#RWA

Home/Tag:#RWA
14 09, 2023

CAPITAL235

2023-09-14T14:23:57-04:00September 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

29 08, 2023

DAILY082923

2023-08-29T16:55:20-04:00August 29th, 2023|2- Daily Briefing|

Agencies Advance Controversial Long-Term Debt, Resolution Proposals

The FDIC, OCC, and FRB today tackled several critical resolution issues in the wake of recent bank failures, proposals that raise strong objections from regional banks despite FDIC and FRB unanimity today on at least one of them.  As anticipated, the FDIC and FRB approved an NPR that would impose minimum long-term debt requirements for banks and BHCs with assets over $100 billion, with the FDIC and Fed boards voting unanimously in favor even as FRB Gov. Bowman strongly dissented despite a three-year transition period.  Similar to the ANPR floating this rule (see FSM Report RESOLVE48), the proposal would require large banks to hold a minimum amount of eligible long-term debt equal to the greater of six percent of risk weighted assets, 3.5% of average total consolidated assets, or 2.5% of total leverage exposure for banks subject to the SLR.

Daily082923.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

8 08, 2023

FedFin on: Say It’s Simple

2023-08-09T14:19:41-04:00August 8th, 2023|The Vault|

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.…

8 08, 2023

GSE-080823

2023-08-08T13:46:46-04:00August 8th, 2023|4- GSE Activity Report|

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.

GSE080823.pdf

8 08, 2023

FedFin on: Equity and Securitization Capital Standards

2023-08-08T13:44:33-04:00August 8th, 2023|The Vault|

Based on our analysis of the inter-agency capital proposal’s framework and its credit-risk provisions, FedFin turns now to the proposed approach to equities as well as to that for securitization exposures (i.e., those that are tranched rather than simple secondary-market issuances of packages of loans or other assets backed as needed by a single credit enhancement). The proposal in some cases liberalizes the current, “general” standardized approach (SA), but more often toughens it to account for elimination of the advanced approach…

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

8 08, 2023

CAPITAL232

2023-08-08T10:52:38-04:00August 8th, 2023|1- Financial Services Management|

Equity and Securitization Capital Standards

Based on our analysis of the inter-agency capital proposal’s framework and its credit-risk provisions, FedFin turns now to the proposed approach to equities as well as to that for securitization exposures (i.e., those that are tranched rather than simple secondary-market issuances of packages of loans or other assets backed as needed by a single credit enhancement).  The proposal in some cases liberalizes the current, “general” standardized approach (SA), but more often toughens it to account for elimination of the advanced approach.  This will have particular bearing on significant aspects of category III and IV bank activities (e.g., credit-card securitizations, MMF funding), but all covered banking organizations will see significant capital increases as many activities now permitted within the banking book would need to move to the trading book under the new market-risk rules.  Securitization-related capital standards are generally brought closer to those for underlying assets in simple securitizations, giving banks more balance-sheet flexibility and credit-risk mitigation opportunities if investors accept these structures.  The treatment of equity exposures is generally tightened, sometimes so much as to effectively prohibit certain activities – e.g., non-traditional equity investments in covered funds and BHC subsidiaries.  The new treatment of investment funds will also have significant implications for banks that fund themselves through prime MMFs or sponsor investment funds through equity positions.

CAPITAL232.pdf

4 08, 2023

Al080723

2023-08-04T16:31:21-04:00August 4th, 2023|3- This Week|

A Crushing Capital Burden

No, we’re not talking about the proposals – enormous, complex, and in some cases ill-drafted and confusing though they are.  We’re talking about how much work it’s taking to go beyond the top-line analyses and section-by-section repeats we’re seeing in so many releases to give you in-depth, strategy, and market-focused analyses of what key parts of the rules say and how they’ll redefine banking as we and the financial system know it.  There’s much not to love about the current construct, but the complexity of the new capital framework makes it stunningly difficult not just for us, but we fear also for the regulators, to know if the new framework will prove a Frankenstein.  When we finish our read of all the proposals’ sections and that for GSIBs, we’ll release a final, bottom-line strategic conclusion.  Until then, it’s critical to understand each key part of the rule and how it defines individual business lines and the markets that depend on them.

Al080723.pdf

4 08, 2023

FedFin on: Credit-Risk Capital Rewrite

2023-08-04T13:41:04-04:00August 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.…

4 08, 2023

CAPITAL231

2023-08-04T13:40:43-04:00August 4th, 2023|1- Financial Services Management|

Credit-Risk Capital Rewrite

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 on the overall ability of banks to expand into lower-risk areas and compete more effectively with nonbanks and foreign banks.  Big banks forced to abandon certain activities may expand others receiving capital discounts in the new rules, increasing their footprint in traditional banking in ways that may increase industry consolidation.

CAPITAL231.pdf

Go to Top