trading and distribution activity.
Collateralized loan obligation (CLO) managers and other buy‑side players are likely to welcome a larger and more predictable supply of loans. More supply tends to push spreads tighter and can lift issuance volumes, which matters for managers at firms such as Blackstone (BX) and Apollo Global Management (APO) that run CLO platforms and fee businesses.
Still, the near‑term boost to origination revenue comes with higher medium‑term risk. Reduced guidance can encourage looser underwriting across market cycles; if credit deterioration follows, banks will face higher charge‑offs and potential mark‑to‑market losses on loan portfolios. This is especially true for lenders that expand quickly into sponsor‑led deals or take on larger concentrations in cyclical sectors.
Why regulators moved now and how others are reacting
The agencies framed the withdrawal as a modernization step. They said supervisory doctrine should evolve with markets and that dated prescriptive documents can unintentionally constrain legitimate lending activity. Industry trade groups and banks welcomed the change as a reduction in regulatory drag and a signal that examiners will rely more on principles and judgement than on rigid checklists.
Expect pushback from some lawmakers and consumer groups who worry that removing explicit guardrails encourages risk‑taking. The Federal Reserve and other supervisors may keep sending mixed messages: some exam teams could continue to reference the old guidance informally, while others adopt the new, less prescriptive stance. That unevenness will be one of the biggest short‑term headaches for both banks and overseers.
What bank risk and compliance teams should do now
Risk officers should treat the withdrawal as an operational change, not a green light to loosen standards. First, update internal policies and credit approvals to reflect that supervisory expectations will be more principle‑based. That means documenting decision logic, stress assumptions and rationale for any departures from prior underwriting norms.
Second, tighten governance: increase quarterly loan reviews, refresh covenant testing and make sure concentration limits and industry stress scenarios are current. Third, validate models and scenario analyses that feed into risk appetite, and ensure boards receive clear reporting on leveraged‑loan exposures and sponsor‑related activity. Finally, maintain communication channels with examiners so changes in supervisory emphasis are understood and documented during exams.
Investor takeaways and what to watch next
For investors, the headline is simple: this is pro‑origination and pro‑fee in the short run, and pro‑risk in the medium run. Banks that are active in leveraged lending and loan syndication — names such as JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Wells Fargo (WFC), Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) — could see revenue upside from increased deal flow. CLO managers and specialist credit funds may benefit from greater deal supply and fee expansion.
At the same time, keep a close watch on credit quality indicators. Monitor quarterly loan growth, nonperforming loans, charge‑offs and vintage deterioration in sponsor‑led lending. Key events to follow: upcoming bank earnings calls where management discusses loan pipelines and underwriting discipline; CLO issuance calendars; regulator speeches that clarify supervisory intent; and any congressional inquiries or hearings that could force a policy response.
Bottom line: the withdrawal recalibrates the playing field. It favors near‑term activity and fees but raises the bar for investor scrutiny. Markets may cheer faster origination today — but the real test will be whether underwriting standards hold when the cycle turns.
Photo: Monstera Production / Pexels
Sources