InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FHFA outlines MSR guidance for managing counterparty credit risk
On January 12, FHFA released an advisory bulletin communicating supervisory expectations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises) related to the valuation of mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) for managing counterparty credit risk. FHFA emphasized that Fannie and Freddie’s “risk management policies and procedures should be commensurate with an Enterprise’s risk appetite[] and based on an assessment of seller/servicer financial strength and MSR risk exposure levels.” FHFA relayed that while sellers and servicers assign values to their MSRs, the Enterprises should implement their own processes to evaluate the reasonableness of seller/servicer MSR values. FHFA explained that Fannie and Freddie are “exposed to counterparty credit risk when seller/servicers provide representations and warranties that mortgage loans conform with its selling guide requirements,” and reiterated that “[f]ailure to meet such obligations and commitments may cause the Enterprise to incur credit losses and operational costs.”
The advisory bulletin lays out risk management expectations to ensure MSR values are reasonable, objective, and transparent, and provides guidance covering several areas, including (i) objective evaluation of MSR values; (ii) MSR valuations for mortgage loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie as well as stress testing; (iii) MSR valuations for mortgage loans not owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie; (iv) market data input; (v) use of third-party providers; (vi) frequency of evaluations; and (vii) discount to MSR values when servicing rights are terminated. The advisory bulletin is applicable only to MSRs for single-family mortgage loans and is effective April 1.
FHFA issues model risk management guidance
On December 21, FHFA issued guidance to Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks), and the Office of Finance on its model risk management framework. According to the bulletin, the purpose of the guidance—formatted as Frequently Asked Questions—“is to provide supplemental guidelines that will address some of the gaps in [FHFA’s 2013 Model Risk Management guidance] prompted by changes in model-related technologies and questions generated from the expanded use of complex models by the FHLBanks.” “The supplemental guidance also addresses model documentation, the communication of model limitations, model performance tracking, on-top adjustments, challenger models, model consistency, and internal stress testing.”
OCC discusses credit risk management, diversity and inclusion
On December 5, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu delivered remarks at the RMA Risk Management and Internal Audit Virtual Conference, where he spoke about the current expected credit losses standard (CECL) and the importance of workforce diversity and inclusion. Hsu started by discussing CECL and mentioning that though loan portfolios have generally remained resilient and widespread, “deterioration isn’t currently evident in credit quality metrics, the effects of high inflation, rising interest rates, lagging wage growth, supply chain disruptions, and stress from geopolitical events threaten the unexpectedly strong credit performance observed over the past few years.” He further pointed out that the longer-term effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, such as the shift in preferences toward online shopping and remote work, and other circumstances, can erode business profit margins, debt service capacity, and collateral valuations, in addition to adversely affecting credit risk levels at financial institutions. When speaking about sound practice, Hsu stated that maintaining safe and sound credit risk management practices through this period of economic uncertainty is critical. He also noted that “timely risk identification and ratings, increased focus on concentrated portfolios and vulnerable borrowers, and stress testing and sensitivity analysis are particularly critical risk management activities at this time.” He further warned that the “flexibility” provided by CECL must ensure safety and soundness, arguing that there needs to be “appropriate support and documentation of management’s judgments,” as well as management’s assumptions, decisions, expectations, and qualitative adjustments. He emphasized that the first step to improving diversity, equity, and inclusion requires more transparency from the financial services industry regarding the diversity of their boards and executive leadership, and organizations need to develop diversity plans and monitor outcomes. He also emphasized that financial institutions should actively “foster a true sense of belonging for everyone.” In closing, Hsu stated that “improving diversity and inclusion is a ‘need to have’ for [the OCC] to achieve our mission of assuring safety and soundness, fair access to financial services, and fair treatment of customers.”
Barr suggests stress test changes may be coming
On December 1, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr signaled changes may be coming to the supervisory stress test standards for large banks, as the Fed evaluates whether the test used to set capital requirements reflects an appropriately wide range of risks. Speaking during an American Enterprise Institute event, Barr commented that the Fed is also “considering the potential for stress testing to be a tool to explore different sources of financial stress and uncover channels for contagion that lead to unanticipated consequences.” He added that the use of “multiple scenarios or adapting the stress test in other ways to better account for the high degree of interconnectedness between banks and other financial entities could allow supervisors and banks to identify those conditions and take action to address them.” Financial stability risks posed by the nonbank sector are also a strong concern for regulators, Barr said, commenting that many of these firms are undercapitalized and engage in high-risk activities. He stressed that the migration of activities from banks to nonbanks should be monitored carefully, and cautioned against lowering bank capital requirements “in a race to the bottom,” particularly since nonbank financial market stress is often directly and indirectly transmitted to the banking system. Banks must have sufficient capital to remain resilient to those stresses, Barr said.
Fed solicits feedback on proposed climate-related risk principles
On December 2, the Federal Reserve Board issued a notice requesting public comments on proposed Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions. The proposed principles would provide a high-level framework for the safe and sound management of exposures to climate-related financial risks for the largest financial institutions (those with over $100 billion in total consolidated assets), as well as address the physical and transition risks associated with climate change. Notably the notice acknowledged that all financial institutions, regardless of size, can have material exposures to climate-related financial risks. Intended to support large financial institutions’ efforts in addressing climate-related financial risk management, the proposed principles cover six major areas related to: (i) governance; (ii) policies, procedures, and limits; (iii) strategic planning; (iv) risk management; (v) data, risk measurement, and reporting; and (vi) scenario analysis. The Fed noted that the proposed principles are substantially similar to those issued by the OCC and FDIC (covered by InfoBytes here and here), and said that the agencies intend to issue final interagency guidance to promote consistency. Comments on the proposed principles are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Governor Bowman stated that while she voted in favor of seeking input on the proposed principles, she reserves the right to vote against its finalization. She also emphasized that excluding financial institution with less than $100 billion in assets from the guidance “is appropriate based not only on the size of such firms, but also in light of the robust risk management expectations already applicable to such firms.”
However, Governor Waller issued a dissenting statement: “Climate change is real, but I disagree with the premise that it poses a serious risk to the safety and soundness of large banks and the financial stability of the United States. The Federal Reserve conducts regular stress tests on large banks that impose extremely severe macroeconomic shocks and they show that the banks are resilient.”
Fed announces pilot climate scenario analysis for large banks
On September 29, the Federal Reserve Board announced that six of the nation’s largest banks will participate in a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise intended to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks. The Fed noted that the scenario analysis, in which the resilience of banks is assessed under different hypothetical climate scenarios, is an emerging tool for assessing climate-related financial risks. The Fed further noted that the process is exploratory in nature and that “there will be no capital or supervisory implications from the pilot.” Over the course of the exercise, the participating banks will analyze the impacts of hypothetical climate scenarios on specific portfolios and business strategies. The climate analysis will be separate and distinct from bank stress tests, which are designed to assess whether large banks have enough capital to continue lending to households and businesses during a severe recession. The Fed noted that the climate scenario analysis "can assist firms and supervisors in understanding how climate-related financial risks may manifest and differ from historical experience.”
Fed announces individual capital requirements for all large banks
On August 4, the Federal Reserve Board announced the individual capital requirements for all large banks, which are in part determined by the Board’s stress test results that provide a risk-sensitive and forward-looking assessment of capital needs. According to the Fed, the total common equity tier 1 (CETI) capital requirement for each bank is made up of several components, including a minimum CET1 capital requirement for all banks of 4.5 percent; a stress capital buffer that is determined from the supervisory stress test results and is at least 2.5 percent; and, if applicable, a capital surcharge for global systemically important banks (G-SIB) of at least 1 percent. The requirements are effective October 1.
FSB releases report on climate-related financial risks
On July 14, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) released its 2022 Progress Report on the FSB’s work to implement a roadmap for addressing climate-related financial risks. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July 2021 the FSB released the Roadmap, which focused on four interrelated areas: (i) public corporate disclosures to be used as the basis for pricing and managing climate-related financial risks (by companies internally and market participants); (ii) consistent metrics and disclosure data that can “provide the raw material for the diagnosis of climate-related vulnerabilities”; (iii) a systematic assessment of climate-related financial vulnerabilities; and (iv) the establishment of regulatory and supervisory practices and tools to allow authorities to effectively identify such climate-related financial risks. The recently released report noted “encouraging progress” toward establishing global baseline climate reporting standards, with the newly established International Sustainability Standards Board issuing exposure drafts addressing climate and general sustainability-related disclosure statements. The FSB also noted its commitment to improving the availability and cross-border comparability of climate-related data. Additionally, the report found that using climate scenario analysis to monitor climate-related vulnerabilities “can help the monitoring of financial risks to appropriately account for the longer time horizons that climate-related risks may involve.” As to regulatory and supervisory practices and tools, the FSB noted that “[f]inancial authorities should continue to embed the supervision of climate-related risks into overall supervisory frameworks, including the further development of the use of climate scenario analysis and stress testing exercises.” The FSB acknowledged that “the understanding of the financial risks arising from climate change and the policy approaches needed to address them remains at an early stage,” and that “there continues to be a need for strong international coordination of actions in the coming year (and beyond) because of the importance of this issue for the global financial system.”
CFTC requests feedback on climate-related financial risk
On June 8, the CFTC published a request for information (RFI) in the Federal Register seeking public responses on climate-related financial risks related to the derivatives markets and underlying commodities markets. Among other things, the Commission is seeking input on the types of data that could help the CFTC evaluate climate-related financial risk exposures, scenario analysis and stress testing, risk management, disclosures, product innovation, digital assets, financially vulnerable communities, mechanisms for public-private partnerships/engagement, and coordination with other regulatory bodies. The CFTC emphasized that the responses “will help to inform the Commission’s next steps in furtherance of its purpose to, among other things, promote responsible innovation, ensure the financial integrity of all transactions subject to the Commodity Exchange Act, and avoid systemic risk.” Additionally, the Commission noted that it “may use this information to inform potential future actions including, but not limited to, issuing new or amended guidance, interpretations, policy statements, regulations or other potential commission action within its authority under the Commodity Exchange Act, as well as its participation in any domestic or international fora.”
Comments on the RFI are due August 8.
FHFA publishes final rule on GSE capital plans
On June 1, the FHFA announced a final rule requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) to submit annual capital plans and provide prior notice for certain capital actions “consistent with the regulatory framework for capital planning for large bank holding companies.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in December 2021, FHFA issued the noticed of proposed rulemaking. These capital plans must include several mandatory elements, including (i) “[a]n assessment of the expected sources and uses of capital over the planning horizon that reflects the [GSE]’s size, complexity, risk profile and scope of operations, assuming both expected and stressful conditions”; (ii) “[e]stimates of projected revenues, expenses, losses, reserves and pro forma capital levels,” along with any additional capital measures the GSEs deem relevant; (iii) “[a] description of all planned capital actions over the planning horizon”; (iv) a discussion of stress test results and how the capital plans will account for these results; and (v) a discussion of any anticipated changes to a GSE’s business plan that may likely have a material impact on the GSE’s capital adequacy or liquidity. The final rule noted that the FHFA intends to review the capital plans for comprehensiveness, reasonableness, and relevant supervisory information, and plans to review the GSE’s regulatory and financial reports, as well as the results of any conducted stress tests and any other information required by FHFA or related to the GSE’s capital adequacy. Should the GSEs determine that there has been or will be a material change to their risk profile, financial condition, or corporate structure since the submission of the last plan (or if directed by FHFA), they must resubmit their capital plans within 30 days. The final rule also incorporates the determination of the stress capital buffer into the capital planning process, which will be provided to the GSEs by August 15 of each year, along with an explanation of the results of the supervisory stress test. The final rule is effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Under the final rule, each GSE will submit its first capital plan by May 20, 2023.