Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On June 27, the Federal Reserve (Fed) released the results of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) conducted for 18 banking firms. The Fed considers quantitative and qualitative factors in its evaluation, including projected capital ratios under hypothetical severe economic conditions and the strength of the firm’s capital planning process, including its risk management, internal controls, and governance practices. The Fed did not object to the capital plans of any of the 18 firms, but did require one to address “limited weaknesses” the test identified. The Fed noted that, “On balance, virtually all firms are now meeting the Federal Reserve's capital planning expectations, which is an improvement from last year's assessment. The firms in the test have significantly increased their capital since the first round of stress tests in 2009.”
Federal Reserve to phase out Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) “qualitative objection”
On March 6, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced plans to limit the use of the “qualitative objection” in its Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) exercise. Effective for the 2019 cycle, large U.S. bank holding companies and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations that participate in four CCAR exercises and successfully pass the qualitative evaluation in the fourth year will no longer be subject to the evaluation under the final rule, which measures firms’ ability on a forward-looking basis to determine capital needs. Firms that fail to pass in the fourth year, the Fed noted, will continue to be subject to a possible qualitative objection until they pass. Moreover, all firms’ capital planning processes will still be evaluated, and firms will be required to pass the quantitative evaluation, which evaluates their ability to maintain minimum levels of capital under hypothetical stress scenarios. Furthermore, the Fed stated that it plans to no longer issue qualitative objections to any firms effective January 1, 2021, with the exception of firms who receive a qualitative objection the preceding year. Along with the final rule, the Fed released instructions for this year’s CCAR exercise, confirming that five of the 18 firms subject to this year’s CCAR exercises will possibly be subject to a qualitative objection.
On February 5, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) released the scenarios banks and supervisors will use to conduct the 2019 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. Each of the three scenarios—baseline, adverse, and severely adverse—include 28 variables that cover domestic and international economic activity. The Fed noted that “less-complex” firms with total consolidated assets between $100 billion and $250 billion have been moved to an extended stress test cycle for the 2019 cycle. (See related InfoBytes coverage here.) Capital plan and stress testing submissions are due by April 5.
In addition, the Fed finalized enhanced disclosures of the stress testing models used in annual CCARs beginning in 2019, which will be updated each year. The Fed also amended its policy regarding the economic scenario design framework for stress testing, and adopted a policy statement on prior disclosures, which outlines the Fed’s approach to model development, implementation, and validation. The changes are designed to increase the transparency of the stress testing exercises and provide significantly more information for firms.
On October 31, the OCC published in the Federal Register proposed changes to its “stress test” rules for covered financial institutions, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposal would, among other things, (i) revise the OCC reporting requirements to mirror the Federal Reserve Board’s proposed Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) reporting form FR Y-14A for covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more; (ii) implement the revised asset threshold mandated by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act; and (iii) remove the Retail Repurchase worksheet. Comments on the proposed changes must be received by December 31.
On June 28, the Federal Reserve released the results of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) conducted for 35 firms. This is the eighth year the Fed has conducted the CCAR exercise for the largest U.S.-based bank holding companies. The Fed considers quantitative and qualitative factors in its evaluation, including projected capital ratios under hypothetical severe economic conditions and strength of the firm’s risk management, internal controls, and governance practices that support the capital planning process. This year, 18 firms were subject to both quantitative and qualitative assessments, and 17 firms were only subject to the quantitative assessment. The Fed objected to one firm’s capital plan based on qualitative concerns and issued conditional non-objections to two firms based on changes to the tax law that negatively affected capital levels. However, the one-time reductions are not considered a reflection of the firms’ performances under stress. Overall, U.S. firms have substantially increased their capital since 2009 when the first round of stress tests were conducted.
On April 10, the Federal Reserve Board (Board) announced proposed changes intended to simplify the capital regime applicable to bank holding companies with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets by integrating the Board’s regulatory capital rule (capital rule) and Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and stress test rules. The proposal introduces a “stress capital buffer” (SCB) requirement which will replace the existing fixed capital conservation buffer requirement. Under the proposal, the size of the SCB will be based on the annual stress test and will be added to the bank’s capital requirements for the coming year. For globally systemically important banks (GSIB), a GSIB surcharge will be added to the determined SCB amount. According to the Board’s announcement, the amount of capital required for GSIBs will generally stay the same or somewhat increase, while non-GSIBs will generally see a modest decrease. Overall, the Board states that the changes would reduce the number of capital-related requirements from 24 to 14. Comments on the proposal are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
On February 1, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) published stress testing scenarios to be used when conducting the 2018 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) evaluations and stress test exercises for large bank holding companies and large U.S. operations of foreign firms. Instructions for participating banks also were released. According to the Fed, in an effort designed to “support the transition to stress testing,” foreign banks will only be required to participate in a “simplified global market shock” portion of the CCAR evaluation. As previously covered in InfoBytes, last December the Fed issued a request for comments on three proposals designed to increase stress testing transparency and resiliency of large, complex banks. This included a proposal to publically release, for the first time, information concerning the models and methodologies used during supervisory stress tests, including those applied in the CCAR. According to the Fed’s press release, the qualitative and quantitative evaluations will be used to evaluate a bank’s ability to survive in times of economic stress and are broken into three scenarios with varying degrees of stress: baseline, adverse and severely adverse. The Fed reminded participating banks that capital plan and stress testing submissions are due by April 5.
The same day, the OCC issued its own stress testing scenarios for required OCC-supervised institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, and on February 2, the OCC released a notice and request for comments (notice) on revised templates to be used for stress test exercises performed by covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. According to the notice, revisions would reduce the number of data items in the Supplemental Schedule by approximately half, and include (i) the elimination of two reporting schedules—the Regulatory Capital Transitions Schedule and the Retail Repurchase Exposures Schedule; (ii) the addition of new criteria for institutions subject to the global market shock evaluation; and (iii) clarification on how “Credit Loss Portion” and “Non-Credit Loss Portion” are reported in the summary schedule worksheets. Furthermore, under the revisions, savings associations would be eligible to use the simplified reporting requirements already available to other large, non-complex holding companies. The notice was published in the Federal Register on February 2 and comments are due by March 5.
Additionally, on February 6, the FDIC released economic scenarios developed in coordination with the Fed and the OCC for certain supervised financial institutions. According to the FDIC, the scenarios “include key variables that reflect economic activity, including unemployment, exchange rates, prices, income, interest rates, and other salient aspects of the economy and financial markets.”
On January 8, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) published an updated set of questions and answers to assist financial institutions in complying with the Dodd-Frank Act-mandated stress tests (DFAST) and Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR). According to the Fed, the FAQs are designed to provide answers concerning DFAST and CCAR reporting requirements and related guidance, and generally cover applicable questions that have been asked by covered financial institutions since August 1, 2017. The Fed instructs financial institutions that CCAR projections should only reflect new accounting standards if the standards were implemented prior to December 31 of the previous calendar year. For material business changes occurring in the fourth quarter of a year, financial institutions should discuss any changes that may materially impact the institution’s capital adequacy and funding profile in their CCAR filings. The Fed will review the information when making modelling projections and may request additional information. The Fed also explains the circumstances in which a bank is required to issue replacement capital to stay in compliance with its capital plan.
Federal Reserve Requests Comments on Proposals Seeking Transparency Increases in Stress Testing Programs
The Federal Reserve Board (Fed) issued a request for comments on three proposals designed to increase stress testing transparency while also testing the resiliency of large, complex banks. Earlier in June, Fed Chair Janet Yellen underscored the Fed’s understanding of the need to provide transparency in its Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) process and stress test scenarios. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The first December 7 proposal, “Enhanced Disclosure of the Models Used in the Federal Reserve’s Supervisory Stress Test,” announces the Fed’s plans to publically release, for the first time, information concerning the models and methodologies used during supervisory stress tests, including those applied in the CCAR, including:
- “enhanced descriptions of supervisory models, including key variables;”
- “modeled loss rates on loans grouped by important risk characteristics and summary statistics associated with the loans in each group;” and,
- “portfolios of hypothetical loans and the estimated loss rates associated with the loans in each portfolio.”
The information will offer banks expanded details as to how the Fed’s models treat different types of loans under stress, along with insight into the determination of annual stress test results.
The second request for comments concerns the “Stress Testing Policy Statement,” which elaborates on prior disclosures and outlines details on the principles and policies that govern the Fed’s development, implementation, and validation of its stress testing models.
Finally, the Fed issued a proposed policy statement to request comments on introduced amendments to the design of its annual hypothetical economic scenarios framework. The “Amendments to Policy Statement on the Scenario Design Framework for Stress Testing” is intended to enhance transparency and provide clarification on hypothetical economic scenarios, including the direction of housing prices, as well as the Fed’s commitment to exploring additional variables to test for funding risks.
All comments must be received by January 22, 2018.
On October 27, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) issued proposed changes to its “stress test” rules for covered financial institutions required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Specifically, the proposal would, (i) extend the window by three months to allow the OCC to choose an appropriate “as-of” date in the trading and counterparty default component of the stress test (intended to conform with recent rule changes by the Federal Reserve); and (ii) extend the transition process for certain banks and savings associations that cross the $50 billion asset threshold before stress testing requirements are applicable.
Comments for the proposed changes must be received on or before December 26.
In addition to this proposal, on October 6, the Fed, FDIC, and the OCC, issued a joint notice and request for comment, which proposes to combine the agencies’ three separate, identical stress test report forms into a single new Federal Financial Institutional Examination Council (FFIEC) report (FFIEC 016) under the Dodd-Frank Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here).
- Amanda R. Lawrence to discuss "Navigating the challenges of the latest data protection regulations and proven protocols for breach prevention and response" at the ACI National Forum on Consumer Finance Class Actions and Government Enforcement
- Tim Lange to discuss "Ease your pain at the state level: Recommendations for navigating the licensing issues in the states" at the Online Lenders Alliance Compliance University
- Amanda R. Lawrence, Aaron C. Mahler, and Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "Expanded role for the FTC ahead: Implications for bank and nonbank financial institutions" at an American Bar Association Banking Law Committee Webinar
- Buckley Webcast: Flirting with alternatives — Opportunities and challenges created by alternative data, modeling, and technology
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Reporting requirements for credit unions: CTRs and SARs" at the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions BSA Seminar
- Daniel P. Stipano and Moorari K. Shah to discuss "Vendor management: What is the NCUA looking for?" at the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions BSA Seminar
- Sasha Leonhardt and John B. Williams to discuss "Privacy" at the National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions Summer Regulatory Compliance School
- Warren W. Traiger to discuss "CRA modernization" at the National Association of Industrial Bankers and the Utah Association of Financial Services Annual Convention
- Benjamin W. Hutten to discuss "Requirements for banking inherently high-risk relationships" at the Georgia Bankers Association BSA Experience Program
- Hank Asbill to discuss "Ethical guidance in conducting internal investigations – The intersection of Yates and Upjohn" at the American Bar Association Southeastern White Collar Crime Institute
- Brandy A. Hood to discuss "RESPA Section 8/referrals: How do you stay compliant?" at the New England Mortgage Bankers Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Risk management in enforcement actions: Managing risk or micromanaging it" at the American Bar Association Business Law Section Annual Meeting
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Navigating the conflicting federal and state laws for doing business with cannabis companies" at the American Bar Association Business Law Section Annual Meeting
- Tim Lange to discuss "Services and value" at the North American Collection Agency Regulatory Association Annual Conference
- Amanda R. Lawrence to discuss "Data privacy litigation" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "HMDA data is out, now what?" at the Mortgage Bankers Association Regulatory Compliance Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Assessing the CDD final rule: A year of transitions" at the ACAMS AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Daniel P. Stipano to discuss "Lessons learned from recent enforcement actions and CMPs" at the ACAMS AML & Financial Crime Conference
- Amanda R. Lawrence to discuss "How to balance a successful (and stressful) career with greater personal well-being" at the American Bar Association Women in Litigation Joint CLE Conference