More for Mortgages?
As our reports on the Senate and House hearings with bank regulators made clear, our prediction that the agencies would compromise on mortgage risk-based capital requirements will prove itself in the final standards. However, it’s far from clear if the compromise the agencies think will satisfy Congress will do much beyond directly addressing concerns that the proposal adversely affects LMI loans.
Bipartisan Capital Bashing Continues in the House
Following yesterday’s Senate Banking hearing (see Client Report REFORM229), today’s HFSC session with top bank regulators again highlighted growing bipartisan consternation over the unintended consequences of the agencies’ capital proposal (see FSM Report CAPITAL230). Although Ranking Member Waters (D-CA) echoed Chairman Brown’s defense, Democratic criticism today went beyond concerns about mortgages and green bonds also to address credit availability, new trading and derivatives standards, capital recognition of securities losses, and insufficient review of the proposal’s quantitative impacts. Republicans continued to bash the proposal for what they said is insufficient economic analysis. Unlike yesterday, attention to the FDIC’s harassment scandal most notably came from Democrats’ side of the aisle, with Ranking Member Waters using all of her questioning time to criticize the FDIC and request a report from each agency describing how they will review sexual-harassment. Reiterating concerns he and Subcommittee on Financial Institutions Chairman Barr (R-KY) recently raised regarding regulators’ interactions with international standard-setters, Chairman McHenry grilled Vice Chair Barr and Acting Comptroller Hsu about staff compensation and agency documentation practices at international events. Mr. Barr emphasized that all Board and staff member compensation comes from the Fed, while Mr. Hsu only said that his agency tracks participation in these bodies to ensure mission alignment. We continue to expect GOP pressure on the international-agency front but no action until GAO completes its report. Chair Gruenberg noted broad alignment with a new incentive-compensation proposal, but revised the initial timeline …
How Inequitable Rules Stoke Financial Crises and What the Banking Agencies Should do to Cut This Link
Last week, OMB issued another edict redesigning the way most of the federal government writes rules, going beyond its earlier directive to consider competitive impact now also to demand detailed consideration of the broader public good, especially when it comes to economic equality. I focused on public-good regulation in last week’s memo because it is sadly alien to federal financial regulation even though, as OMB says, “the benefits and costs of a regulation are ultimately experienced by people.” I grant that economists are people, but some are also people who don’t like people, at least when qualitative assessment of what people need challenges the quantitative conclusions they cherish. Pending banking rules thus ignore the public good in favor of complex market constructs, rationalizing them on assertions that, whatever else befalls finance, crises are less likely. This is a methodology fraught with perverse consequences, the most important of which is that the agencies’ standards will hike the risk of financial crises precisely because they omit distributional analysis.
Last week, OMB issued another edict redesigning the way most of the federal government writes rules, going beyond its earlier directive to consider competitive impact now also to demand detailed consideration of the broader public good, especially when it comes to economic equality. I focused on public-good regulation in last week’s memo because it is sadly alien to federal financial regulation even though, as OMB says, “the benefits and costs of a regulation are ultimately experienced by people.” I grant that economists are people, but some are also people who don’t like people, at least when qualitative assessment of what people need challenges the quantitative conclusions they cherish. Pending banking rules thus ignore the public good in favor of complex market constructs, rationalizing them on assertions that, whatever else befalls finance, crises are less likely. This is a methodology fraught with perverse consequences, the most important of which is that the agencies’ standards will hike the risk of financial crises precisely because they omit distributional analysis.
A demand for distributional consideration is not – repeat not – a plea for the banking agencies to go easy on banks. It’s a plea for them to be as sure as they can that none but banks that need to be reined in are throttled. As OMB now also says, “some alternatives may change distributional effects even without significantly changing stringency.” The extent to which this is the case with bank standards is unknown because not one regulator has ever asked a distributional …
BIS: No Stablecoin Peg Has Held
Ahead of HFSC Chairman McHenry’s push for new stablecoin legislation, the BIS today issued a report looking at 68 stablecoins and found that not a single stablecoin tied to fiat-currency or similarly-robust assets sustained parity with its peg at all times, regardless of size or type of backing. The paper also suggests that there is no guarantee that issuers of stablecoins would be able to redeem stablecoins on demand or in full and identifies younger coins and unbacked coins as more price volatile.
Gruenberg, Barr Say Agencies Must Work With Banks to Implement CRA Standards
Commenting today on CRA, FDIC Chairman Gruenberg indicated that he is looking forward to working with banks to “figure out” how to make the rule work in critical areas such as the retail-lending and community-development lending tests. Vice Chair Barr and Acting Comptroller Hsu also highlighted implementation challenges, but all strongly supported the rule as a major advance sure to support community development and modernize banking requirements.
Although FHFA calls its FHLB report a centenary event ahead of the System’s 2032 birthday, the agency clearly plans structural substantive reform well before that milestone. Much of what’s planned will crimp FHLB profitability, increasing the importance of what would otherwise seem like tidying-up operational improvements to protect the viability of the System’s weaker Banks. With its eye on keeping the System in line, FHFA does not even suggest it should be allowed by law or regulatory sleight-of-hand to issue MBS or …
The full report is available to subscription clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here.…
Rebirth at 91
Although FHFA calls its FHLB report a centenary event ahead of the System’s 2032 birthday, the agency clearly plans structural substantive reform well before that milestone. Much of what’s planned will crimp FHLB profitability, increasing the importance of what would otherwise seem like tidying-up operational improvements to protect the viability of the System’s weaker Banks. With its eye on keeping the System in line, FHFA does not even suggest it should be allowed by law or regulatory sleight-of-hand to issue MBS or like-kind instruments, get into the CRT business, or do anything much but provide ordinary advances to mission-focused members and up its own contributions to affordable housing. A series of near-term regulations are also contemplated to ensure tighter mission compliance and more certain resilience, steps sure also to cut into the Banks’ already-challenged bottom lines.
Treasury Advances Financial-Inclusion Agenda
In conjunction with its read-out of yesterday’s meeting of its most recent financial-inclusion discussion group, Treasury announced that it will shortly release a request for information about how best to accomplish the national financial-inclusion strategy demanded in the Department’s FY23 appropriations.
HFSC GOP Challenges Motives, Process of Basel, NGFS Standard-Setting
As anticipated, today’s Financial Institutions Subcommittee hearing on global banking accords was acrimonious, with Republicans strongly attacking what they characterized as Democratic agency head’s participation in a range of global banking accords as well as the Network for Greening the Financial System.
CFPB Proposes to Extend its Supervisory Reach to Tech-Payment Providers
The CFPB today proposed a sweeping rule bringing tech-platform or fintech companies offering general-use digital-payment services under bank-like consumer-protection standards via more direct CFPB supervision.
Bowman Stands by Basel
Perhaps due to today’s HFSC hearing on global accords, FRB Gov. Bowman today went beyond her ongoing critiques of pending rules to defend participation in the Basel Committee and other forums.
FHFA Starts FHLB Redesign
FHFA today released its long-awaited assessment of the Federal Home Loan Banks, laying out an ambitious program of supervisory, regulatory, and statutory issues.
McHenry Slams CFPB Digital-Payment Proposal
HFSC Chairman McHenry (R-NC) today slammed the CFPB not for usual causes, but because he believes the agency’s proposed supervisory standards for nonbank general-use digital-payment providers will “entrench the status quo” – i.e., the role of banks – by eliminating consumer choice and impeding innovation.
Why the New CRA Rules Won’t Serve Communities Any Better Than the Old CRA Rules
On Tuesday, the banking agencies will release the final version of their 679-page proposal to rewrite the Community Reinvestment Act. Regrettably, much of the proposal reflected the worst of false-science staff seeking complex new models defining subjective goals combined with certainty-loving compliance officers and lawyers who just want to be told the number they need to hit, not if the number makes any sense. Unsurprisingly, there were hundreds of comment letters in which banks generally said the agencies should ease up and community groups urged still more stringent standards. But the story doesn’t end with this unremarkable line-up– in just the last few months, two major bank trade associations and one often-virulently anti-bank advocacy group agreed on one crucial thing: anything close to what the agencies proposed won’t work.
On Tuesday, the banking agencies will release the final version of their 679-page proposal to rewrite the Community Reinvestment Act. Regrettably, much of the proposal reflected the worst of false-science staff seeking complex new models defining subjective goals combined with certainty-loving compliance officers and lawyers who just want to be told the number they need to hit, not if the number makes any sense. Unsurprisingly, there were hundreds of comment letters in which banks generally said the agencies should ease up and community groups urged still more stringent standards. But the story doesn’t end with this unremarkable line-up– in just the last few months, two major bank trade associations and one often-virulently anti-bank advocacy group agreed on one crucial thing: anything close to what the agencies proposed won’t work.
There are of course sharp differences between what banks and public advocates want in a new CRA rule, but what unites them is the over-arching understanding that the new approach is a cumbersome exercise remote from the reality confronting both banks and borrowers in the least-served urban and rural communities. Banks complain – often with good reason as I showed in my book on economic inequality – that risk-based capital rules over-estimate the risk of lending to many community-focused borrowers. The new capital proposals would ameliorate some of this in their “enhanced” risk weightings, but these weightings actually don’t count for much of anything since the proposed “higher-of” standards applies current, higher weightings.
The agencies in fact acknowledge as much …