The Vault

BofA’s new no-down payment mortgage is another innovative product in which banks use their balance sheets to address their CRA obligations by offering down payment assistance or, as here, flat out nothing down.  The extent to which nonbanks can match these programs depends on the extent to which Fannie and Freddie are able and then willing to cross-subsidize ….

The full report is available to subscription clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here.…

August doldrums always seem to power up spirals of will-he or won’t-he speculation about the Fed’s Jackson Hole meeting because there usually isn’t all that much else to talk about economically-speaking. This year is different because this year has revealed the Fed as a central bank without a compass at a time of extraordinarily strong winds towards the rocks.  Still, in all the punditry over whether the Fed can somehow maneuver to Jay Powell’s “softish landing,” there’s one missing, critical factor:  inequality and what the Fed must do about it or, if it won’t, what we must do about the Fed.

The Fed is fond of blaming fiscal policy for economic inequality, but U.S. fiscal policy has been awesomely stimulative since the pandemic struck and the U.S. has still grown ever more unequal in terms of both income and wealth.  This is because ultra-accommodative monetary policy stokes inequality and, at the scale practiced by the Federal Reserve, towers over even trillions of fiscal stimulus.  As a result, the U.S. didn’t get the Fed’s promise of “robust growth” accompanied by only a bit of “transitory” inflation.  Of course, we instead got a crushing combination of high-flying inflation that will leave long-lasting scars on vulnerable households even if it meaningfully abates as some now hope.

The Fed thinks itself aloof from any inequality accountability because it cloaks itself in the mantle of “maximum employment” as armor against any inequality-effect assertions.  It was in fact this focus solely on employment …

Reflecting the concerns voiced in a recent executive order from President Biden and a subsequent request for views from Treasury, the Federal Reserve has joined the OCC in demanding prior notice from banking organizations that wish to undertake cryptoasset activities.  The OCC also warned national banks already engaged in these activities to ensure that they are safe and sound, but the Fed has gone farther.  It also demands that state member banks and BHCs already engaged in this sector notify their lead supervisor and ensure that…

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

We look here at an interesting idea from three senior Fannie Mae officials: an index to measure a Single-Family MBS’s social impact.  The proposal seeks to enable socially conscious investors to support affordable housing for underserved communities while balancing the needs of mortgage borrowers, investors, and market function.  It also reflects the objectives laid out in Fannie Mae’s Equitable Housing Finance Plan such as providing social impact data and boosting low-income and minority homeownership. …

The full report is available to subscription clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here.

 …

Following considerable controversy surrounding how Federal Reserve Banks grant master accounts, it has finalized a somewhat more explicit set of guidelines along lines proposed the second time the Fed attempted to set guidelines via a “supplemental” proposal earlier this year amending its 2021 effort.3 Doubtless expecting the controversy which followed these final guidelines, the Fed was at pains in both the preamble and release to emphasize that the new standards are “transparent and equitable.” However, as noted below, some changes to the supplemental in fact increase…

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

Using another of its tools to set policy without prior public comment, the CFPB has released a circular stating that inadequate consumer-data safeguards may constitute a breach of the unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP) protection standards subject to Bureau enforcement action.   This is the case even if no consumers have been harmed, if only one consumer is adversely affected, …

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

Last week, the American Banker had a synopsis of views filed on Treasury’s request for comments on digital-finance regulation.  Its quote from the ABA’s comment letter is striking, indicating that this letter pointed to the increasingly-absurd reality of no rules for nonbanks and no digital assets for banks given all their rules.  Progressive advocates pushed back, arguing that it’s right to keep banks quashed because of all the systemic hazards they pose.  To my thinking, both sides are right, with recent history not just showing why, but also how urgent it is for regulators finally to act on both overarching crypto rules and those governing bank exposures in this volatile sector.

The recent history I have in mind is the chilling precedent of subprime mortgages starting in around 2003.  I well remember a meeting at the OCC in which my late husband detailed both the borrower and market risks of new mortgage products such as those with “silent seconds” extended to borrowers with no demonstrable ability to repay even a first line from resources other than the ever-appreciating house prices investors somehow believed were a force of nature that always blew balmy winds their way.

The OCC official with whom we spoke was even more worried than we about emerging market trends, but she was over-ruled from on high.  This was first because national banks weren’t sounding the alarm, second because no other banking agency seemed worried, and finally because anything that adversely affected national banks might have undermined …

FHFA, Fannie, and Freddie yesterday released the results of FHFA’s latest stress test, focusing on the severely-adverse scenario in order – or so FHFA says – to push the GSEs to the limit. This the test does insofar as the GSEs’ combined CET1 capital shortfall is as much as $159 billion. However, aspects of FHFA’s test – e.g., falling inflation over 2022 and 2023 and rising house prices – are likely to be more than a bit off….

The full report is available to subscription clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here.…

In our recent paper outlining the holistic-capital regime regulators should quickly deploy, we noted that current rules are often counter-productive to their avowed goal of bank solvency without peril to prosperity.  However, one acute problem in the regulatory-capital rulebook – procyclicality – does particularly problematic damage when the economy faces acute challenges – i.e., now.  None of the pending one-off capital reforms addresses procyclicality and, in fact, several might make it even worse.  This memo shows how and then what should be quickly done to reinstate the counter-cyclicality all the regulators say they seek.

Last Thursday, the Fed set new, often-higher risk-based capital (RBC) ratios for the largest banks.  The reason for this untimely capital hike lies in the interplay between the RBC rules and the Fed’s CCAR stress test.  Packaged into the stress capital buffer (SCB), these rules determine how much RBC each large bank must hold to ensure it can stay in the agencies’ good graces and, to its thinking, better still distribute capital.

Put very simply, the more RBC, the less RWAS – i.e., the risk-weighted assets, against which capital rules are measured.  The higher the weighting, the lower a capital-strained bank’s appetite to hold it unless risk is high enough also to offset the leverage ratio’s cost – at which point the bank is taking a lot of unnecessary risk to sidestep another set of unintended contradictions in the capital construct.  As a Fed study concludes, all but the very strongest banks sit on their …

As seems increasingly the case, I spent more time last week than hoped with airport personnel.  In the course of the economic-inequality discussion that prompted my travels, I mentioned that I had little confidence in the general-public inflation expectation data in which economists put such stock.  So, I asked my aide what she thought and was told that her biggest fear is the “rising price of the dollar” and whether she will thus be able to afford her apartment and get her kids ready for school.  The airport was packed and she is turning down overtime, but she has to take care of her kids and day care costs are higher than even more pay can manage.  Pressing on, I got only a blank stare following mention of the Federal Reserve but then heard a diatribe about useless politicians including those she no longer thinks care for anyone but themselves.  I think this lady’s views are emblematic of lower-wage workers who once were active voters and thus also an important warning signs not only of how unequal economies work at odds with the Fed’s macro models, but also of the outcome of the election this year and, should things only get worse, then in 2024.

I decided not to waste time by asking Kisha (not her real name) to agree that the recession is just an illusion because all the data boxes have yet to be checked as the President, Treasury Secretary, and Fed chairman insist.  It’s hard to think …