InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC’s Hsu discusses managing tail risks
On March 31, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu spoke before the American Bankers Association Risk 2022 Conference to discuss managing low probability, high impact risk events, or tail risks. In particular, Hsu highlighted the connection between Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and heightened tail risks associated with geopolitical risk, cyber risk, and inflation risk. Hsu warned that multiple possible events stemming from the conflict, including cyber-attacks from Russia, broader conflict in Europe, and increased inflation could materialize simultaneously increasing the chances that tail risks materialize that could trigger a recession. Hsu noted that the increase of sanctions to oil and gas would put upward pressure on fuel prices, and “Ukraine’s role as a producer of wheat, neon, platinum, and palladium is also beginning to affect global prices in certain markets.” Despite the elevated risks, Hsu noted that enhanced stress testing has positioned large banks to absorb a range of shocks, but warned that “nonetheless, greater caution and risk management vigilance is warranted today, perhaps more than any time in recent memory.” Hsu also singled out risks associated with crypto assets and said that the OCC is collaborating with other agencies on “how to maintain a consistent, careful and cautious” approach to bank involvement in cryptocurrency. Hsu cautioned that in light of “limited or unreliable price histories” of crypto-assets, financial institutions should “carefully consider” the tail risks associated with factoring cryptocurrency positions into the overall risk management process. Hsu discussed his worry regarding the potential for crypto derivatives to create “wrong-way risk” in which a leveraged party use trades to “double-down” at the same time it is experiencing financial stress. Hsu stated that the OCC has engaged with government agencies in the U.K. and U.S. on “how to maintain a consistent, careful, and cautious approach to bank involvement in crypto.”
FHFA orders stress tests for Fannie and Freddie
On March 16, FHFA published orders applicable March 10 for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) with respect to stress test reporting as of December 31, 2021, under Dodd-Frank as amended by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. Under Dodd-Frank, certain federally regulated financial companies with total consolidated assets of more than $250 billion are required to conduct periodic stress tests to determine whether the companies have the capital necessary to absorb losses as a result of severely adverse economic conditions. The orders are accompanied by Summary Instructions and Guidance, which include stress test scenarios and revised templates (baseline, severely adverse, and variables and assumptions) for regulated companies to use when reporting the results of the stress tests (orders and instructions are available here). According to the Summary Instructions and Guidance, the GSEs have until May 20 to submit baseline and severely adverse results to FHFA and the Federal Reserve Board, and must publicly disclose a summary of severely adverse results between August 1 and 15.
Agencies release stress-test scenarios
Recently, the FDIC, Fed, and OCC released the hypothetical economic scenarios for use in the upcoming stress tests for covered institutions. The FDIC released supervisory scenarios, which include baseline and severely adverse scenarios. According to the FDIC, “[t]he baseline scenario is in line with a survey of private sector economic forecasters” while the “severely adverse scenario” is a “hypothetical scenario designed to assess the strength and resilience of financial institutions.” Likewise, the Fed released the results of its supervisory Dodd-Frank bank stress tests conducted on 34 large banks, which collectively hold 70 percent of bank assets in the U.S. The two scenarios, baseline and severely adverse, include 28 variables, such as GDP, unemployment rate, stock market prices, and mortgage rate. In the 2022 stress test scenario, the U.S. unemployment rate rises nearly 6 points to a peak of 10 percent over two years. The large increase in the unemployment rate is accompanied by a 40 percent decrease in commercial real estate prices, broadening corporate bond spreads, and a collapse in asset prices, including increased market volatility. The OCC also released the agency’s scenarios for banks and savings associations currently subject to Dodd-Frank stress tests.
FHFA proposes rule on GSE capital plans
On December 16, FHFA issued a noticed of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would require 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.” Under the NPRM, the GSEs would be required to assess their risks and submit capital plans to FHFA annually by May 20. 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 (iv) 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. FHFA stated that it intends to review the capital plans for comprehensiveness, reasonableness, and relevant supervisory information, and plans to review the GSEs’ 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 GSEs’ 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 NPRM 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. Comments on the NPRM are due within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.
Fed and Treasury address climate change risks
On October 7, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard spoke at the Federal Reserve Stress Testing Research Conference discussing the impacts of climate change on economic activity. Brainard revealed that the Fed is considering the potential implications of climate-related risks for financial institutions and the financial system and emphasized that scenario analysis is emerging as a possible key analytical tool. Regarding the climate scenario analysis, Brainard noted that climate change’s future financial and economic consequences depends on the physical effects and the nature and speed of the transition to a sustainable economy. She highlighted the importance of “model[ing] the transition risks arising from changes in policies, technology, and consumer and investor behavior and the physical risks of damages caused by an increase in the frequency and severity of climate-related events as well as chronic changes, such as rising temperatures and sea levels.” Brainard also discussed opportunities to learn from other countries' use of climate scenario analysis and overcoming the challenges in implementing climate scenario analysis, noting that “climate scenario analysis may need to consider interdependencies across the financial system,” among other things. Brainard added that she anticipates that it will be useful “to provide supervisory guidance for large banking institutions in their efforts to appropriately measure, monitor, and manage material climate-related risks, following the lead of a number of other countries.”
The same day, the U.S. Treasury Department announced the Treasury Climate Action Plan, which is directed by Executive Order 14008 and Treasury’s efforts to support adaptation and increase resilience of its facilities and operations to the impacts of climate change. Among other things, the plan establishes five priority action areas, including: (i) rebuilding stagnated programs and capabilities; (ii) addressing climate change vulnerabilities across Treasury operations; (iii) ensuring a climate-focused approach to managing Treasury’s real property portfolio footprint; (iv) enabling management to fully consider climate change realities; and (v) accounting for a financial investment approach appropriate to Treasury’s climate objectives. In addition to the priority areas, Treasury will utilize the data and science of climate change to adjust policies, programs, and activities in improving its resilience to climate risks and impacts, according to the announcement.
Fed sets resumption of share repurchases, dividends for July
On March 25, the Federal Reserve Board announced that measures previously instituted to ensure that large banks maintain a high level of capital resilience in light of uncertainty introduced by the Covid-19 pandemic would expire for most banks after June 30. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed’s measures prohibited large banks from making share repurchases and capped dividend payments. The Fed most recently advised that “[i]f a bank remains above all of its minimum risk-based capital requirements in this year’s stress test, the additional restrictions will end after June 30 and it will be subject to the [stress capital buffer]’s normal restrictions.” Banks whose capital levels fall below required levels in the stress tests will remain subject to the restrictions through September 30. Further, banks still below the capital required by the stress test at that time will face even stricter distribution limitations.
Brainard addresses financial institutions’ role in tackling climate change
On February 18, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard spoke before the 2021 Institute of International Finance U.S. Climate Finance Summit to discuss the role financial institutions play in addressing the challenges of climate change. Noting that both physical risks from climate shifts and transition risks resulting from a shift to a low-carbon economy “create both risks and opportunities for the financial sector,” Brainard stressed that “[f]inancial institutions that do not put in place frameworks to measure, monitor, and manage climate-related risks could face outsized losses on climate-sensitive assets caused by environmental shifts, by a disorderly transition to a low-carbon economy, or by a combination of both.” She emphasized that financial institutions should engage in robust risk management, scenario analyses, and forward planning to ensure they can withstand such climate-related risks and support the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Brainard also emphasized that given the uncertainty in estimating climate risks, a scenario analysis that takes into account climate-related physical and transition risks and their potential effects on individual firms and the financial system as a whole “may be a helpful tool to assess the microprudential and macroprudential implications of climate-related risks under a wide range of assumptions.” However, Brainard clarified that a scenario analysis is distinct from a regulatory stress test, adding that “[i]t will be important to. . .consider how stress testing and scenario analysis may complement one another.” While acknowledging that a highly prescriptive approach to model development and scenario analysis may not be the most effective way to ensure financial institutions are prepared for the possible impacts of climate change and that “leverag[ing] a range of complementary approaches being developed in both the private and the public sectors” may produce more robust outcomes, Brainard noted that “we should strive for an appropriate balance that allows for innovation and learning across the public and private sectors, iterating in the most effective way possible.”
Fed finalizes rule updating capital planning and stress testing requirements
On January 19, the Federal Reserve Board adopted a final rule updating the agency’s capital planning and stress testing requirements applicable to large bank holding companies and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations. Among other things, the final rule, which is generally similar to the Fed’s September 2020 notice of proposed rulemaking (covered by InfoBytes here), conforms the capital planning, regulatory reporting, and stress capital buffer requirements for firms with $100 billion or more in total assets (Category IV) with the tailored regulatory framework approved by the Fed in 2019 (covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule also makes additional changes to the Fed’s stress testing rules, stress testing policy statement, and regulatory reporting requirements related to “business plan changes and capital actions and the publication of company-run stress test results for savings and loan holding companies.” In addition, the Fed’s capital planning and stress capital buffer requirements will now apply to covered saving and loan holding companies subject to Category II, III, and IV standards under the tailoring framework. The Fed notes that firms in the lowest risk category are on a two-year stress test cycle and will not be subject to company-run stress test requirements. The final rule takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
NYDFS urges regulating social media companies following hacks
On October 14, NYDFS released a report detailing the Department’s investigation into the July 2020 social media hacks of public figures and cryptocurrency firms, concluding that the social media platform lacked adequate cybersecurity protections and recommending increased regulation of large social media companies. The investigation, which was requested by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, determined, among other things, that (i) the social media hackers obtained log-in credentials from four employees by pretending to be from the company’s IT department; (ii) the hackers stole over $118,000 worth of bitcoin from consumers by tweeting “double your bitcoin” with a link to send bitcoin payments from celebrity accounts and several bitcoin companies; (iii) certain Department-regulated cryptocurrency companies blocked attempted transfers to the hacker’s addresses; and (iv) the social media company lacked adequate cybersecurity protection, including not having “a chief information security officer, adequate access controls and identity management, and adequate security monitoring.” The report recommends that the largest social media companies be designated as “systemically important institutions” subject to an analogue council of the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The report suggests the social media companies should be subject to enhanced regulation, including “stress test[]” scenarios covering cyberattacks and election interference.
CSBS discusses CARES Act response in congressional letter
On October 9, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) wrote to the ranking members of the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee with an update on the organization’s efforts regarding the CARES Act and oversight of nonbank mortgage servicers. CSBS notes that state regulators are the primary authority over nonbank mortgage servicers, and during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, the state regulators “identified liquidity as a supervisory priority.” Thus, according to CSBS, state regulators have been actively monitoring liquidity and other business operations by seeking real time data and other updates from nonbank mortgage servicers. Moreover, CSBS discusses the efforts made in response to the CARES Act, including consumer and servicer guidance issued in conjunction with the CFPB (covered by InfoBytes here and here), as well as examination procedure guidance. Lastly, the letter highlights the organization’s recent release of proposed regulatory prudential standards for nonbank mortgage servicers. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the proposal includes baseline standards that would apply to all covered servicers and enhanced standards—covering capital, liquidity, stress testing, and living will/recovery and resolution planning—that would apply to certain larger servicers. CSBS concludes the letter with a commitment for “continued coordination and information exchange with federal agencies.”