Attendees: Akshat, Alexis, Elizabeth, Andre, M, Caitlin, Eric
We discussed questions that have arisen from our letter drafting process, including:
- the inversion of the language of the statute in Section 16 of the proposed rule
- The ways that banking entities may abuse the SBIC allowance
- Eric asked how ownership interests in ABS issuers would be counted towards the 3% limit in covered funds investments. We did not have clarity and so added it to the list of questions we plan to ask the SEC.
- We discussed the securitization allowances at length, especially the language “contractual rights or assets directly arising from these loans and supporting the asset-backed securities” from § _. 13(d)(2)
- We discussed the definition of “sponsor” in the proposed rule, and whether a banking entity may be able to exploit/get around the definition if they are sponsoring a covered fund outside of the US
Towards the end of the meeting, we had a visit from a videographer who filmed us for a bit while we continued discussion.
- a member related a story about calling the FDIC to ask about the language of the rule that states “Banking entity must disclose in writing to any potential investors that “The ‘ownership interests in the covered funds are not insured by the FDIC, and are not deposits, obligations of, or endorsed or guaranteed in any way, by the banking entity’ (unless that happens to be the case);”“