InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
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.
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.
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.
FHFA final rule amends stress testing requirements
On March 24, the FHFA published a final rule amending its stress testing requirements consistent with changes made by section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The final rule adopts amendments proposed last December (covered by InfoBytes here) without change, increasing the minimum threshold for FHFA-regulated entities to conduct stress tests from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets, removing the requirements for Federal Home Loan Banks to conduct stress tests, and reducing the number of stress test scenarios from three to two by removing the “adverse” scenario. The final rule took effect March 24.
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.
OCC issues final stress test revisions
On October 2, the OCC issued the final rule revising the stress testing requirements for OCC-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 OCC 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. Specifically, OCC-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 OCC 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 November 24.
Fed stress tests conclude largest banks can absorb economic shock
On June 21, the Federal Reserve Board released the results of its supervisory Dodd-Frank Act bank stress tests conducted on 18 financial institutions, which collectively hold 70 percent of bank assets in the U.S. Under the most severe scenario tested by the Fed, consisting of a severe global recession— “with the U.S. unemployment rate rising by more than 6 percentage points to 10 percent, accompanied by a large decline in real estate prices and elevated stress in corporate loan markets”— the Fed projected losses at the 18 institutions would total $410 billion and the aggregate common equity tier 1 capital ratio would fall from an actual 12.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2018 to 9.2 percent. Vice Chairman, Randal K. Quarles, noted that “[t]he results confirm that our financial system remains resilient,” and “the nation’s largest banks are significantly stronger before the crisis and would be well-positioned to support the economy after a secure shock.”
OCC extends Dodd-Frank stress test compliance date
On June 4, the OCC extended the deadline for national banks and federal savings associations (FSAs) with consolidated assets between $100 billion and $250 billion to comply with the Dodd-Frank stress test (DFAST) requirements to November 25. In December 2018, the OCC issued a letter noting that prior DFAST exams and OCC supervision have indicated that qualifying banks with consolidated assets within these thresholds have adopted effective stress testing programs and integrated them into their general risk management tools, and as such, “requiring DFAST submissions for these banks in 2019 would provide limited supervisory value.” According to the OCC, the extension is consistent with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act’s goal of reducing regulatory burden for applicable national banks and FSAs.