InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FSB report outlines eight recommendations for bank liquidity preparedness
On April 17, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) released a consultation report titled “Liquidity Preparedness for Margin and Collateral Calls,” which laid out eight policy recommendations intended to enhance the liquidity preparedness of nonbank market participants in certain markets. These policy recommendations came from several reviews by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, and the International Organization of Securities Commissions analyzing recent incidents of liquidity stress. The eight recommendations comprised liquidity risk management, liquidity stress testing, and collateral management practices.
The first three recommendations focused on liquidity risk management practices. The first recommendation would amend liquidity risk management and governance frameworks to protect against spikes in margin and collateral calls in liquidity risk management; the second recommendation would ensure liquidity needs by establishing liquidity risk appetites and a contingency funding plan; and the third recommendation outlined the need for regular reviews of liquidity risk frameworks.
The next two recommendations were on liquidity stress testing and scenario design. The fourth recommendation set out the need for conducting liquidity stress tests with respect to margin and collateral calls to identify the sources of liquidity strains. The fifth called for stress tests to cover a range of “extreme but plausible” scenarios.
The last three recommendations focused on collateral management practices. The sixth recommendation called for resilient and effective operational processes and collateral management practices; the seventh set out the need for sufficient cash and readily available diverse liquid assets and collateral arrangements; and the eighth called for active, transparent and regular interactions with counterparties and third-party service providers. The FSB will welcome comments on this report submitted before June 18.
Fed’s Bowman speaks on bank liquidity a year after banking crises
On April 3, Fed member Michelle Bowman delivered a speech on “Bank Liquidity, Regulation, and the Fed’s Role as Lender of Last Resort.” Her speech highlighted three points: first, she discussed how the Fed supported liquidity in the banking system; second, she discussed the broader framework that supported bank liquidity, including regulatory requirements, bank supervision, and deposit insurance; and third, she discussed the challenges the Fed faced in implementing liquidity tools. On the Fed’s role in banking system liquidity, Bowman mentioned how the banking system was stronger today than before the 2008 financial crisis due to having more capital and more liquidity, as well as new stress testing requirements. The Fed’s emergency lending authority also changed to be broad-based, as opposed to having designed it for individual companies, and now required approval by the Secretary of the Treasury. On challenges, Bowman highlighted how to reduce the stigma associated with discount window borrowing by mandating that banks “pre-position collateral” and “periodically borrow from the discount window.”
Senator Warren pens letter to banking regulators to check on their regulatory commitments following 2023 bank failures
On March 10, Senator Warren (D-MA) released a letter to Federal Reserve Vice Chair Michael Barr, FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg, and Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu (the bank regulators) seeking information on any progress with their commitments to strengthen bank regulatory standards following the 2023 banking issues. Warren urged the bank regulators to reinstate the rules for banks with assets between $100 and $250 billion, including liquidity requirements and capital stress tests, that were rolled-back with the 2018 enactment of the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act” (EGRRCPA). She concluded her letter by posing several questions, including asking what efforts the bank regulators are taking to strengthen rules, when these rules are expected to be announced or implemented, how many banks will be subject to these rules, if the implementation process would include a comment period, and if lobbying by large banks against the Basel III capital rule has weakened the bank regulators’ resolve to strengthen rules for banks with more than $100 billion in assets. Sen. Warren has asked for a response by March 25.
Fed, FDIC, and OCC release stress test scenarios for 2024
On February 15, the Fed, OCC, and the FDIC released their annual stress test scenarios for 2024 to assist the agencies in evaluating their respective covered institution’s risk profile and capital adequacy. The Fed released its “2024 Stress Test Scenarios” to be used by banks and supervisors for the 2024 annual stress test. The scenarios include hypothetical sets of conditions to evaluate the banks under baseline and severely adverse scenarios. The OCC similarly released economic and financial market scenarios to be used by national banks and federal savings associations and include both baseline and severely adverse scenarios as mandated by the stress testing requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. The FDIC also released its stress test scenarios for certain state nonmember banks and state savings associations in conjunction with the OCC and the Fed.
FDIC OIG makes recommendations based on material loss report
On November 28, the OIG for the FDIC delivered a material loss review report. The report’s objectives were twofold: first, to determine why a bank’s issues led to a material loss to the deposit insurance fund; and second, to review the FDIC’s supervision of the bank and make recommendations to prevent similar losses in the future.
The report outlined 11 recommendations for the FDIC to implement so it can improve its supervision process over the banking sector. The recommendations include: (i) to evaluate if and why banks may wait to issue CAMELS ratings downgrades until they issue a Report of Examination; (ii) to identify whether the training curriculum should be adjusted to emphasize why timely ratings changes are important; (iii) to review FDIC examination guidance to determine if enhancements are necessary to highlight when a bank’s practices do not align with its policies, and make recommendations; (iv) to evaluate and update examination guidance to require supervisory actions when it violates its risk-appetite statement metrics; (v) to comprehensively review the FDIC manual for any updates to the examination guidance pertinent to evaluating the stability of uninsured deposits; (vi) to comprehensively review the FDIC manual to determine if any updates are required to the examination guidance pertinent to banks’ deposit outflow assumptions for liquidity stress testing; (vii) to revisit examination guidance to determine if any updates are required for monitoring other banks, horizontally, for similar risk characteristics; (viii) to revisit examination guidance to determine if any updates are required regarding incorporating shared risk characteristics that lead to risk in the FDIC’s supervisory approach; (ix) to explore research methods to monitor large bank reputational risk; (x) to evaluate if Chief Risk Officers should place more consideration on unrealized losses and declines in fair value; and (xi) to work with other federal regulators on evaluating necessary rule changes, such as the adoption of noncapital triggers.
EBA report recommends environmental and social risk enhancements for financial sector
On October 12, the European Banking Authority (EBA) announced the publication of a report on the role of environmental and social risks in the prudential framework of credit institutions and investment firms. The report recommends risk-based enhancements to the risk categories of the Pillar 1 framework, which sets capital requirements, noting that environmental and social risks are “changing the risk picture for the financial sector” and are expected to be more prominent over time. The report puts forward recommendations for actions over the next three years as part of the revised capital requirements regulations. Specifically, the EBA is proposing to: (i) include environmental risks as part of stress testing programs; (ii) encourage the inclusion of environmental and social factors as part of external credit assessments by credit rating agencies; (iii) encourage the inclusion of environmental and social factors as part of due diligence requirements and valuation of immovable property collateral; (iv) require institutions to identify whether environmental and social factors constitute triggers of operational risk losses; and (v) develop environment-related concentration risk metrics as part of supervisory reporting. With respect to revisions to the Pillar 1 framework, the report proposes: (i) the possible use of scenario analysis to enhance the forward-looking elements of the prudential framework; (ii) changes to the role that transition plans could play in the future; (iii) reassessing the appropriateness of revising the internal ratings-based supervisory formula and the corresponding standardized approach for credit risk to better reflect environmental risk elements; and (iv) the introduction of environment-related concentration risk metrics under the Pillar 1 framework.
OCC releases bank supervision operating plan for FY 2024
On September 28, the OCC’s Committee on Bank Supervision released its bank supervision operating plan for fiscal year 2024. The plan outlines the agency’s supervision priorities and highlights several supervisory focus areas including: (i) asset and liability management; (ii) credit; (iii) allowances for credit losses; (iv) cybersecurity; (v) operations; (vi) digital ledger technology activities; (vii) change in management; (viii) payments; (ix) Bank Secrecy Act/AML compliance; (x) consumer compliance; (xi) Community Reinvestment Act; (xii) fair lending; and (xiii) climate-related financial risks.
Two of the top areas of focus are asset and liability management and credit risk. In its operating plan the OCC says that “Examiners should determine whether banks are managing interest rate and liquidity risks through use of effective asset and liability risk management policies and practices, including stress testing across a sufficient range of scenarios, sensitivity analyses of key model assumptions and liquidity sources, and appropriate contingency planning.” With respect to credit risk, the OCC says that “Examiners should evaluate banks’ stress testing of adverse economic scenarios and potential implications to capital” and “focus on concentrations risk management, including for vulnerable commercial real estate and other higher-risk portfolios, risk rating accuracy, portfolios of highest growth, and new products.”
The plan will be used by OCC staff to guide the development of supervisory strategies for individual national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, and certain identified third-party service providers subject to OCC examination.
The OCC will provide updates about these priorities in its Semiannual Risk Perspective, as InfoBytes has previously covered here.
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac annual stress tests results
On August 10, FHFA published the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests Results – Severely Adverse Scenario containing the results of the ninth annual stress tests conducted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Last year, FHFA published orders for the GSEs to conduct a stress test with specific scenarios to determine whether companies have the capital necessary to absorb losses as a result of severely adverse economic conditions (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the report, the total comprehensive income loss is between $8.4 billion and $9.9 billion depending on how deferred tax assets are treated. Notably, compared to last year, the severely adverse scenario includes a larger increase in the unemployment rate due to the lower unemployment rate at the beginning of the planning horizon. FHFA also expanded the scope of entities considered within the primary counterparty default component of the worldwide market shock. This expansion encompasses mortgage insurers, unsecured overnight deposits, providers of multifamily credit enhancements, nonbank servicers, and credit risk transfer reinsurance counterparties.
Fed vice chair calls for higher capital for large banks
On July 10, Federal Reserve Board Vice Chair for Supervision Michael S. Barr delivered remarks at the Bipartisan Policy Center outlining proposed updates to capital standards. As part of his holistic review of capital standards for large banks, Barr concluded that the existing approach to capital requirements—including risk-based requirements, stress testing, risk-based capital buffers, and leverage requirements and buffers—was sound. He stated that the changes he proposes are intended to build on the existing foundation. Barr’s proposed updates include: (i) updating risk-based requirement standards to better reflect credit, trading, and operational risk, consistent with international standards adopted by the Basel Committee; (ii) evolving the stress test to capture a wider range of risks; and (iii) improving the measurement of systemic indicators under the global systemically important bank surcharge. Barr stated that at this time he was not recommending changes to the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio.
Barr also proposed implementing changes to the risk-based capital requirements, referred to as the “Basel III endgame,” which are intended to ensure that the U.S. minimum capital requirements require banks to hold adequate capital against their risk-taking. These proposed changes include: (i) with respect to a firm’s lending activities, the proposed rules would terminate the practice of relying on banks’ own individual estimates of their own risk and would instead adopt a more transparent and consistent approach; (ii) regarding a firm’s trading activities, the proposed rules would adjust the way that the firm measures market risk, better aligning market risk capital requirements with market risk exposure and providing supervisors with improved tools; and (iii) for operational losses, such as trading losses or litigation expenses, the proposed rules would replace an internal modeled operational risk requirement with a standardized measure.
Barr recommended that these enhanced capital rules apply only to banks and bank holding companies with $100 billion or more in assets. He emphasized that the proposed changes would not be fully effective for some years due to the notice and comment rulemaking process, and that any final rule would provide for an appropriate transition.
Agencies release hypothetical scenarios for 2023 bank stress tests
On February 9, the Federal Reserve Board and the OCC released hypothetical economic scenarios for use in the upcoming stress tests for covered institutions. The Fed released supervisory scenarios, which include baseline and severely adverse scenarios. According to the Fed, the stress test evaluates large banks’ resiliency by estimating losses, net revenue, and capital levels under hypothetical recession scenarios that extend two years into the future. The Fed’s stress test also features for the first time “an additional exploratory market shock to the trading books of the largest and most complex banks” to help the agency better assess the potential of multiple scenarios in order to capture a wider array of risks in future stress test exercises. The OCC also released the agency’s scenarios for covered banks and savings associations, which will be used during supervision and will assist in the assessment of a covered institution’s risk profile and capital adequacy.