#Basel – Page 5 – Federal Financial Analytics

14 09, 2023

CAPITAL235

Eliza Allen2023-09-14T14:23:57-04:00September 14th, 2023|5- Client Report|

GOP Blasts Basel End-Game Regs, Dems Seek a Few Changes

With HFSC Chairman McHenry (R-NC) leading the way, GOP Members of the panel’s Financial Institutions Subcommittee today blasted the banking agencies’ end-game proposal (see Client Report CAPITAL234). Republicans were unanimous in joining leadership’s attack on the proposal’s process and substance, pointing to what they called incomplete impact analyses, an inexplicably short comment period, and adverse macroeconomic and regional-bank implications. Democrats led by Ranking Member Waters (D-CA) were more restrained and in some cases supported the proposal, but concerns were also noted with specific provisions (e.g., re the treatment of certain mortgage and securitization assets) and the interface with the pending CRA final rule. We continue to expect the banking agencies to hold firm to the proposal in broad terms and make minimal, if any, changes to the comment deadline. However, pressure from Republicans and the industry could well force renewed and what many would consider improved impact analyses designed not only to allay political opposition, but also the courts if litigation challenges the final rule.

CAPITAL235.pdf…

12 09, 2023

DAILY091223

Eliza Allen2023-09-12T17:19:22-04:00September 12th, 2023|2- Daily Briefing|

GHOS Presses Basel Action on Lessons Learned

Basel’s group of Governors and Heads of Supervision (GHOS) met yesterday, listing strong bank risk management and governance arrangements, effective supervision, and the need for a robust regulatory framework as the primary lessons it learned from this year’s banking turmoil. GHOS also pressed its members to finalize their Basel III reforms, noting that most plan to implement them by the end of 2024.

Gensler Takes Swing-Pricing, AI Fire

At today’s Senate Banking hearing with SEC Chairman Gensler, Democrats largely defended the pace and scope of recent SEC work while Republicans criticized the agency for rulemakings they said were ideologically driven and inadequately analyzed. Chairman Brown (D-OH) applauded the SEC’s crypto enforcement actions and encouraged it to examine broker and investment adviser use of AI. Ranking Member Scott (R-SC) and several other Republicans sharply criticized Mr. Gensler for what they said was his lack of transparency and responsiveness to congressional inquiries.

Daily091223.pdf…

5 09, 2023

DAILY090523

Eliza Allen2023-09-05T17:16:52-04:00September 5th, 2023|2- Daily Briefing|

FSB Considers Resolution Construct Revamp

In addition to calling for full and consistent implementation of the Basel III framework, the FSB head’s letter to the G20 today stresses that this year’s bank failures challenge long-held views about deposit stickiness and the speed of bank runs, leading international standard-setters now to consider unspecified policy changes to the resolution construct.

BIS Study: Fed, FDIC Reassurances Offset Bank Run Risk

Contributing to analysis of viral runs and how to stop them, a new paper from BIS staff concludes that public communication from the Fed on banking system stability and from the FDIC on deposit insurance during crises can mitigate systemwide run risk, while similar statements from political figures such as President Biden are less effective.

IMF: Money Laundering Undermines Financial Stability

The IMF yesterday published a blog post on money laundering’s financial-stability impact, concluding that cross-border illicit payments result in equity-price declines, higher CDS costs, elevated perceived credit risk, and declines in deposits for the individual banks involved. The blog also states that there is a contagion dynamic as a result of spillover effects between targeted banks and other banks within the region.

Daily090523.pdf…

22 08, 2023

FedFin on: GSIB Surcharge

Arezou Rafikian2023-08-23T10:19:58-04:00August 22nd, 2023|The Vault|

As anticipated in the wake of recent bank failures, the FRB has proposed a significant revision to the current rules calculating systemic-risk scores that lead to GSIB designation. These indicators are used not only for GSIB designation or a higher surcharge, but also for categorizing U.S. and foreign banks for other purposes and thus would also bring some banking organizations into categories subject to very strict prudential standards. The Board estimates that the overall impact of the changes to the surcharge and risk-scoring methodology are small and, regardless, warranted to enhance systemic resilience and consistency. It also estimates that the interaction of this new approach with certain liquidity and TLAC standards is generally minimal. However, the Fed has not assessed the relationship of scoring revisions to one way to calculate the GSIB charges, nor does the Board assess the cumulative impact of all of the changes proposed here in concert with its sweeping revisions to U.S. capital rules for all banking organizations with assets over $100 billion. It is also unclear how these changes in concert with all the others interact with the stress capital buffer applicable to large U.S.-domiciled banking organizations…

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

22 08, 2023

GSIB22

Eliza Allen2023-08-22T10:19:26-04:00August 22nd, 2023|1- Financial Services Management|

GSIB Surcharge

As anticipated in the wake of recent bank failures, the FRB has proposed a significant revision to the current rules calculating systemic-risk scores that lead to GSIB designation. These indicators are used not only for GSIB designation or a higher surcharge, but also for categorizing U.S. and foreign banks for other purposes and thus would also bring some banking organizations into categories subject to very strict prudential standards. The Board estimates that the overall impact of the changes to the surcharge and risk-scoring methodology are small and, regardless, warranted to enhance systemic resilience and consistency. It also estimates that the interaction of this new approach with certain liquidity and TLAC standards is generally minimal. However, the Fed has not assessed the relationship of scoring revisions to one way to calculate the GSIB charges, nor does the Board assess the cumulative impact of all of the changes proposed here in concert with its sweeping revisions to U.S. capital rules for all banking organizations with assets over $100 billion. It is also unclear how these changes in concert with all the others interact with the stress capital buffer applicable to large U.S.-domiciled banking organizations. Despite the Fed’s conclusions, it seems likely that the total impact will be considerable in light of methodological problems in this proposal as well as those FedFin identified with the impact analysis for the capital rewrite.

GSIB22.pdf…

14 08, 2023

M081423

Eliza Allen2023-08-14T10:41:39-04:00August 14th, 2023|6- Client Memo|

Why The Operational-Risk Capital Rules Make No Sense

While there are many risks for which regulatory capital is a vital panacea, operational risk is not among them. The proposed approach to these capital standards makes it still more clear that regulators don’t trust themselves or banks and thus deploy the only tool they seem to know – ever-higher capital – no matter the cost and, more important, the risk. In fact, the best way to address operational risk is to spend money, not put it in a capital piggybank regulators can shake to hear coins rattle when they worry even though getting the coins out in a hurry will prove devilishly difficult.

M081423.pdf…

14 08, 2023

Karen Petrou: Why The Operational-Risk Capital Rules Make No Sense

Eliza Allen2023-08-14T10:41:30-04:00August 14th, 2023|The Vault|

While there are many risks for which regulatory capital is a vital panacea, operational risk is not among them. The proposed approach to these capital standards makes it still more clear that regulators don’t trust themselves or banks and thus deploy the only tool they seem to know – ever-higher capital – no matter the cost and, more important, the risk. In fact, the best way to address operational risk is to spend money, not put it in a capital piggybank regulators can shake to hear coins rattle when they worry even though getting the coins out in a hurry will prove devilishly difficult.

The reason why regulatory capital doesn’t do diddly for operational-risk absorption is self-evident when one understands what constitutes operational risk. It’s essentially what God does to banks (natural disasters), what people do to banks (fraud), and what banks do to themselves (fragile systems) and to others (endangering consumers or markets at ultimate legal cost).

None of these risks is meaningfully reduced with more capital and, even if it were, the way the new rules work frustrates the way it might. As our in-depth analysis of the proposed operational risk-based capital (ORBC) rules makes clear, regulators want banks to look back as long as ten years to see how many operational losses they booked, measure business volume over the past three years, ramp up these sums via mysterious “scaling factors,” and then somehow discern what operational risk will be in coming years and how much shareholder …

11 08, 2023

Al081423

Eliza Allen2023-08-11T16:27:33-04:00August 11th, 2023|3- This Week|

The Capital Construct Continued

Even as we stay on watch for new regional-bank resolution rules, and keep you posted on some high-impact events (see below), we’ve been plowing through hundreds of pages of regulatory-capital rewrites. Last week, we built on our in-depth analyses of the overall capital framework (see FSM Report CAPITAL230) and the new approach to credit risk (see FSM Report CAPITAL231) with several new in-depth assessments.

Al081423.pdf…

10 08, 2023

FedFin on: Operational Risk-Based Capital Standards

Arezou Rafikian2023-08-11T16:25:34-04:00August 10th, 2023|The Vault|

Noting that operational risk is present at all banks due to most activities, the U.S. regulatory-capital rewrite would end the current approach to operational risk-based capital (ORBC). This now subjects only categories I and II banks to ORBC and then only to the advanced measurement approach (AMA) premised on each bank’s internal models. Consistent with the overall decision to end internal-model reliance, this section of the proposal subjects categories I, II, III, and IV banks to a new operational-risk standardized approach (SA). This would result in very steep capital requirements based on a bank’s experience over the past ten years compared to various sources of revenue over the past three years, perhaps taking business-model changes over the course of the last three years into account if regulatory standards are met for doing so….

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

10 08, 2023

OPSRISK22

Eliza Allen2023-08-10T16:10:43-04:00August 10th, 2023|1- Financial Services Management|

Operational Risk-Based Capital Standards

Noting that operational risk is present at all banks due to most activities, the U.S. regulatory-capital rewrite would end the current approach to operational risk-based capital (ORBC). This now subjects only categories I and II banks to ORBC and then only to the advanced measurement approach (AMA) premised on each bank’s internal models. Consistent with the overall decision to end internal-model reliance, this section of the proposal subjects categories I, II, III, and IV banks to a new operational-risk standardized approach (SA). This would result in very steep capital requirements based on a bank’s experience over the past ten years compared to various sources of revenue over the past three years, perhaps taking business-model changes over the course of the last three years into account if regulatory standards are met for doing so. Steps banks have taken to prepare and avoid operational risk and respond to prior incidents are also generally not captured in a meaningful ORBC adjustment. As a result, ORBC capital standards may be premised on risks the bank is now unlikely to encounter on a go-forward basis or offsetting the costs essential to preventing and absorbing the operational risks it now might encounter.

OPSRISK22.pdf…