#GSIB – Federal Financial Analytics

26 02, 2024

Karen Petrou: The Unintended Consequences of Blocking the Credit-Card Merger

Eliza Allen2024-04-12T09:46:02-04:00February 26th, 2024|The Vault|

There is no doubt that the banking agencies have approved all too many dubious merger applications along with charter conversions of convenience. However, the debate roiling over the Capital One/Discover merger harkens to an earlier age of thousands more prosperous small banks all operating strictly within a perimeter guarded by top-notch consumer, community, and prudential regulators. Whether this ever existed is at best uncertain. What is for sure is that all this nostalgia for a halcyon past will hasten a future dominated by GSIBs and systemic-scale nonbanks still operating outside flimsy regulatory guardrails.

The best way to demonstrate this awkward certainty is to run a counter-factual – that is, think about what the world would look like if opponents of the Capital One/Discover deal get their way. Would we quickly see a return to card competition housed firmly within a tightly-regulated system? Would the payment system be loosed from Visa and Mastercard’s grip? Would merchants see the dawn of a new era of itsy-bitsy interchange fees? Would card rates plummet and rewards stay splendiferous? I very much doubt it. Space here does not permit a detailed assessment of the analytics underlying my conclusions, so let’s go straight to each of them.

First, banning the CapOne/Discover deal would not ensure robust card competition under strict bank regulation. JPMorgan’s and American Express’ formidable stakes could grow because credit-card lending is a business dependent on economies of scale and scope vital to capital-efficiency through the secondary market. However, large banks will …

18 09, 2023

FedFin on: Large-IDI Resolution Plans

Arezou Rafikian2023-09-19T18:09:58-04:00September 18th, 2023|The Vault|

Although a pending FDIC/FRB proposal imposes a raft of new requirements for resolution plans from IDIs with over $100 billion in assets, the FDIC has also issued a freestanding proposal doing the same, also setting information-filing standards for IDIs below $100 billion but above $50 billion. Aspects of the resolution-plan filing standards for large covered IDIs (CIDIs) echo and in some cases allow reliance on aspects of the joint rule with the Fed, but the FDIC notes that this rule is, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, focused on financial stability. Its own IDI resolution rules now and as proposed instead address how the FDIC is to meet its own statutory requirements (e.g., least-cost resolution). The NPR mandates many new planning or filing requirements to achieve its goals, most notably adding new severability standards that may require new inter-affiliate or -branch firewalls that reduce operating efficiencies and, when it comes to broker-dealer or other entities, lead to indirect resolution requirements not mandated by functional regulators.

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

7 09, 2023

FedFin on: Living-Will Requirements

Arezou Rafikian2023-09-07T16:39:01-04:00September 7th, 2023|The Vault|

In conjunction with proposing a new long-term debt (LTD) requirement for categories II, III, and IV banks, the Fed and FDIC are pursuing other ways to enhance resolvability. Among these is new guidance for large domestic and foreign banking organizations that requires U.S. banking organizations and foreign banking organization (FBO) intermediate holding companies (IHCs) along with all their insured depositories when any is over $100 billion to file resolution plans. These are also redesigned to make the plans much closer in substance to those mandated for GSIBs.

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

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.…

4 08, 2023

FedFin on: Credit-Risk Capital Rewrite

Arezou Rafikian2023-08-04T13:41:04-04:00August 4th, 2023|The Vault|

In this report, we proceed from our assessment of the proposed regulatory capital framework to an analysis of the rules governing credit risk. In addition to eliminating the advanced approach, the proposal imposes higher standards for some assets than under the old standardized approach (SA) via new “expanded” requirements. As detailed here, many expanded risk weightings are higher than current requirements either due to specific risk-weighted assessments (RWAs) or definitions and additional restrictions. This contributes to the added capital costs identified by the banking agencies in their impact assessment, suggesting that lower risk weightings in the expanded approach reflected the reduced risks described in the proposal for other assets and will ultimately have little bearing on regulatory-capital requirements and thus ….

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

27 06, 2023

FedFin on: Failed-Bank Compensation, Resolution

Arezou Rafikian2023-06-27T16:13:11-04:00June 27th, 2023|The Vault|

The Senate Banking Committee has overwhelmingly approved bipartisan legislation to reform executive compensation following larger insured-depository institution (IDI) failures, with parent-company executive compensation also at risk in some circumstances. Unlike previous bipartisan claw-back legislation, this measure is targeted to incentive compensation, not salary, expressly exempts “white knights,” institution-affiliated persons and directors, and gives the FDIC discretion also to allow senior officers to retain affected compensation in certain other circumstances…

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

…

26 04, 2023

FedFin on: Systemic-Risk Determinations

Arezou Rafikian2023-04-26T16:59:28-04:00April 26th, 2023|The Vault|

Rejecting the Trump Administration’s hands-off approach to designating systemically-important nonbank financial institutions or activities and practices, the Biden Administration’s FSOC has bifurcated this construct with one proposal on designating entities and another that lays out an analytical approach to identifying systemic risk that would then guide firm and activity designation as well as Council staff coordination with primary federal regulators leading to new rules, product or service prohibitions/restrictions, or firm-specific supervisory action. If the final framework is as comprehensive as this proposal and FSOC is as actively engaged as its plan requires, then U.S. systemic standards could extend far more widely than is now the case even if firm-specific nonbank designations are few and far between…

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

22 03, 2023

FedFin Assessment: GSIB Rules Set For Post-CS Rewrite

Arezou Rafikian2023-03-22T16:34:58-04:00March 22nd, 2023|The Vault|

In this report, we assess the implications of recent events on two assumptions underlying current U.S. and global policy affecting GSIBs and those considered domestic SIBs: first, all are likely to be well insulated from illiquidity and/or insolvency and, when this is not the case, then orderly resolution without taxpayer bailout can be readily deployed. Credit Suisse’s failure and subsequent, subsidized acquisition is just one of the “Minsky moments” rattling regulators and other policy-makers, with the conclusions drawn from all of them surely to lead to significant reevaluation of each of these assumptions. To be sure, CS was an outlier in terms of idiosyncratic culture-and-control problems, but the Swiss regulatory and resolution system is considered reasonably robust, thus making the bank’s failure…

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

…

21 02, 2023

Karen Petrou: FSOC’s NBFI Plans Will Cost Big Banks Dearly

Arezou Rafikian2023-02-21T11:15:33-05:00February 21st, 2023|The Vault|

Although the always-inscrutable FSOC’s read-out of its last meeting was clear only with respect to approval of prior meeting minutes, the brief mention of ongoing U.S. work to address nonbank financial intermediation (NBFI) was so tantalizing that we ventured down darkened corners of key agencies to get a read-out of our own. Two conclusions came to light: the U.S. will take tough action on limiting bank/NBFI interconnections in its pending bank capital rewrite and FSOC is fine with the SEC’s recent MMF and open-end fund proposals even if pretty much no one else is.

First to the capital rewrites and how costly they could be. In its most recent NBFI review, the FSB took sharp issue with the extent to which the U.S. has taken sufficient steps to curb the inter-connected risks to NBFIs evident even before the 2020 market collapse. We expect the banking agencies not only to issue the end-game rules discussed in my last memo, but also to make good on the U.S. promise to Basel well before the game nominally ended with the 2017 revisions.

This means new capital standards costing banks big when it comes to bank equity investments in funds and higher risk weightings for exposures to unregulated financial institutions. It also means new capital requirements absorbing “step-in” risk – i.e., the extent to which reputational risk forces banks to stand by their off-balance sheet funds, SIVs, or other instrumentalities. Two banks in fact supported affiliated funds in MMFs during the 2020 …

22 06, 2022

FedFin: Fed Comes Under Heightened Political Pressure

Arezou Rafikian2023-01-25T15:58:37-05:00June 22nd, 2022|The Vault|

As we expected, today’s Senate Banking session with Chairman Powell is a preview of broader national debate ahead of the midterm election. Democrats generally sought to emphasize their understanding of inflation’s costs without lambasting the Fed and, indirectly, the Biden Administration. Still, Sens. Ossoff (D-GA) and Warnock (D-GA) pressed Mr. Powell on the Fed’s failure to begin to tighten last summer. Republicans were strongly united in lambasting….

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