#IHC

8 09, 2023

Al091123

2023-09-08T16:03:06-04:00September 8th, 2023|3- This Week|

We’re Flummoxed

FedFin’s in-depth analyses continue to plumb the strategic import of the post-SVB regulatory rewrite U.S. agencies have initiated and are determined to finish no matter industry and Congressional concern.  As with our impact assessment of the capital proposal (see FSM Report CAPITAL230), our resolution-standard analyses look at key strategic points in what the agencies say they are doing and then also at what they leave out, what seems not to make as much sense as the agencies suggest, and where the sanguine impact analyses that always accompany these proposals may be at fault.

Al091123.pdf

7 09, 2023

FedFin on: Living-Will Requirements

2023-09-07T16:39:01-04:00September 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.…

7 09, 2023

LIVINGWILL22

2023-09-07T16:03:26-04:00September 7th, 2023|1- Financial Services Management|

Living-Will Requirements

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.  However, in a leading indicator of what the FRB is also likely to demand of GSIBs, smaller companies would be required to ensure severability – that is, the ability to cut off a weak limb to save the rest of the banking organization or ensure ready resolution without undue cost to the FDIC or systemic risk.  However, easing one aspect of current planning, banking organizations are expressly allowed to count on use of discount-window or other Fed lending facilities to avert failure if – and this is a significant new if – the plan rests atop sound collateral valuation and data-management systems.

LIVINGWILL22.pdf

1 09, 2023

DAILY090123

2023-09-01T12:18:22-04:00September 1st, 2023|2- Daily Briefing|

Durbin, Marshall Reinforce Demand for Card-Fee Cuts

Pressing their bill to limit credit-card interchange fees (see FSM Report INTERCHANGE10), Senate Whip and Judiciary Chairman Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Marshall (R-KS) this week called on Visa and Mastercard to reverse planned fee hikes.  Sen. Durbin is pressing hard to attach the bill to a must-pass vehicle later this month; as noted, it would extend routing-system requirements to credit cards and could lead to significant reductions in card-fee income for banks.

GSIB Surcharge Revisions in Register

The Federal Register today includes the Federal Reserve’s proposal to revise how systemic risk scores that lead to GSIB designation are calculated.  As noted (see FSM Report GSIB22), while the Board estimates that the overall impacts of the changes to the surcharge are small, our analysis concludes that the scoring changes could result in higher capital requirements for large regional banks and certain IHCs.

Daily090123.pdf

22 08, 2023

FedFin on: GSIB Surcharge

2023-08-23T10:19:58-04:00August 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

2023-08-22T10:19:26-04:00August 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

17 08, 2023

CAPITAL234

2023-08-17T15:22:40-04:00August 17th, 2023|5- Client Report|

FedFin Assessment: What the Agencies Think the Rules Will do and Why Much of That is Wrong

With this report, we conclude our assessment of the regulatory-capital proposal with analysis of what the sum total of the credit (see FSM Report CAPITAL231), operational (see FSM Report OPSRISK22), and market (see FSM Report CAPITAL233) rules could do in the real world of banks, nonbanks, foreign banks, and complex market interconnections.  Our first assessment of the proposal’s framework (see FSM Report CAPITAL230) provided the agencies’ quantitative-impact statement (QIS).  Here, we evaluate the QIS, expand on the agencies’ qualitative conclusions, and add our own assessment of what might actually happen in the face of these sometimes-contradictory capital incentives.

CAPITAL234.pdf

2 12, 2021

Daily120221

2023-05-23T13:56:33-04:00December 2nd, 2021|2- Daily Briefing|

Fed Staff Assess Big-Bank Correlated Risk, Systemic Hazard
A new research note from the Federal Reserve looks at a critical question: how correlated have bank exposures become in the wake of stress testing and other rules many analysts, ourselves included, anticipated. To the extent exposures are correlated, systemic risk is likely to increase, especially if correlations are tightest at the biggest banks and/or correlated exposures are risky.

Quarles Defines Boundaries of Fed Emergency, Regulatory, Supervisory Policy and Politics
In parting remarks today, FRB Gov. Quarles not only defended his record, but also took a very different stand on future emergency facilities than another departing Fed official, Vice Chair Clarida. Unlike Mr. Clarida’s stout defense of 2008 and 2020 actions, Mr. Quarles argues that the credit facilities established in concert with those for emergency liquidity are problematic both in terms of central-bank mission and facility execution.

Daily12021.pdf

Go to Top