Heading Your Way?
Following FSOC’s fulminations about nonbank mortgage companies, FHFA in 2023 heightened its supervisory standards mandating GSE prudential governance of eligible seller servicers. A new OIG report likes most of this a lot, but wants structural improvements in how FHFA executes its obligations and ensures Fannie and Freddie do the same. A bit of this will brush off on other counterparties, most likely MIs.
Securitization and Systemic Risk
A new Fed staff study uses models to conclude that government-backed mortgage securitization exacerbates financial crises, contradicting conventional wisdom that – GSE blow-ups notwithstanding – properly-regulated GSEs create a liquid, diversified asset pool for an otherwise illiquid, risky asset class. However, our read of the study leads us to side with conventional wisdom.
Basel Head Backs U.S. End-Game
In an FT interview today, the Basel Committee’s chair, Pablo Hernández de Cos, unsurprisingly endorsed the U.S. end-game proposal, indirectly but firmly rebutting assertions that it is at variance with global norms.
The Shape of Liquidity Rules to Come
Previewing the construct of what may soon be the anticipated inter-agency proposal addressing liquidity-risk lessons-learned, Acting Comptroller Hsu today argued that the liquidity coverage ratio’s treatment of retail depositors (see FSM Report LIQUIDITY17) does not address likely depositor herding as they run for the exit.
Rounds, Sinema Press for SIFI-Designation Rollback
Senate Banking Committee Member Rounds (R-SD) alongside Sen. Sinema (I-AZ) introduced S.3601, legislation to codify 2019 standards (see FSM report SIFI35) adding significantly more obstacles to systemic designation compared to FSOC’s new approach (see FSM report SIFI36).
Steele’s Good-Bye Presses for More Tough Standards
In his last speech in office, Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Graham Steele today called for reassessment of the treatment of unrealized gains or losses not just under the capital rules, but also in the liquidity standards (where they are in fact to some degree now captured).
House Democrats Damn Capital Proposal With Faint Praise
In this report, we begin our assessment of Congressional end-game comment letters.
Senate Letters Slam Capital Proposal’s Tax-Equity Risk Weight Changes
Here, we turn to several Senate letters on the end-game proposal.
A new FRB-NY study confirms that 83% of loans from 2000-2022 went to first-time homebuyers, compared to 56% for the GSEs and 57% for private lenders. FHA loans of course have very high LTVs and low scores, with scores improving after 2008 when the PLS market stopped adversely selected FHA even though over half of FHA loans still have scores under 680. FHA sustainability has varied based on these and other factors, but 21.8% of borrowers from 2011-2016 still lost their homes.
The full report is available to subscription clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here.…
FHA’s Mission and Mishaps
A new FRB-NY study confirms that 83% of loans from 2000-2022 went to first-time homebuyers, compared to 56% for the GSEs and 57% for private lenders. FHA loans of course have very high LTVs and low scores, with scores improving after 2008 when the PLS market stopped adversely selected FHA even though over half of FHA loans still have scores under 680. FHA sustainability has varied based on these and other factors, but 21.8% of borrowers from 2011-2016 still lost their homes.
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 …
Our most recent analysis of the inter-agency capital proposal focuses on significant changes to the rules for securitization and credit-risk transfer positions. In short, super-traditional securitizations have an easier path to the secondary market, but GSEs still beat banks. Complex ABS face often-formidable obstacles, as does CRT given or taken by banks.
The full report is available to subscription clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here.…
Say It’s Simple
Our most recent analysis of the inter-agency capital proposal focuses on significant changes to the rules for securitization and credit-risk transfer positions. In short, super-traditional securitizations have an easier path to the secondary market, but GSEs still beat banks. Complex ABS face often-formidable obstacles, as does CRT given or taken by banks.
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.…