InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Proposes Final Revisions to Stress Test Information Collection
On February 2, the OCC requested comment on proposed revisions to an existing information collection entitled “Company-Run Annual Stress Test Reporting Template and Documentation for Covered Institutions with Total Consolidated Assets of $50 Billion or More Under the [Dodd-Frank Act].” The agency is also giving notice that it has sent the collection to the OMB for review. This information collection is related to the conduct of annual stress tests that the Dodd-Frank Act requires of certain financial companies, including national banks and federal savings associations. Comments on the current notice must be received by March 6, 2017.
OCC, FDIC, and Fed Release Stress Test Scenarios for 2017
On February 3, the Fed announced the release of the “Supervisory Scenarios” to be used by banks and supervisors for the 2017 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and Dodd-Frank Act stress test exercises and also issued instructions to firms participating in CCAR. The Fed also published three letters that provide additional information on its stress-testing program. The three letters describe: (i) the Horizontal Capital Review for large, noncomplex companies; (ii) the CCAR qualitative assessment for U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banks, which are submitting capital plans for the first time; and (iii) improvements to how the Fed will estimate post-stress capital ratios.
On February 3, the OCC similarly released economic and financial market scenarios for 2017 that are to be used by national banks and federal savings associations (with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion) in their annual Dodd-Frank Act-mandated stress test. On February 6, the FDIC released its stress test scenarios, working in consultation with the Fed and OCC.
The three sets of supervisory scenarios provide each agency with forward-looking information for use in bank supervision and will assist the agencies in assessing the covered institutions’ risk profile and capital adequacy.
GAO Report Recommends Additional Actions to Help Achieve Dodd-Frank Stress Test Goals
On November 15, the GAO released its report entitled Federal Reserve: Additional Actions Could Help Ensure the Achievement of Stress Test Goals. The report had been requested in September 2014 by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling in order to determine the costs, benefits, effectiveness and transparency of the Fed’s stress tests. Highlights of the Report can be found here.
The GAO was asked to review and assess the effectiveness of each of the Fed’s two stress test programs for certain banking institutions. Accordingly, the GAO analyzed Fed rules, guidance, and internal policies and procedures and assessed practices against federal internal control standards and other criteria. The GAO also interviewed Federal Reserve staff and officials at 19 banking institutions. The report sets forth 15 recommendations that the GAO believes will help improve the effectiveness of the Fed’s stress test programs. The recommendations include, among other things, improving disclosures and communications to firms, expanding model risk management, and reconsidering potential consequences of the Fed’s scenario design choices. The GAO has reported that the Fed “generally agreed with the recommendations and highlighted select ongoing and future efforts.”
In a November 15 press release, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling used the GAO report to critique the Fed’s lack of transparency with regard to certain activities under the Dodd-Frank Act. Among other things, Rep. Hensarling stated, “[t]he GAO report confirms the secrecy surrounding the stress tests makes it almost impossible to measure the effectiveness of the Fed’s regulatory oversight or the integrity of the tests’ findings. When it comes to the Fed’s stress tests, not only are they not transparent, they are often duplicative and impose unnecessary costs and burdens on financial institutions that are ultimately passed on to consumers.” Rep Hensarling cautioned further that “[t]he changes recently proposed by the Federal Reserve to its stress testing process are inadequate,” and the GAO report “demonstrates the absolute need for the new President to designate a Vice-Chairman for Supervision at the Federal Reserve who will have the power to ‘oversee the supervision and regulation’ of financial firms supervised by the Federal Reserve.”
OCC Proposes Revisions to Stress Test Information Collection
On November 15, the OCC published a notice and request for comment on proposed changes to its rules requiring certain covered financial institutions, including national banks and federal savings associations with assets over $50 billion, to report certain financial information as part of stress testing. The proposed revisions to the OCC’s reporting requirements are “intended to promote consistency with” the Fed’s proposed changes to its form FR Y-14A, and consist generally of clarifying instructions, shifting the “as-of date”, adding data items, deleting data items, and redefining existing data items—including an expansion of the information collected in the scenario schedule. The proposed revisions also reflect the implementation of the final Basel III regulatory capital rule, which is set to revise and replace the OCC’s risk-based and leverage capital requirements to be consistent with agreements reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in ‘‘Basel III: A Global Regulatory Framework for More Resilient Banks and Banking Systems’’ (Basel III). All comments must be received by January 19, 2017.
OCC Updates Community Bank Supervision Comptroller's Handbook
On November 3, the OCC announced an update to the “asset quality core assessment procedures” in its Community Bank Supervision Comptroller’s Handbook (Handbook). Among other things, the revised Handbook: (i) updates concentration risk management procedures and stress testing guidance for community banks; (ii) incorporates procedures for credit underwriting assessments; (iii) enhances appraisal, evaluation, allowance, and credit review examination procedures; and (iv) updates the asset quality references and standard request letter.
OCC Issues Large Bank Recovery Guidelines
On September 29, the OCC released final guidelines establishing standards for recovery planning for large OCC-regulated institutions. The guidelines, which are not applicable to community banks, are designed to provide “a comprehensive framework for evaluating the financial effects of severe stress that may affect a covered institution and options it may take to remain viable under such stress.” Pursuant to the guidelines, an institution “should develop and maintain a recovery plan that is specific to that covered bank and appropriate for its individual size, risk profile, activities, and complexity, including the complexity of its organizational and legal entity structure.” OCC examiners will begin to assess an institution’s recovery plan for appropriateness and adequacy. The guidelines, which contain various compliance dates, become effective January 1, 2017.
Fed Proposal Would Modify Stress Tests for Large, Noncomplex Bank Holding Companies
On September 26, the Federal Reserve released a proposed rule that would essentially remove bank holding companies defined to be “large and noncomplex” from the qualitative portion of annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) assessment process (“stress tests”). Under the proposed rule, large and noncomplex bank holding companies are those with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion, but less than $250 billion, less than $10 billion in foreign exposure, and less than $75 billion in average nonbank assets. Currently, the Fed applies the CCAR process to bank holding companies with more than $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo indicated that the Fed was also considering adoption of a “stress capital buffer” approach for larger, global systemically important banks (GSIB). The new approach would replace the uniform 2.5-percent capital conservation buffer, and would instead require GSIBs to retain capital “equal to the maximum decline in a firm's common equity tier 1 capital ratio under the severely adverse scenario of the supervisory stress test before the inclusion of the firm's planned capital distributions.”