InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York requires regulated institutions to submit Covid-19 response plans by April 9
The New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) has created a webpage providing information for industry and regulated entities.
On March 12, the New York Superintendent of Financial Services issued an order providing that regulated entities may temporarily relocate an authorized place of business and close any of their branch offices or locations if adversely affected by Covid-19 upon prompt written notice and compliance with the law, among other things.
On March 10, the New York State Department of Financial Services issued several industry letters related to the novel coronavirus known as “COVID-19.” Two of those letters require responses from New York regulated institutions no later than April 9, 2020. Responses must be submitted via e-mail to banking.covid19@dfs.ny.gov.
In one letter, the NYSDFS encourages New York licensed lenders, among others, to evaluate how they may assist businesses that have been adversely impacted by COVID-19. Specifically, it suggests that such lenders consider easing new loan terms and waiving late fees, among other measures. Further, the NYSDFS explains that reasonable and prudent efforts to provide assistance to affected businesses are “consistent with safe and sound banking practices as well as in the public interest.”
In another letter, the NYSDFS requires New York regulated institutions to provide a response on the institution’s plans to manage the potential financial risk stemming from COVID-19. According to the letter, the plans should include, at a minimum, an assessment of the following:
- Credit risk ratings of the customers, counterparties, and business sectors impacted by COVID-19.
- Credit exposure to customers, counterparties, and business sectors impacted by COVID-19 arising from lending, trading, investing, hedging, and other financial transactions, including any credit modifications, extensions, and restructurings (including capitalizations of interest).
- Scope and size of credits adversely impacted by COVID-19 that currently are in, or potentially may move to, non-performing/delinquent status, including consideration of stress testing and/or sensitivity analysis of loan portfolios and the adequacy of loan loss reserves.
- Valuation of assets and investments that may be, or have been, impacted by COVID-19.
- Overall impact of COVID-19 on earnings, profits, capital, and liquidity (including impact on loan-to-deposit ratio) of the institution.
- Reasonable and prudent steps to assist those adversely impacted by COVID-19 (such as those described in the letter referenced immediately below).
In a third letter, the NYSDFS requires New York regulated institutions to provide a response on the institution’s plans to manage the risk of disruptions to its services and operations caused by COVID-19. According to the letter, the plans should include, at a minimum, the following:
- Preventative measures tailored to the institution’s specific profile and operations to mitigate the risk of operational disruption, which should include identifying the impact on customers and counterparts.
- A documented strategy addressing the impact of the outbreak in stages, so that the institution’s efforts can be appropriately scaled, consistent with the effects of a particular stage of the outbreak, which includes an assessment of how quickly measures could be adopted and how long operations could be sustained under different stages of the outbreak.
- Assessment of all facilities (including alternative or back-up sites), systems, policies, and procedures necessary to continue critical operations and services if members of the staff are unavailable for long periods or are working off-site, including an assessment and testing as to whether large scale off-site working arrangements can be activated and maintained to ensure operational continuity. This would also include an assessment and testing of the capacity of the existing information technology and systems in light of a potential increased remote usage.
- An assessment of potential increased cyber-attacks and fraud.
- Employee protection strategies, critical to sustaining an adequate workforce during the outbreak, including employee awareness and steps employees can take to reduce the likelihood of contracting COVID-19.
- Assessment of the preparedness of critical outside-party service providers and suppliers.
- Development of a communication plan to effectively communicate with customers, counterparties, and the public, and to deliver important news and instructions to employees, along with establishing forums for questions to be asked and addressed.
- Testing the plan to ensure the plan policies, processes, and procedures are effective.
- Governance and oversight of the plan, including identifying the critical members of a response team, to ensure ongoing review and updates to the plan, including the tracking of relevant information from government sources and the institution’s own monitoring program.
DFS published a fourth industry letter to institutions engaged in virtual currency business activity setting forth guidance and a request for assurance to ensure that such regulated institutions have preparedness plans in place to address operational risk posed by Covid-19. In the guidance, DFS required every regulated institution to submit a response to DFS describing the plan of preparedness to manage the risk of disruption to its services and operations as soon as possible and no later than April 9, 2020 (30 days from the date of the guidance).
Fed finalizes simplified capital rules for large banks
On March 4, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) released a final rule amending and simplifying the capital rules for large banks, as well as instructions for the 2020 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) cycle. The final rule, which is “broadly similar” to the Fed’s April 2018 proposal (covered by InfoBytes here), incorporates a simplified framework that integrates a “stress capital buffer” (SCB) requirement, which will use supervisory stress test results to establish the size of a firm’s stress capital buffer requirement. The stress test—one element of the annual CCAR—helps determine a firm’s capital requirements for the upcoming year. According to the Fed, “[b]y combining the Board’s stress tests—which project the capital needs of each firm under adverse economic conditions—with the Board’s non-stress capital requirements, large banks will now be subject to a single, forward-looking, and risk-sensitive capital framework.” The simplification would result in banks needing to meet eight capital requirements, instead of the current 13. Among other things, the final rule will also (i) increase capital requirements for global systemically important banks and decrease requirements for less complex banks; and (ii) continue to subject all banks to ongoing, non-stress leverage requirements.
The final rule applies to bank holding companies and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations with more than $100 billion in total consolidated assets, and will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with a firm’s first stress capital buffer requirement, as determined under the final rule, effective October 1, 2020.
FDIC issues 2020 stress testing scenarios
On February 14, the FDIC released economic scenarios—developed in coordination with the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) and the OCC—for certain supervised financial institutions with consolidated assets of more than $250 billion. The Dodd-Frank Act requires financial companies to run stress tests using the scenarios. According to the FDIC, the scenarios cover a baseline scenario that is “in line with a survey of private sector economic forecasters” and a severely adverse scenario “designed to assess the strength and resilience of financial institutions.”
As previously reported by InfoBytes, the OCC and the Fed both released their stress testing scenarios on February 6.
Fed, OCC issue 2020 stress test, capital adequacy scenarios
On February 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) released the hypothetical scenarios banks and supervisors will use to conduct the 2020 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank Act stress tests exercises for large bank holding companies and large U.S. operations of foreign firms. This year’s stress tests will evaluate 34 large banks with more than $100 billion in total assets to ensure that these banks have adequate capital and processes to continue lending to households and businesses, even during a severe recession. Both scenarios—baseline and severely adverse—include 28 variables that cover domestic and international economic activity. In addition, banks with large trading operations must also factor in a global market shock component as part of their scenarios. Capital plan and stress testing submissions are due by April 6. The Fed noted that it “continues to work toward having the stress capital buffer in place for this year’s stress tests,” and that “[t]he release of these hypothetical scenarios does not affect that separate rulemaking process.”
In related news, on February 6 the OCC also released its own stress testing scenarios for OCC-supervised institutions.
Federal Reserve vice chairman discusses supervision
On January 17, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Randal K. Quarles spoke before the American Bar Association Banking Law Committee meeting in Washington, D.C. on bank supervision and ways to improve transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness. With respect to supervision, Quarles said that the Fed’s communication with supervised banks could be improved and made several specific proposals in the areas of large bank supervision, transparency improvements, and overall supervisory process improvements. In terms of large bank supervision, Quarles discussed how banks are added to the list of complex institutions overseen by the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee (LISCC), particularly with respect to decreases in foreign banking organizations’ (FBOs) size and risk profiles. According to Quarles, over the past decade, four foreign banks have significantly shrunk their presence in the U.S. and reduced risk within their U.S. operations. As a result, these banks’ “estimated systemic impact” is now much smaller than that of the U.S. global systemically important banks. Moving these FBOs to a lower category, he noted, would allow the firms to be supervised alongside other foreign and domestic firms with similar risk profiles. However Quarles emphasized that any changes in these four FBOs’ supervisory portfolios “would have no effect on the regulatory capital or liquidity requirements that currently apply.” Quarles also discussed the Fed’s stress capital buffer proposal—which “will give banks significantly more time to review their stress test results and understand their capital requirements before we demand their final capital plan”—noting that the Fed continues to research ways to “reduce the volatility of stress-test requirements from year to year.”
Concerning transparency, Quarles stated, among other things, that he supports submitting significant supervisory guidance documents with Congress for the purposes of the Congressional Review Act, as it already does with new rules. Quarles also proposed the creation of a database of all significant agency rules and interpretations and seeking public comments on significant supervisory guidance before it is issued. Finally, Quarles said the Fed hopes to maintain “firm and fair supervision” by (i) increasing the ability of supervised firms to share confidential supervisory information; (ii) adopting a rule on the use of guidance in the supervisory process; (iii) restoring the “‘supervisory observation’ category for lesser safety and soundness issues”; and (iv) limiting the use of future Matters Requiring Attention to violations of law, violations of regulation, and material safety and soundness issues.
New York Fed analyzes potential impact of cyber attacks on payments network
In January, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) released a staff report that analyzes how a cyber attack transmitted through a payment network could be amplified throughout the U.S. financial system. According to the report, Cyber Risk and the U.S. Financial System: a Pre-Mortem Analysis, cyber attacks that impair the most active U.S. banks’ ability to send payments “would likely be amplified to affect the liquidity of many other banks in the system,” including smaller or mid-sized banks that are connected through a shared service provider. The New York Fed notes, however, that the report’s primary focus is on a cyber attack’s impact within a single day, and cautions that should a cyber attack compromise the integrity of the banking system, “the reconciliation and repercussion process would be an unprecedented task.” Among other things, the report (i) establishes a framework for estimating “cyber vulnerability” and understanding the impairments of a cyber attack on a bank’s payment activities; (ii) creates a baseline scenario to study the five largest institutions within the wholesale payment network and the high concentration of payments between large institutions, as well as the resulting imbalance in liquidity that occurs if even a single large institution is unable to remit payments to its counterparties; and (iii) conducts a reverse stress test exercise, in which it analyzes “how many smaller institutions it would take to impair any of the most active ones,” in order to highlight “how the impairment of many smaller institutions also presents a systemic risk.”
Fed provides FAQs for tailoring rules
On January 13, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued SR 20-2, “Frequently Asked Questions on the Tailoring Rules” (FAQs) applicable to bank holding companies, savings and loan companies, U.S. intermediate holding companies with $100 billion or more in total assets, and certain depository institutions. In October, as previously covered by InfoBytes, the Fed and the OCC released a jointly developed framework that set out four categories to be used to classify these banking entities for the purposes of determining regulatory capital and liquidity requirements based on risk. The FAQs provide guidance on the tailoring rules, including answers to questions about Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) requirements, recognition of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, compliance requirements for foreign banking organizations with less than $100 billion in U.S. assets, and the interpretation of “quarterly” in relation to stress testing frequency.
FHFA proposes stress testing amendments
On December 16, the FHFA released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the stress testing requirements for Federal Home Loan Banks (FHL Banks), consistent with changes made by Section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Specifically, the NPRM will (i) increase the minimum threshold for regulated entities to conduct stress tests from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets; (ii) remove the requirements for FHL Banks subject to stress testing, as none of the banks meet the minimum threshold (notably, under the proposal, the Director will maintain the ability to require any regulated entity with assets below the minimum threshold to conduct stress tests at his or her discretion); and (iii) reduce the number of stress test scenarios from three to two by removing the “adverse” scenario. According to the FHFA, while the “adverse” scenario provides value in limited circumstances, “the ‘baseline’ and ‘severely adverse’ scenarios largely cover the full range of expected and stressful conditions.” As such, the FHFA believes removing the “adverse” scenario will reduce the supervisory burden for FHL Banks. The FHFA further proposes that the Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)—who remain subject to stress testing under the NPRM—be required to conduct stress tests on an annual basis, as Section 401 changed the required frequency from “annual” to “periodic,” but did not define the term “periodic” in the Act.
Comments on the NPRM are due January 13, 2020.
FDIC approves final stress-test revisions
On October 15, the FDIC approved the final rule revising stress testing requirements for FDIC-supervised institutions, consistent with changes made by Section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The final rule remains unchanged from the proposed rule, which was issued by the FDIC in December 2018 (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The final rule (i) changes the minimum threshold for applicability from $10 billion to $250 billion; (ii) revises the frequency of required stress tests for most FDIC-supervised institutions from annual to biannual; and (iii) reduces the number of required stress testing scenarios from three to two. FDIC-supervised institutions that are covered institutions will “be required to conduct, report, and publish a stress test once every two years, beginning on January 1, 2020, and continuing every even-numbered year thereafter.” The final rule also adds a new defined term, “reporting year,” which will be the year in which a covered bank must conduct, report, and publish its stress test. The final rule requires certain covered institutions to still conduct annual stress tests, but this is limited to covered institutions that are consolidated under holding companies required to conduct stress tests more frequently than once every other year. Lastly, the final rule removes the “adverse” scenario—which the FDIC states has provided “limited incremental information”—and requires stress tests to be conducted under the “baseline” and “severely adverse” stress testing scenarios. The final rule is effective thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, on October 4, the OCC issued its final rule incorporating the same revisions as the FDIC.
Federal Reserve finalizes capital and liquidity requirement rules for large firms; proposes changes to assessment fees
On October 10, the Federal Reserve Board approved final rules, consistent with changes made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, to establish a framework that revises the criteria for determining the applicability of regulatory capital and liquidity requirement for large U.S. banking organizations and U.S. intermediate holding companies (IHC) of certain foreign banking organizations with $100 billion or more in total assets. The framework—jointly developed with the FDIC and the OCC—establishes “four risk-based categories for determining the regulatory capital and liquidity requirements applicable to large U.S. banking organizations and the U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations, which apply generally based on indicators of size, cross-jurisdictional activity, weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, and off-balance sheet exposure.” According to the Fed, while the framework is “generally similar” to proposals released for comment over the past year (see InfoBytes coverage here and here), the final rule further simplifies the proposals by applying liquidity standards to a foreign bank’s U.S. IHC that are based on the IHC’s risk profile instead of the combined U.S. operations of the foreign bank. For larger firms, the framework applies standardized liquidity requirements at the higher end of the range that was originally proposed for both domestic and foreign banks.
The following categories are established under the framework: (i) Category I will be reserved for U.S.-based global systemically important banks; (ii) Category II will apply to U.S. and foreign banking organizations with total U.S. assets exceeding $700 billion or $75 billion in cross-border activity that do not meet Category I criteria; (iii) Category III will apply to U.S. and foreign banking organizations with more than $250 billion in U.S. assets or $75 billion in weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, or off balance sheet exposure; and (iv) Category IV will apply to other banking organizations with total U.S. assets of more than $100 billion that do not otherwise meet the criteria of the other three categories.
The framework will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Additionally, the Fed separately issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to raise the minimum threshold for being considered an assessed company and to adjust the amount charged to assessed companies. The notice also announces the Fed’s intention to issue a capital plan proposal that will “align capital planning requirements with the two-year supervisory stress testing cycle and provide greater flexibility for Category IV firms.” Comments on the proposal are due December 9.