InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies finalize living will requirements
On October 28, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC issued a joint press release to announce the adoption of a final rule amending resolution planning requirements (known as living wills) for large domestic and foreign firms with more than $100 billion in total consolidated assets, while tailoring requirements to the level of risk a firm poses to the financial system. The final rule—which is substantially similar to the April 2019 proposal (previous InfoBytes coverage here)—makes improvements to the November 2011 joint resolution plan rule, and is consistent with amendments to Dodd-Frank made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, the final rule tailors resolution planning requirements by using four “risk-based categories,” and extends the default resolution plan filing cycle. Global systemically important bank holding companies (GSIBs) will continue to be required to submit resolution plans on a two-year cycle; however, firms that do not pose the same systemic risk as GSIBs will only be required to submit their resolution plans on a three-year cycle. The agencies note in their release that both groups will alternate between submitting full and targeted resolution plans, and that “[f]oreign firms with relatively limited U.S. operations would be required to submit reduced resolution plans.” Additionally, firms with less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets that do not meet certain risk criteria will now be exempt under the final rule. The agencies also emphasize a change from the proposed rule: only smaller and less complex firms may request changes to their full resolution plans, subject to approval by both agencies prior to taking effect.
The final rule takes effect 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
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.
Agencies raise residential appraisal requirement to $400,000
On September 27, the OCC, the Federal Reserve Board, and the FDIC announced a final rule increasing the threshold for residential real estate transactions requiring an appraisal from $250,000 to $400,000. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in November 2018, the agencies proposed the threshold increase in response to feedback that the exemption threshold had not increased to keep pace with the price appreciation in the residential real estate market. The final rule also includes the rural residential appraisal exemption included in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here), and implements the Dodd-Frank Act mandate that institutions appropriately review appraisals for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The final rule is effective the first day after publication in the Federal Register, except for the evaluation requirement for transactions exempted by the rural residential appraisal exemption and the requirement to review appraisals for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which are effective January 1, 2020.
The FDIC press release is available here, the Federal Reserve Board press release is available here, and the concurrence letter from the CFPB is available here.
CFPB issues FAQs on SAFE Act amendments
On September 25, the CFPB published four FAQs pertaining to compliance with federal SAFE Act amendments created by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act), which take effect on November 24. According to the Bureau, the Act’s amendments “establish temporary authority, which provides a way for eligible loan originators who have applied for a new state loan originator license to act as a loan originator in the application state while the state considers the application.” Specifically, the FAQs address (i) residential mortgage loan originator categories and requirements; (ii) the temporary authority to act as a loan originator, as added by Section 106 of the Act; (iii) guidance concerning state transitional license availability under the SAFE Act; and (iv) the impact of the Act’s amendments on the permissibility of state transitional licensing under the SAFE Act and Regulation H.
Indiana issues rule providing temporary authority for mortgage loan originators
On August 28, the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions published in the Indiana Register an emergency rule providing 120-day temporary authority for certain mortgage loan originators (MLOs) to originate loans in Indiana without a state license, pursuant to Section 106 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The new rule provides that in order to be eligible for temporary authority to operate, an MLO, among other things, must have been licensed as an MLO in another state continuously during the past 30 days or operating as a registered MLO for a depository institution continuously for the past year. The rule permits an eligible MLO applicant to engage in mortgage transactions while their application is pending for licensure for up to 120 days or upon approval of the licensing application, whichever is sooner, beginning November 24.
CFPB updates HMDA webinars
On August 29, the CFPB updated two HMDA webinars to reflect amendments made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, and the interpretive and procedural rule issued by the CFPB in August 2018. (Previous InfoBytes coverage on the amendments and the interpretive and procedural rule available here.) The Bureau also released a new HMDA webinar to provide an overview “on reporting certain application or covered loan features, pricing information, features of the property, and transaction indicators.”
FHFA issues final rule on new credit score models
On August 13, the FHFA announced its final rule on the validation and approval of third-party credit score model(s) that can be used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs), implementing Section 310 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The final rule defines a four-phase process for a GSE to validate and approve credit score models: (i) solicitation of applications from credit score model developers; (ii) submission and review of applications; (iii) credit score assessment; and (iv) business assessment, which, among other things, evaluates the impact of using the credit score model on industry operations and mortgage market liquidity. Additionally, the final rule lays out timing and notices for GSE decisions under the process. After a GSE approves or disapproves of an application, within 45 days the FHFA must approve or disapprove of the GSE’s proposed determination. If any applications are approved, the credit score solicitation will be made publicly available. The rule will take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
VA consolidates and clarifies IRRRL guidance
On August 8, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-19-22, which consolidates and clarifies guidance related to Section 309 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law No. 115-174, and updates guidance regarding loan seasoning requirements based on the “Protecting Affordable Mortgages for Veterans Act of 2019,” Public Law No. 116-33. (Covered by InfoBytes here and here.) The Circular states that a lender (broker or agent included), a servicer, or issuer of an Interest Rate Reduction Refinance Loan (IRRRL) must, among other things:
- Recoup Fees. Certify that certain fees and costs of the loan will be recouped on or before 36 months after the loan note date;
- Net Tangible Benefit. Establish that when the previous loan had a fixed interest rate (i) the new fixed interest rate is at least 0.5 percent lower, or (ii) if the new loan has an adjustable rate, that the rate is at least 2 percent lower than the previous loan. In each instance, the lower rate cannot be produced solely from discount points except in certain circumstances;
- Loan Seasoning. Follow a seasoning requirement for all VA-guaranteed loans. A loan cannot be refinanced until (i) the date on which the borrower has made at least six consecutive monthly payments on the loan being refinanced, and (ii) the date that is 210 days after the first payment due date of the loan being refinanced; and
- Disclosure. Present a comparison of the refinance loan to the original loan within two business days from the initial loan application and again at closing that includes information about the overall cost of refinance. The Circular offers a sample comparison statement in Exhibit C.