#TLAC – Federal Financial Analytics

15 09, 2023

Al091823

Eliza Allen2023-09-15T16:53:45-04:00September 15th, 2023|3- This Week|

Let It Be Resolved…

Or, maybe not. As detailed below, FedFin has delved into the depths of three new proposals designed to ensure that any big U.S. bank that isn’t made still more impregnable by all the new rules proposed and to come is also indestructible. Karen Petrou has written about the wisdom – if there is any – of making big banks de facto utilities, but this will occur only if all of the new rules work as intended. We’ve had our doubts about that with regard to recent proposals, and our review of the new resolution proposals raises still greater concerns.

Al091823.pdf…

13 09, 2023

DAILY091323

Eliza Allen2023-09-13T16:46:21-04:00September 13th, 2023|2- Daily Briefing|

GOP Plans Still More Nails in CBDC Congressional Coffin

The memo for tomorrow’s HFSC CBDC hearing leaves no doubt as to continuing staunch GOP opposition, with Majority Whip Emmer (R-MN) reintroducing legislation barring the Fed from issuing a CBDC to individuals or using it to implement monetary policy.

FSI: Contingent Capital Fails as TLAC

Reinforcing the decision by U.S. agencies not to allow CoCo to serve as TLAC (see FSM Report TLAC9), a new BIS staff brief concludes that the current regulatory framework for Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds may not be fit for purpose, encouraging regulators to rethink CoCo as well as to consider heightening disclosure standards.

Gensler Emphasizes Prime Broker, Crypto, AI Risks

SEC Chairman Gensler today highlighted his ongoing worries about prime brokers, reiterating leverage and systemic-risk concerns.

Chopra Suggests Bank Merger Rewrite in Works

CFPB Director Chopra today reiterated the Bureau’s priorities, stating that the current bank merger review process lacks analytical rigor which will soon be addressed in ways he did not specify.

Daily091223.pdf…

8 09, 2023

Al091123

Eliza Allen2023-09-08T16:03:06-04:00September 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

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.…

7 09, 2023

LIVINGWILL22

Eliza Allen2023-09-07T16:03:26-04:00September 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…

6 09, 2023

TLAC9

William Cross2023-09-06T15:59:28-04:00September 6th, 2023|1- Financial Services Management|

Long-Term Debt Requirements

Building on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the banking agencies have issued several proposals to enhance the resolvability of large banking organizations not covered by stringent GSIB standards. Among these is a proposal mandating long-term debt (LTD) to increase regional-bank total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) and, the agencies believe, reduce resolution costs and/or increase the FDIC’s options, thus avoiding the systemic designation and costly resolutions that occurred for regional banks earlier this year. The LTD requirements for category II, III, and IV banking organizations do not go as far as those mandated for GSIBs, based instead exclusively on a “capital-refill” construct in which eligible LTD is issued in amounts the agencies believe sufficient to provide enough capital-equivalent funding to achieve the proposal’s expected results.

TLAC9.pdf…

6 09, 2023

FedFin on: Long-Term Debt Requirements

Arezou Rafikian2023-09-07T16:38:46-04:00September 6th, 2023|The Vault|

Building on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the banking agencies have issued several proposals to enhance the resolvability of large banking organizations not covered by stringent GSIB standards. Among these is a proposal mandating long-term debt (LTD) to increase regional-bank total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) and, the agencies believe, reduce resolution costs and/or increase the FDIC’s options, thus avoiding the systemic designation and costly resolutions that occurred for regional banks earlier this year. The LTD requirements for category II, III, and IV banking organizations do not go as far as those mandated for GSIBs, based instead exclusively on a “capital-refill” construct in which eligible LTD is issued in amounts the agencies believe sufficient to provide enough capital-equivalent funding to achieve the proposal’s expected results.

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

29 08, 2023

DAILY082923

Eliza Allen2023-08-29T16:55:20-04:00August 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…

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.…

22 08, 2023

GSIB22

Eliza Allen2023-08-22T10:19:26-04:00August 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…