WASHINGTON, April 25 (Reuters) - A top US bank regulator

opted not to consider new policies that would have imposed

stricter oversight on asset managers with sizeable investments

in banks like Blackrock ( BLK ) and Vanguard, even as agency officials

agreed the matter merited more attention.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation postponed votes on

two competing plans that would have given the agency more power

to scrutinize asset managers after it was clear neither had the

majority backing of the five-member board.

Officials said they planned to refine the proposals and

continue discussing oversight of asset managers with big bank

stakes.

"If these fund complexes are using their purportedly passive

investment funds to push social policy, to influence bank

policy, there's a real significant issue here," said FDIC board

member Jonathan McKernan at the agency's public board meeting on

Thursday.

The debate underlines growing concern from some policymakers

about large asset managers' expanding footprint in the banking

sector, driven largely by the growth in index investing. At

issue is whether these investors are exerting undue influence on

the management of companies in their portfolios.

Industry officials have resisted more scrutiny, arguing the

current arrangement has proven itself.

"For more than 20 years, US bank regulators have concluded

that regulated funds' passivity commitments ensure they do not

exercise control over the banks in which they invest," said a

spokesperson for the Investment Company Institute, which

represents investment funds.

"Any suggestion that this regulatory approach should be

changed lacks substantiation and could harm fund investors."

Of the plans under review, one from McKernan, a Republican,

would direct FDIC staff to regularly assess if asset managers

are complying with so-called "passivity agreements" to not use

their bank investments to steer operations or push certain

policies. If any firm is exerting control of the bank, the FDIC

would subject the investor to stricter regulation.

However, FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg said he believed

this step to be "premature," and the agency should solicit more

public feedback.

A second proposal, backed by Gruenberg and offered by

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Rohit Chopra, would remove

an FDIC policy that requires the agency to defer to the Federal

Reserve on passivity agreements involving bank holding

companies. The proposal includes soliciting feedback on the

growing role of asset managers in banks. Chopra argued the FDIC

should be more directly involved in such matters, given the

agency's responsibility for ensuring banks are safe.

That plan was also shelved after Michael Hsu, acting

Comptroller of the Currency, said he would not vote for either

approach. Instead, he argued all three major US bank regulators

should work together on a consistent approach to policing bank

control.

"Further research, analysis, and debate are clearly needed,"

he said.