InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC release stress testing scenarios
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 publicly 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.”
Review procedures need enhancing according to GAO’s Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance report
On January 30, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its annual report on federal financial regulators’ compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Specifically, the report assessed whether certain regulators adhered to the RFA when drafting and implementing regulations that may affect small entities. Such regulators include the Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFPB, FDIC, OCC, and SEC (collectively, the "agencies"). Under the RFA, the agencies must either (i) certify that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or (ii) perform a regulatory flexibility analysis to assess the rule’s impact on small entities and “consider alternatives that may minimize any significant economic impact of the rule.” The report disclosed issues related to certifications. Examples included (i) providing incomplete disclosures of data sources or methodologies of economic analysis and impact; (ii) failing to provide definitions for criteria used to determine a “substantial number” or a “significant economic impact”; and (iii) relying on alternative and potentially outdated definitions of small entities. Additionally, GAO noted that many regulators were unable to provide supporting documentation for their analyses. GAO presented 10 recommendations for enhancing compliance procedures, and stressed that regulators should “develop and implement specific policies and procedures for consistently complying with RFA requirements and related guidance for conducting RFA analyses.” Specific recommendations for each agency are located here.
Bank regulators share living will expectations with foreign banks operating in the U.S.
On January 29, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC sent letters to 19 foreign banks operating in the United States to outline and clarify resolution plan expectations. According to a joint release issued by the regulators, Dodd-Frank-mandated resolution plans—commonly known as living wills—require certain foreign banks to detail strategic plans for their U.S. operations “for rapid and orderly resolution under bankruptcy” should the banks fail or fall under material financial distress. Requested in the letters, among other things, are specifics on resolution strategies, capital calculations, management of liquidity, stress testing, and organizational structures. Banks are required to submit 2018 resolution plans no later than December 31, 2018. Refer here to access a list of banks and letters.
Federal Reserve vice chairman evaluates post-crisis regulations
On January 19, Federal Reserve Vice Chairman for Supervision Randal Quarles spoke at the American Bar Association Banking Law Committee Annual Meeting to discuss his initial observations on the post-crisis regulation regime and provide a status update on the Fed’s key areas of focus for improving the “efficiency, transparency, and simplicity of regulation.” Quarles emphasized that there are a variety of means to improve efficiency, such as (i) addressing unintended adverse consequences of a regulation, or (ii) calibrating a regulation “more precisely to the risks in need of mitigation.” Transparency around rulemaking encourages a variety of perspectives, and simplifying regulations “promotes public understanding of regulation, promotes meaningful compliance by the industry with regulation, and reduces unexpected negative synergies among regulations,” he added.
According to Quarles, “small bank capital simplification, burden reduction in resolution planning, enhancements to stress testing, leverage ratio recalibration, and Volcker rule simplification” are common ground areas for improvement, efforts have progressed, and regulations have been proposed for changes, including extending the resolution planning cycle to reduce the reporting burden. Quarles also noted that the Fed expects to release a proposal on leverage ratio recalibration in the near future, and has started working with five banking agencies on a proposal to streamline the Volcker rule.
Another area of focus Quarles highlighted is the Fed’s plan to revisit the “advanced approaches” thresholds used to identify internationally active banks, including risk-based capital requirements as well as the supplementary leverage ratio. Quarles further noted that the current $250 billion-asset or $10 billion in on-balance-sheet foreign exposures thresholds were formulated more than a decade ago “and have not been refined since then.” Additionally, Quarles announced plans to work with his Fed colleagues to simplify the framework for loss absorbency requirements. According to Quarles, candidates for simplification include (i) eliminating the advanced approaches risk-based capital requirements; (ii) eliminating one or more stress testing ratios; and (iii) modifying the total loss-absorbing capacity requirements. The framework for making determinations of control under the Bank Holding Company Act—while not a post-crisis regulation—could also be improved to be less “burdensome and time-consuming,” Quarles added.
Finally, as previously covered in InfoBytes, Quarles commented on the Fed’s requests for comments issued last December on three proposals designed to increase stress testing transparency while also testing the resiliency of large, complex banks. “I believe that the disclosure we have provided does not go far enough to provide visibility into the supervisory models that often deliver a firm's binding capital constraint,” Quarles noted.
Agencies offer CRA credit for certain disaster relief efforts
On January 25, the FDIC, OCC, and the Fed (collectively “Agencies”) issued an interagency statement on the availability of Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) credit for financial institution activities that “help revitalize or stabilize the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, which were designated as major disaster areas by the President because of Hurricane Maria.” Provided financial institutions continue to be responsive to the community needs of their own CRA assessment areas, the Agencies will now give “favorable consideration” to community development activities, such as assistance to displaced people, in the areas impacted by Hurricane Maria. The Agencies state that they may give higher consideration to activities aimed at assisting the low- and moderate-income affected areas but that general consideration will be given regardless of median or personal income.
Federal Reserve fines Taiwanese bank $29 million for anti-money laundering compliance deficiencies
On January 17, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) ordered a Taiwanese bank to pay a $29 million penalty in connection with alleged Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) violations. According to the Fed’s Order, examinations conducted in 2016 identified “significant deficiencies” in three of the bank’s U.S. branches’ BSA/AML compliance and risk management controls. In addition to assessing a penalty, the Order required the bank and its New York, Chicago, and San Jose branches to, among other things, (i) submit a written plan from the board of directors for improving senior management oversight, including building a sustainable governance framework for BSA/AML compliance; (ii) submit compliance plans for enhanced internal controls, independent testing, risk assessment, and employee training; (iii) submit a revised program designed to conduct customer due diligence; (iv) ensure timely, accurate, and complete suspicious activity monitoring and reporting; (v) engage an independent third-party to review the identification and reporting of suspicious activity “involving high risk customers or transactions”; (vi) comply with Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations; and (vii) submit periodic progress reports to the branches’ applicable Federal Reserve Banks detailing actions taken to comply with the provisions of the order.
CFPB succession update: CFPB requests zero funding; seeks public comment regarding Bureau’s activities; & more
On January 17, in a letter to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney requested zero dollars for the Bureau’s quarterly operating funds. Each fiscal quarter, as required by law, the CFPB formally requests that the Federal Reserve transfer a specified amount of money to the Bureau so it can perform the functions outlined in its budget. In his letter, Mulvaney stated that the prior Director maintained a “reserve fund” for the CFPB, and the money in this fund is sufficient to cover the CFPB’s expenses for the second quarter. This will be the first time in the history of the CFPB that its Director has requested no additional amount to fund quarterly operations. The CFPB also announced its plan to publish a series of Requests for Information (RFIs) in the Federal Register seeking public input on the way the Bureau is performing its statutory obligations. These RFIs will request “comment on enforcement, supervision, rulemaking, market monitoring, and education activities.” The first RFI will seek information regarding the Bureau’s Civil Investigative Demand processes and procedures.
On January 18, the CFPB voluntarily dismissed its case against four online installment lenders for allegedly deceiving customers by collecting debts that were not legally owed, previously covered by InfoBytes here. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleged, among other things, that the lenders engaged in unfair, abusive, and deceptive acts—a violation of the Dodd-Frank Act—by collecting on installment loans that are partially or wholly void under state law. In September 2017, the case was transferred to Kansas, where the Bureau’s notice of dismissal was filed. The notice does not specify a reason for the dismissal.
Fed terminates foreclosure enforcement actions, fines five banks CMPs
On January 10, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced the termination of ten enforcement actions for legacy mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing activities, along with the issuance of more than $35 million in combined civil money penalties (CMPs) against five of the ten banks. Combined with penalties previously assessed against other supervised firms (see previous InfoBytes coverage here), the Fed’s mortgage servicing enforcement actions have totaled approximately $1.1 billion in penalties. The CMPs assessed against the five banks range from $3.5 million to $14 million.
According to the Fed, the termination of the ten enforcement actions is a result of “evidence of sustainable improvements in the firms’ oversight and mortgage servicing practices.” Under the terms of the previously issued consent orders, in addition to the CMPs, the banks were required to (i) improve residential mortgage loan servicing oversight, and (ii) correct deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing for banks with Fed supervised-mortgage servicing subsidiaries.
The Fed also announced the termination of two related joint enforcement actions (see here and here) with the OCC, FDIC and FHFA (a party to only one of the actions) against key mortgage servicing service providers. According to the announcement, the terminations were a result of proof of “sustainable improvements” in the companies’ foreclosure-related practices.
Federal Reserve Publishes Stress Test, CCAR FAQs
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.
Agencies finalize plans to further streamline Call Reports
On January 3, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC (agencies)—as members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)—announced finalized plans to reduce data reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements associated with the Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Reports) for financial institutions. According to the FFIEC, after reviewing comments related to the joint June 2017 proposal, the finalized changes will include:
- Reducing or remove the reporting frequency for approximately seven percent of the data items required on the Call Report for small institutions, effective June 30, 2018; and
- Revising Call Report schedules to align with the changes in accounting for equity securities, effective March 21, 2018.
The FFIEC noted that the agencies will not proceed with their June 2017 proposal to revise the instructions for determining past due status.
In addition to the June 2017 proposal, previous requests for proposed burden-reducing Call Report revisions were submitted by the agencies in August 2016 and November 2017 (see InfoBytes’ coverage of the August request here and the November request here).