Regulation
January 28, 2026
In late 2025, U.S. banking regulators took a meaningful step that may reshape how leveraged finance is supervised. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) jointly announced the withdrawal of their interagency guidance on leveraged lending, originally issued in 2013 and later clarified through FAQs in 2014.
For more than a decade, this guidance played a central role in shaping examiner expectations and bank behavior, even though it was never formal regulation. Its removal, therefore, goes beyond a technical adjustment and reflects a broader shift in supervisory thinking.
This article clarifies why the guidance was withdrawn, what replaces it, and how banks and the leveraged lending market are likely to adjust.
Audio Article
What Was the Interagency Leveraged Lending Guidance?
The interagency leveraged lending guidance was intended to promote safe and sound practices for loans to highly leveraged or non-investment-grade borrowers, particularly in transactions such as leveraged buyouts, acquisitions, and recapitalizations.
While framed as supervisory guidance, it effectively became a benchmark for underwriting standards, borrower leverage tolerance, repayment expectations, and portfolio oversight. Over time, many banks treated it as a quasi-rulebook, designing transactions as much around supervisory acceptability as around credit fundamentals.
Why Regulators Decided to Withdraw It
In their joint statement, the OCC and FDIC outline several reasons for rescinding the guidance, while the Federal Reserve has not yet taken a similar step—a relevant distinction, as banks supervised by the Fed remain subject to the existing framework, representing the largest share of the U.S. banking system and creating potentially different supervisory regimes for large and smaller institutions.
At a supervisory level, regulators concluded that the guidance had become overly restrictive, limiting banks’ ability to apply general, principles-based risk management tailored to their specific business models. Rather than supporting judgment, it often constrained it.
They also acknowledged market consequences. By raising supervisory friction for banks, the guidance arguably pushed leveraged lending activity toward nonbank lenders, moving risk outside the regulated banking system rather than reducing it overall.
In addition, the agencies recognized that the guidance had become too broad in scope, capturing transactions that were not originally intended to fall under leveraged lending supervision, including certain loans to investment-grade companies.
Finally, there was a procedural and legal issue. A determination by the Government Accountability Office concluded that the 2013 guidance qualified as a “rule” under the Congressional Review Act and therefore should have been submitted to Congress, something that never occurred.
What Takes the Place of the Old Guidance
The withdrawal does not signal that leveraged lending is now viewed as low risk or lightly supervised. The message from regulators is more nuanced: leveraged lending remains risky, and examiners will continue to focus on it, but without the old playbook.
Instead, banks are expected to rely on general safety-and-soundness principles applicable to all commercial credit activities. In practical terms, this means:
-
Managing core risks—especially credit and liquidity—and tailoring controls to the level of leveraged exposure
-
Defining a clear risk appetite and ensuring leveraged lending fits within it
-
Maintaining oversight across the entire loan pipeline, including loans held on the balance sheet and those intended for distribution
-
Adopting a consistent internal definition of leveraged lending to monitor concentrations, including indirect exposures
-
Ensuring underwriting reflects the loan’s purpose, repayment sources, and a realistic path to deleveraging
Examiners will still review underwriting quality, risk ratings, and reserves, but under broader, more flexible principles that take into account the bank’s size, complexity, and overall risk profile. Regulators also note that any future leveraged lending guidance would be issued through a notice-and-comment process, rather than informal supervisory issuances.
An Important Scope Note: Where the Federal Reserve Fits In
The original 2013 guidance was truly interagency, involving the OCC, FDIC, and the Federal Reserve. The December 2025 statement, however, applies only to the OCC and FDIC.
The Federal Reserve’s supervisory letter (SR 13-3), which reflects the interagency guidance, remains in place, and no parallel withdrawal has been announced. As a result, supervisory expectations may continue to differ depending on a bank’s primary regulator.
Practical Implications for Banks and the Market
From a practical standpoint, the withdrawal of the guidance is expected to give banks greater structural and commercial flexibility, particularly in how leveraged loans are underwritten, structured, and monitored. The removal of bright-line supervisory benchmarks—such as implicit leverage thresholds or standardized repayment expectations—reduces the risk that individual transactions will be criticized simply for failing to align with legacy metrics.
However, the overall impact of this shift should be viewed in context. The Federal Reserve has not announced a corresponding withdrawal, which is highly relevant given that Fed-supervised institutions represent the largest share of the U.S. banking system. As a result, the intended re-opening of space for bank participation in leveraged lending may be more limited than it appears, with flexibility applying unevenly across the sector and creating materially different supervisory frameworks for large, Fed-supervised banks and smaller institutions regulated by the OCC and FDIC.
That said, supervisory expectations have not diminished. Banks will still be required to demonstrate that their underwriting decisions are well-reasoned, consistent with their stated risk appetite, and supported by robust governance, including effective credit approval processes, portfolio monitoring, and escalation mechanisms when risks increase.
At the market level, regulators and observers suggest that this shift could rebalance competition between banks and private credit or other nonbank lenders. Over time, greater supervisory flexibility may allow banks to participate more actively in segments of the leveraged lending market they had previously exited, potentially bringing a portion of that activity back into the regulated banking system, where risks are subject to ongoing prudential oversight rather than migrating entirely to less regulated channels.
A Different Way to Supervise: Not a Reduction in Oversight
The OCC and FDIC’s decision to withdraw the leveraged lending guidance reflects a recalibration of supervisory approach rather than a rollback of oversight. By moving away from a prescriptive framework, regulators are emphasizing judgment, proportionality, and institution-specific risk management.
For banks, the implication is straightforward: there is more room to operate, but less room to rely on check-the-box compliance. In the post-guidance environment, credibility with supervisors will depend on how clearly institutions can explain (and defend) their risk decisions within a broader safety-and-soundness framework.
Stay Ahead of Regulatory Shifts
Supervisory frameworks evolve, but expectations do not disappear. Subscribe to our blog to receive expert analysis on banking regulation, risk management, and balance sheet strategy directly in your inbox.
