The European Banking Authority published an Opinion on the European Commission's intention not to endorse final draft Regulatory Technical Standards on additional collateral outflows, prepared under the Capital Requirements Regulation. The final draft RTS, submitted to the Commission in March 2014, set out the materiality and the measurement of additional collateral outflows resulting from the impact of an adverse market scenario on a firm's derivatives transactions, financing transactions and other contracts. The technical standards are also a component of the liquidity coverage ratio for which the final standards came into force at the end of 2015.  The EBA's final draft RTS include a historical look-back approach (known as HLBA) method for calculating additional liquidity outflows corresponding to collateral needs resulting from the impact of an adverse market scenario on a firm's derivatives transactions, financing transactions and other contracts that was more conservative than that adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in April 2014. The European Commission, which delayed the assessment of the final draft RTS pending the adoption of the LCR RTS, requested the EBA to amend its final draft RTS on additional collateral outflows to align with the HBLA approach adopted by the Basel Committee on the basis that the liquidity outflows under the EBA's HBLA approach would be much higher for major players in the derivatives markets and that netting could be allowed as most collateral received by banks is in the form of cash or sovereign debt. The EBA agrees with the European Commission and has submitted revised final RTS to the Commission for endorsement. 

View the Opinion and revised final draft RTS.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley delivered remarks at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 2016 Financial Markets Conference, focusing on the connection between liquidity and financial stability. Dudley first addressed market liquidity, noting that evidence that market liquidity has diminished is mixed. Turning to funding liquidity, Dudley emphasized the link between funding liquidity and capital requirements and asked whether more should be done to support funding liquidity. Dudley noted the importance of the availability of a lender-of-last resort, and remediating any gaps in the lender-of-last-resort function. As an example, Dudley noted the limited ability of the Federal Reserve Board to provide funding to a securities firm, even on a fully collateralized basis, and suggested that providing such firms with access to the Discount Window “might be worth exploring.” Dudley also noted that the Bank for International Settlement's Committee on the Global Financial System is engaged in a project to determine what lender-of-last-resort gaps currently exist, focusing, in particular, on those that may create vulnerability in terms of financial stability. One area that he anticipates will receive considerable attention is whether there are any gaps with respect to the activities of globally systemic firms that operate on a cross-border basis. He also noted that greater attention needs to be paid to the appropriate role for the home- versus host-country supervisor and that the regulatory and supervisory responses for large, systemically-important firms that operate on a cross-border basis need to be closely coordinated, especially during times of stress. Dudley stressed that expectations about who will be the lender-of-last-resort need to be well understood in both the home and host countries.

View the speech.

The Prudential Regulation Authority published a consultation paper on regulatory reporting of financial statements, forecast capital data and IFRS 9 requirements, setting out the PRA’s proposals on future reporting of balance sheet, statement of profit and loss and forecast capital data. The consultation paper is relevant to PRA-authorized banks, building societies and designated investment firms. It also outlines proposals for reporting of P&L data by non-EEA banks that are authorized to accept deposits through a branch in the United Kingdom. The proposals are part of the PRA’s execution of its strategy for the collection of valid, accurate and meaningful information, including a review of reporting requirements to assist the PRA in gaining the information required to engage in judgement-based supervision. Balance sheet and P&L data assist the PRA in its macro-prudential and monetary policy analysis. Responses to the consultation are due by July 29, 2016. 

View the consultation paper.

The OCC issued a bulletin reminding all OCC-supervised banks of their obligations to maintain and retain their records and the OCC’s authority to obtain prompt and complete access to each bank’s books and records and communicate freely with its employees, officers and directors. The guidance is being issued in response to the OCC’s discovery that certain communications technology being made available to banks contains data deletion and encryption features which could inhibit the OCC’s ability to access bank data and records. The guidance notes that the permanent deletion of internal communications is in conflict with the OCC’s expectations for sound governance, compliance, risk management and safety and soundness principles.

The FDIC approved a final rule that amends how banks with less than $10 billion in assets that have been insured for a minimum of five years are assessed for deposit insurance. The rule updates the data and revises the methodology that the FDIC uses to determine the risk-based assessments for such institutions. FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg anticipates that more than 93% of small banks will pay lower rates under the revised framework. The final rule will be used for rate determinations once the FDIC’s insurance fund reaches 1.15%, but not before the third quarter of 2016.
 

The European Banking Authority published a consultation paper on draft regulatory technical standards under the Capital Requirements Regulation on the disclosure of encumbered and unencumbered assets. The CRR requires the EBA to develop draft RTS to specify institutions’ disclosure of balance sheet value per exposure class broken down by asset quality and the total amount of the balance sheet value that is unencumbered. The draft RTS sets out the data required to be disclosed on encumbered and unencumbered assets, the format, and the timing of the publication. The EBA has developed the draft RTS to take into account the European Systematic Risk Board recommendations, which stated that the EBA and regulators should monitor the level, evolution and types of asset encumbrance. The EBA published its first report analyzing asset encumbrance in September 2015. The report revealed that there had been no increase in levels of asset encumbrance over the past four years. The ESRB further recommended that the EBA issue guidelines and harmonized templates and definitions on transparency requirements for credit institutions on asset encumbrance.  

The US Government Accountability Office issued a report on the resolution plan review processes developed by the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The report found that, although the resolution plan rule has improved the resolvability of large systemically important financial companies in the United States, the lack of transparency by US regulators regarding how the regulators assess and review plans could undermine public and market confidence in resolution plans.
Along with these findings, the GAO report issued a series of recommendations to improve the resolution review process. Among other recommendations, the GAO report encouraged the FDIC and Federal Reserve to publicly disclose information about their respective processes for assessing the credibility of resolution plans and revising the resolution plan rule’s filing requirements in order to provide companies with more time to respond to feedback and guidance from the regulators on their resolution plans.

View the GAO report.

The European Banking Authority published the first list of Other Systemically Important Institutions in the European Union. O-SIIs are institutions which have been deemed by national regulators to be systemically relevant in addition to the Global Systemically Important Institutions that have already been identified. The EBA has compiled the list based on the findings of the relevant national regulators across the EU. National regulators relied on the EBA Guidelines on the identification of O-SIIs, which included recommended uniform criteria, including size, importance (substitutability or financial system infrastructure), complexity (or cross-border activities) and interconnectedness of such institutions. The EBA’s guidelines on the identification of O-SIIs were developed in accordance with the Capital Requirements Directive and on the basis of internationally agreed frameworks established by the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee for Banking Supervision. The EBA will publish an updated list of O-SIIs annually along with a revised definition of any CET1 capital buffer requirements set by national regulators. 

View the list of O-SIIs.

View the EBA’s guidelines. 

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published an erratum to its April 2016 consultation paper on proposed revisions to the Basel III leverage ratio framework. The proposals contained in the consultation paper include amendments to: (i) the measurement of derivative exposures by adopting a modified version of the standardized approach for measuring counterparty credit risk exposures; (ii) treatment of regular-way purchases and sales of financial assets so as to achieve consistency across accounting standards; (iii) treatments of provisions; and (iv) credit conversion factors for off-balance sheet items, by aligning them with the standardized approach to credit risk. In addition, the Basel Committee proposes to impose additional requirements on global systemically important banks, setting out various options, including whether the additional requirement should apply uniformly to all G-SIBs or be tailored and whether the form should be a higher minimum requirement or a buffer requirement. Responses to the consultation are still required by July 6, 2016. The Basel Committee intends to finalize the revised leverage ratio requirement in 2016 so as to allow time for its implementation by January 1, 2018. 

View the erratum.

View the amended consultation paper. 

Two letters from Olivier Guersent DG FISMA of the European Commission to Andrea Enria, Chairperson of the European Banking Authority, on issues associated with its review of the Capital Requirements Regulation were published. The first letter, dated April 12, 2016, was in response to the EBAs report on net stable funding requirements under the CCR. The EBA report concluded that NSFR standards developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision fit well with the European banking framework but also flagged some European specificities. By the end of 2016, the Commission, if it deems appropriate, should submit a legislative proposal on the NSFR to the European Parliament and Council relying on the EBA Report when assessing the provisions of the Basel NSFR standard to ensure that a possible NSFR proposal does not hinder the financing of the real economy. The purpose of the letter is to request additional guidance on two areas of the EBA Report. First, with regards to the treatment of derivatives in the NSFR, the Commission is of the view that more specific analysis is required. The Commission expressed concern that the 20% required stable funding factor applied to gross derivatives liabilities and the recognition of margin received as compared to margin posts have not been comprehensively analyzed or subjected to the necessary extensive public consultation. Furthermore, the EBA should provide a complementary assessment on the impact of the provisions and an analysis of the impact on the treatment and calibration of derivatives. 

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published a list of jurisdiction specific pre-announced buffer decisions.  In December, 2010, the Basel Committee published Basel III: a global regulatory framework for more resilient banks and banking systems. As required under Basel III, this document outlines details of global regulatory standards on bank capital adequacy and liquidity, including a countercyclical buffer. The countercyclical buffer regime will be phased-in in accordance with the capital conservation buffer between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018 becoming fully effective on January 1, 2019. To assist in bank compliance, jurisdictions can pre-announce buffer levels when raising the countercyclical buffer up to 12 months in advance.  A jurisdiction may also announce a decrease in the requisite countercyclical buffer, the effect of which is immediate. The list includes all Basel Committee member jurisdictions, their pre-announced buffer decisions, and the current buffers in place. Jurisdictions include Argentina, China, France, India, Indonesia and the United Kingdom. The updated list also includes buffer information on the non-member jurisdiction Norway. 

View the update. 

The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee held a meeting to discuss the latest updates and advice on issues related to the resolution of systemically important financial companies pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. At the meeting, the committee covered topics including, the “living will” updates, orderly liquidation updates, and developments in resolution planning in the European Union.

View the agenda for the Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee meeting.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published a consultation document on guidelines for the prudential treatment of problem assets focusing on credit categorization definitions. In the context of the financial crisis, the Basel Committee noted that credit categorization terms used by firms were not always clear and made it difficult to compare financial information. This contributed to increased uncertainty at the height of the crisis and undermined investor ability to assess bank performance and risk. Credit risk categorization is a tool used by banks when assessing the solvency and riskiness of banks’ credit risk exposures.

The US Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research published a paper analyzing data on global systemically important banks, based on data released in 2013 and 2014 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The OFR research report analyzed data regarding 30 banks across the world identified by the Basel Committee as G-SIBs, including eight US bank holding companies. The analysis found, among other things, an increase in the systemic importance scores by Chinese banks, while the systemic importance scores of US G-SIBs generally reflected little change and continued to be among the highest amongst global banks.

View the full text of the OFR report.
 

The European Banking Authority published a report on supervisory measures taken by national regulators in 2014 on compliance by credit institutions and investments firms with securitization risk retention, due diligence and disclosure requirements under the Capital Requirements Regulation. The EBA is required to assess regulators' measures to ensure compliance. The report notes that firms are generally undertaking actions to comply with the requirements. Since the introduction of the requirements under the Capital Requirements Directive II in 2011, ten firms have been deemed non-compliant, with one firm receiving a sanction of an additional risk weight. The report provides analysis of how the EBA's recommendations on regulation of risk retention rules, due diligence and disclosure in the EU, as specified in a 2014 EBA report, have been taken on board in the legislative proposals for the new securitization framework issued by the European Commission as part of its Capital Markets Union initiative. 

Read more. 

The US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig issued the semi-annual update of the Global Capital Index, an index showing the capital ratios for global systemically important banks. Upon release of the update, Vice Chairman Hoenig noted that the loss-absorbing tangible capital levels of the largest US banks are increasing relative to their foreign counterparts. Vice Chairman Hoenig emphasized however that, although the update indicated the overall health of US banks, compared to foreign banks, progress must still continue to a point where banks maintain sufficient levels of tangible capital to effectively move the cost of downside risk from the public to the firms.

View the updated Global Capital Index.

The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released its Risk Appetite Statement, which documents the OCC’s overall conservative risk appetite in carrying out its supervisory mission. The Risk Appetite Statement provides that the OCC will accept more risk in some areas in order to adapt to the changing needs of supervised national banks and federal savings associations. OCC management and employees will use the statement to evaluate their decisions in overseeing national banks and federal savings associations as well as the execution of agency management functions, such as human resources, procurement and information technology.

Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry noted that by clearly articulating acceptable levels of risks within the OCC’s operations, agency personnel have “clearer signposts by which to guide their decisions and external stakeholders can better understand OCC actions in the context of the risks facing the agency.” The OCC plans to update its Risk Appetite Statement periodically as the federal banking system and its supervision evolve.

View the OCC’s Risk Appetite Statement. 

A corrigendum relating to the format and frequency of the reporting of liquidity requirements under the Capital Requirements Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The corrigendum corrects numerical references to Annexes contained in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/322 relating to types of information to be reported and the instructions for reporting. 

View the corrigendum.

The US Financial Stability Oversight Council filed its appeal to the DC District Court opinion overturning the FSOC’s designation of insurer MetLife as a systemically important financial institution. In the March 30, 2016 judicial opinion that was unsealed last week, US District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer called the FSOC’s determination process “fatally flawed” and “arbitrary and capricious,” ruling that the FSOC did not follow its own guidelines before deciding on the Metlife designation. US Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew has criticized the court’s ruling, arguing that by overturning the conclusions of experienced financial regulators, “the court imposed new requirements that Congress never enacted, and contradicted key policy lessons from the financial crisis.”

View the US District Court opinion.

View the statement from Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew.   

The US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposed technical amendments to its rule requiring a risk-based capital surcharge for global systemically important bank holding companies. The rule, finalized by the Federal Reserve Board in July 2015, establishes the criteria for identifying a GSIB and the methodology a GSIB is required to use to determine its risk-based capital surcharge, which corresponds to the systemic risk of that firm.

The proposed amendments would not materially change the underlying final rule but rather clarify that GSIBs must continue to calculate their surcharges using year-end data, while their related surcharge data will be reported on a quarterly basis. The proposal explains that bank holding companies subject to the rule are required to compute their method 2 surcharge scores using systemic indicator amounts expressed in billions of dollars even though the data is reported in millions of dollars. The amendments also provide additional information on how GSIBs should calculate their short-term wholesale funding scores, which help to determine their surcharges, during the rule’s transition period.

Comments on the proposal are due by May 13, 2016.

View the Federal Reserve Board press release.

View the proposal.  

The European Banking Authority, European Securities and Markets Authority and European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (known as the Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities) published a report identifying three main areas of risk and vulnerability affecting the stability of the EU financial system. The ESAs noted that investment funds had experienced markedly lower returns during the second half of 2015. The ESAs observed that the low interest rate environment coupled with high non-performing loans ratios in some countries, has contributed to the subdued profitability of banks in the EU. The report concludes that a proactive stance is required to address the high level of non-performing loans at some banks. The report highlighted the trend of increasing interconnectivity of bank and non-bank entities. The ESAs noted that interconnectedness could act as a potential channel for the propagation of shocks and thereby contribute to negative systematic events. The ESA recommends that the regulators should implement enhanced supervisory monitoring of concentration risks, cross-border exposures and regulatory arbitrage. The ESAs also highlights the risks associated with a potential contagion stemming from China and other emerging markets. Following a decade of strong contributions to global economic growth from emerging economies and China, the recent economic slowdown in these economies could have substantial effects on the EU in future. To forecast the risk in market exposure to these economies, the ESAs suggest that these markets should be covered in risk analysis exercises such as stress test exercises.  Supervisors are also asked by the ESAs to carefully evaluate any optimistic assumptions relating to returns on cross border activity.

View ESA report. 

US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg discussed the consolidation of community banks, noting that while many of the smallest (with assets less than $100 million) have either consolidated or ceased operations, the number of larger community banks (with assets of between $1 billion and $10 billion) has actually increased over the past 30 years. He further noted that approximately 93 percent of FDIC-insured institutions are considered “community banks” and play an important role in providing small loans to farms and businesses and deposit services to communities across the US. However, Gruenberg observed that community banks face many challenges including a decline in net interest margins.

Read more. 

US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig discussed the decline of traditional community banks over the last thirty years and the resulting concentration of the US financial system in a few large financial firms. Hoenig outlined his recommendation of a model of regulatory relief that would provide greater flexibility to banks operating in the United States. Notably, Hoenig’s framework would abandon references to size thresholds, but would instead grant regulatory relief to banks that: (i) hold no trading assets or liabilities; (ii) hold no derivatives positions other than interest rate and foreign exchange derivatives; (iii) have a total notional value of all their derivatives exposures (including cleared and non-cleared derivatives) of less than $8 billion; and (iv) maintain a ratio of GAAP tangible equity-to-assets of at least 10 percent. He suggested that such banks should potentially be exempt from Basel capital standards, stress testing requirements, and certain reporting requirements.

View Vice Chairman Hoenig’s speech. 

The US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System's Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation and Basel Coordination Committee issued a bulletin that provides supervisory guidance with respect to the issuance of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s second consultative paper published on March 4, 2016, “Standardised Measurement Approach for Operational Risk.”
The BCBS paper proposes certain revisions applicable to large, internationally active banking organizations, including a non-model-based method for calculating operational risk-weighted assets and a withdrawal of the advanced measurement approaches (AMA) for operational risk from the Basel capital framework. In its bulletin, the Federal Reserve Board states that it will consider the BCBS proposals in connection with the US advanced approaches risk-based capital rule in a manner consistent with the US notice and comment process, during which time the existing AMA capital requirements will remain in effect.

View the Federal Reserve Board guidance.   

The European Banking Authority published a consultation paper proposing amendments to the regulatory technical standards for determining proxy spread and the specification of a limited number of smaller portfolios for credit valuation adjustment risk under the Capital Requirements Regulation. On February 25, 2015, the EBA published a report on the relevance of the RTS provisions. In particular, the EBA focused on a CVA data collection exercise of 32 banks from 11 jurisdictions. The EBA concluded, based on the collection exercise, that there were difficulties in determining appropriate proxy spreads and market loss given default for a large number of counterparties because spreads may never be observed on markets. The amending RTS provides alternative approaches for the purpose of identifying appropriate proxy spread and market loss given default, in response to the issues outlined in the previous EBA report. The consultation invites responses on whether the amendments address the issues raised in the previous EBA report and whether the amendments are needed. Responses to the consultation are due by July 6, 2016. 

View the EBA consultation.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published proposals to revise the existing leverage ratio framework. The proposals include amendments to the : (i) measurement of derivative exposures by adopting a modified version of the standardized approach for measuring counterparty credit risk exposures; (ii) treatment of regular-way purchases and sales of financial assets so as to achieve consistency across accounting standards; (iii) treatment of provisions; and (iv) credit conversion factors for off-balance sheet items by aligning them with the standardized approach to credit risk.  In addition, the Basel Committee proposes to impose additional requirements on global systemically important banks, setting out options, including whether the additional requirement should apply uniformly to all G-SIBs or be tailored and whether the form should be a higher minimum requirement or a buffer requirement. Responses to the consultation are due by July 6, 2016. The Basel Committee intends to finalize the revised leverage ratio requirement in 2016 so as to allow time for its implementation by January 1, 2018. 

View the consultation paper.

The US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System proposed changes to various reporting forms, including FR Y-7N, FR Y‑7NS and FR Y-7Q, requiring collection of fourteen new data items to monitor compliance with enhanced prudential standards for foreign banking organizations. The new data items, adopted pursuant to Subparts N and O of Regulation YY, would be used to determine whether an FBO with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more meets capital adequacy standards at the consolidated parent company level that are consistent with the Basel capital framework.

The proposed revisions would be effective September 30, 2016, and, for certain items, March 31, 2018. Comments to the Federal Reserve Board proposal are due by June 3, 2016.

View the proposal.   

The US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System released a final rule that would permit certain US general obligation state and municipal securities to count towards the high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) that large banking organizations may use to satisfy the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) requirement. The LCR, as adopted by the federal banking agencies in September 2014, requires large banking organizations to hold a minimum amount of HQLA no less than their total net cash outflow amount over a 30-day forward-looking period of significant financial stress. Specifically, the final rule allows certain investment-grade, US general obligation state and municipal securities to qualify as HQLA up to certain levels if they meet the same liquidity criteria that currently apply to corporate debt securities. Although the LCR rule did not initially allow US municipal securities to be treated as HQLA, the Federal Reserve noted that subsequent analysis suggested that certain US municipal securities should qualify as HQLA because they have liquidity characteristics similar to other classes of HQLA, including corporate debt securities, and thus should receive similar treatment. The rule goes into effect on July 1, 2016. While the US LCR rule was an interagency rulemaking with substantively identical rules implemented by the Federal Reserve, the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, neither the OCC nor the FDIC issued a similar rule with respect to the treatment of municipal securities as HQLA.

View the Final Rule.

In early April, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released a staff report entitled “Organizational Complexity and Balance Sheet Management in Global Banks,” which analyzes the evolution of banks from standalone institutions to being subsidiaries of complex financial conglomerates. The paper suggests the organizational complexity of the family of a bank is a fundamental driver of the business model of the bank itself, as reflected in the management of the bank’s own balance sheet. Based on microdata on global banks with branch operations in the United States, the report shows that branches of conglomerates in more complex families have a markedly lower lending sensitivity to funding shocks. The balance sheet management strategies of banks are very much determined by the structure of the organizations the banks belong to and the complexity of the conglomerate can change the scale of the lending channel for a large global bank by more than 30 percent.

View the New York Fed staff report. 

In early April, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System's Divisions of Research and Statistics and Monetary Affairs released a staff working paper entitled “Bank Regulation under Fire Sale Externalities,” addressing the optimal design of, and interaction between, capital and liquidity regulations in a model characterized by fire sale externalities. In particular, the authors analyze whether it suffices to introduce capital regulations alone and let banks freely choose their liquidity ratios or whether liquidity also needs to be regulated. The results of the study indicate that the pre-Basel III regulatory framework, with its reliance only on capital requirements, was inefficient and ineffective in addressing systemic instability caused by fire sales. The paper notes that capital requirements can lead to less severe fire sales by forcing banks to reduce risky assets, however, it also shows that banks respond to stricter capital requirements by decreasing their liquidity ratios. Anticipating this response, the regulator preemptively sets capital ratios at high levels and ultimately, this interplay between banks and the regulator leads to inefficiently low levels of risky assets and liquidity. The paper concludes that macroprudential liquidity requirements that complement capital regulations, as in Basel III, restore constrained efficiency, improve financial stability and allow for a higher level of investment in risky assets.

View the Federal Reserve Board staff working paper. 

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published a second report on banking book risk-weighted asset valuation. The report forms part of the Regulatory Consistency Assessment Programme with the aim of effecting full implementation of the Basel III framework. The Committee's first report in 2013 focused on probability of default and loss-given-estimates for sovereign, bank and corporate exposures. This second report examines the variability of RWA in banks that use internal models to calculate their risk regulatory capital requirements.

Read more.

The European Securities and Markets Authority published its final report on Guidelines on the sound remuneration policies under the Units in Collective Undertakings Directive and the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive, including the final Remuneration Guidelines under UCITS V and revised Remuneration Guidelines under the AIFMD. ESMA also published a letter addressed to the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union in which ESMA recommends that legislation is required to provide clarity on the application of the proportionality principle to the remuneration requirements under EU laws.  
 

A Commission Implementing Regulation which amends implementing technical standards on supervisory reporting of institutions as regards the reporting of the leverage ratio, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The ITS amends the requirement to report the leverage ratio to regulators under the Capital Requirements Regulation. The amending ITS updates prescribed notional values for institutions and derivatives traded to which certain reporting requirements are attached. The amending ITS provides updated leverage reporting ratio templates and instructions for completing the templates. The amending ITS enters into force on April 20, 2016. The regulation shall apply from the first reporting reference date six months from the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.  

View the ITS. 

The Prudential Regulation Authority published proposals on minimum standards for firms when underwriting buy-to-let contracts. The proposals would apply to all PRA-regulated firms undertaking buy-to-let lending that are not subject to regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority. The PRA is proposing that such firms be required to use an affordability test when assessing a buy-to-let mortgage contract as an interest coverage ratio test and/or an income affordability test. In addition, a standard set of variables would be established that would need to be shown in the tests. 

In addition, the PRA has proposed clarification on the application of the small and medium-sized enterprise supporting factor on buy-to-let mortgages which would apply to all firms subject to the Capital Requirements Regulation.  Under the CRR, the SME supporting factor is used to reduce the capital requirements on loans to SMEs on qualifying retail, corporate and real estate exposures. The PRA's view is that buy-to-let borrowing is not included in that reduction and the PRA expects firms to consider the purpose of a loan before applying the SME supporting factor. The consultation closes on June 29, 2016.

View the consultation paper.

The Bank of England released details of the UK 2016 banking stress test, the first to be designed under the new approach to stress testing published in October 2015. The 2016 stress test will cover seven UK banks and building societies: Barclays plc, HSBC Holdings plc, Lloyds Banking Group plc, Nationwide Building Society, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Santander UK plc and Standard Chartered plc. These are the same firms that participated in the 2015 stress test. The stress test will consist of a macroeconomic stress scenario, a traded-risk stress scenario, a misconduct costs stress and an annual cyclical scenario. The results of the stress test will be published in Q4 2016. 

View details of the UK 2016 stress test.

The Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England published a Statement from its policy meeting on March 23, 2016. The Statement summarizes the conclusions reached by the FPC. The FPC has decided to increase the UK countercyclical buffer rate from 0% of risk-weighted assets to 0.5% with effect from March 29, 2017. The current overlapping aspects of Pillar 2 supervisory capital buffers will be reduced at the same time as a one-off adjustment. The UK CCyB rate will apply to all UK banks and building societies as well as investment firms not exempted by the Financial Conduct Authority. According to the rules of the European Systemic Risk Board, this buffer will also apply to EU banks lending into the UK either on a cross-border basis or through a local branch. The Prudential Regulation Authority has published a Statement clarifying its approach to adjustments to firms' buffers as the CCyB, systemic and conservation buffers are implemented up to 2019. The PRA intends to ensure that the supervisory buffers will be reduced as soon as practicable after the CCyB rate comes into effect which will depend on the timing of a firm's supervisory review and evaluation process. The adjustments aim to ensure that the transition to the new capital framework avoids double counting in capital buffers covering the same risk and give firms time to transition to the requisite capital buffers by the end of 2019. 

The FPC will also assess the implementation and design of internationally-agreed post-crisis regulations to determine whether liquidity could be enhanced. The outcome of that assessment is expected later in 2016.

View the FPC Statement.

View the PRA Statement.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision launched a consultation on changes to the advanced internal ratings based approach and the foundation IRB approach so as to reduce variation in capital requirements for credit risk. The Basel Committee is proposing to: (i) remove the IRB approaches for certain portfolios which will then be subject to the standardized approach to credit risk; (ii) remove the option to use the advanced IRB approach for exposures to corporates that are part of consolidated groups that have annual revenues of more than EUR 200m; (iii) remove the IRB approaches for specialized lending that use banks' estimates of model parameters; and (iv) introduce a floor to the internal model method for counterparty credit risk based on a percentage of the applicable standardized approach. The consultation closes on June 24, 2016. The Basel Committee has committed to finalizing all the proposed changes to the IRB approaches by the end of 2016. 

View the consultation paper.

The European Central Bank Regulation on the exercise of options and discretions relating to the prudential requirements for credit institutions was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The prudential treatment of options and discretions by regulators is outlined in the Capital Requirements Directive and the Capital Requirements Regulation, known collectively as CRD IV. The ECB is the prudential regulator for Eurozone banks and directly supervises the large Eurozone banks under the Single Supervisory Mechanism, designated as "significant credit institutions". The ECB Regulation sets out the waivers, options and discretions that the ECB has decided to apply to significant credit institutions in its capacity as the prudential regulator of these firms, and which will replace those adapted by the national regulators. The waivers and discretion cover own funds, capital requirements, liquidity and large exposures. The ECB Regulation will apply, subject to limited exceptions, from October 1, 2016, although transitional provisions have been included so that existing national provisions will apply until the ECB sets a common approach for those waivers and discretions not covered in this Regulation. The ECB also published its Guide to harmonizing the exercise of options and discretions regarding the prudential supervision of credit institutions. 

View the ECB Regulation.

View the ECB Guide. 

​The European Banking Authority published a report on the Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Supporting Factor. The SME SF was introduced by the Capital Requirements Regulation to counterbalance the rise in capital requirements resulting from the Capital Conservative Buffer whilst providing an adequate flow of credit to SMEs. The report provides: (i) analysis of the lending trends and conditions for SMEs; (ii) analysis of the effective riskiness of EU SMEs over a full economic cycle; and (iii) the consistency of funds requirements laid down in the CRR for credit risk to SME's. The EBA has concluded that there is currently not enough evidence to suggest that the SME SF has provided additional stimulus for lending to SMEs as compared to larger corporate entities. However, the EBA has also recognised that it may be too early to make strong conclusions based on the current analysis. The EBA makes four recommendations: (i) continued monitoring and a reassessment of the SME SF so as to understand its impact on lending; (ii) a more comprehensive approach for the review of risk weights; (iii) review of the amount owed limit criterion and in the application of the SME SF to understand its purpose and costs of application; and (iv) harmonisation of the SME definition in the CRR.

View the EBA's Report. 

The European Banking Authority launched a consultation on reporting financial information across EU jurisdictions using national Financial Supervisory Reporting Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). The EBA reported that institutions across the EU have identified issues with current templates. The consultation has been decentralised so that all questions and feedback on the draft template are provided to jurisdiction specific Regulators and not through the EBA. The EBA believes it will benefit from the expertise of authorities from different jurisdictions given their knowledge of the local GAAP. The consultation follows from a previous consultation in December, 2015, on proposed changes to the FINREP based on the IFRS 9 requirements. Responses to the consultation are due by April 15, 2016. The EBA stated that it will release a subsequent updated version of the FINREP. 

View the EBA press release.

View the draft FINREP GAAP template.

The European Council announced that it had agreed to extend an exemption for commodity dealers under the Capital Requirements Regulation, until December 31, 2020. The CRR currently exempts commodity dealers from large exposures requirements and own fund requirements until December 31, 2017. That date was set on the basis that the Commission would have conducted a review of the prudential regime applicable to commodity dealers and to investment firms by the end of 2015 and, if appropriate, proposed a legislative regime adapted for the risk profile of commodity dealers and investment firms. The Commissions' review is still in progress. The European Commission published its proposed legislative amendments to the CRR in December 2015 on the basis that the extension will avoid the need for relevant firms to temporarily comply with the full CRR requirements in 2018 before being subsequently moved to a tailored regime within two to three years.

The European Banking Authority published a consultation paper on standardised methods to compute capital requirements for general interest rate risk under the Capital Requirements Regulation. The CRR provides for two standardised methods, the so-called Maturity-Based calculation for general interest risk and the Duration-Based calculation of general risk. The Duration-Based calculation uses the concept of Modified Duration which is valid only for instruments not subject to repayment risk. Modified Duration is used to measure the sensitivity in price for a unit change in its internal rate of return of any financial asset that consists of fixed cash flows. A correction to the duration is necessary to reflect the repayment risk. The CRR provides the mandate for the EBA to issue guidelines on how the Modified Duration for debt instruments which are subject to repayment risk should be corrected. The EBA proposes two approaches to correct the Modified Duration calculation: (i) treat the debt instrument with repayment risk as if it was a combination of a plain vanilla bond and an embedded bond; or (ii) calculate directly the change in value of the whole instrument subject to repayment risk resulting from a 100 basis point movement in Interest Rates. Submissions to the consultation are due by June 22, 2016.

View the Consultation Paper. 

The US Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System approved the application by Goldman Sachs Bank USA under the Bank Merger Act to assume substantially all (approximately $17 billion) of the deposit liabilities and certain assets of GE Capital Bank, a subsidiary of General Electric Corporation, including assets GE Bank uses to manage its online deposit-taking platform. The acquisition was announced in August 2015, and the Federal Reserve Board extended processing of GS Bank’s application in light of numerous public comments that challenged the transaction on various grounds, including that GS is already too big to fail. In approving the transaction, among other findings, the Federal Reserve Board concluded that the transaction would have a negligible impact on the systemic footprint of GS (which has approximately $860 billion in total assets) and would improve the stability of funding available to GS Bank by diversifying its sources of funding.

View the Federal Reserve Board order.  

As part of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Conference on Bank Supervision, senior officials of several US bank regulatory agencies delivered remarks regarding the effectiveness of bank supervision and key components of the bank supervisory process. In the conference’s opening remarks, NY Fed President William Dudley noted the importance of distinguishing between effective and ineffective supervision, particularly given the confidential nature of the bank supervisory process. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig subsequently noted several critical features of successful oversight of financial institutions including: (i) subjecting commercial banks of all sizes to full-scope examinations, (ii) having regulators require that the largest banks disclose important supervisory findings to allow the public to better understand their financial condition and (iii) recognition by supervisors of their limits and emphasizing that banks hold sufficient capital to backstop management mistakes and bad luck.

View President Dudley’s speech.

View Vice Chairman Hoenig’s speech.   

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation adopted a final rule to increase the Deposit Insurance Fund to the statutorily required minimum level of 1.35 percent. Subject to certain minor changes, the rule largely mirrors the proposed rule, which was published for comment in November.

The primary purposes of the DIF are to protect the depositors of insured banks and to resolve failed banks. The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum for the DIF reserve ratio, the ratio of the amount in the fund to insured deposits, from 1.15 percent to 1.35 percent and required that the ratio reach that level by September 30, 2020. The reserve ratio at the end of 2015 was 1.11 percent, with a DIF balance of $72.6 billion.

The DIF is funded mainly through quarterly assessments on insured banks. Pursuant to a 2011 FDIC rule, regular assessment rates for all banks will decrease when the reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent, which the FDIC anticipates will occur in the first half of 2016. Banks with total assets of less than $10 billion will have substantially lower assessment rates under the 2011 rule. The final rule will impose on banks with at least $10 billion in assets a surcharge of 4.5 cents per $100 of their assessment base, after making certain adjustments. The FDIC expects the reserve ratio will likely reach 1.35 percent after approximately two years of payments of the surcharges.

The final rule will become effective on July 1. If the reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent before that date, surcharges will begin July 1. If the reserve ratio has not reached 1.15 percent by that date, surcharges will begin the first quarter after the reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent.

View the final rule. 

At an American Bankers’ Association Conference in Washington, DC, US Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby and US House of Representatives Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling both raised concerns regarding the current regulatory regime and certain requirements under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Among other things, Chairman Shelby addressed the costs and burdens of financial regulation under the Dodd-Frank Act, specifically criticizing the $50 billion threshold for identifying systemically important financial institutions, and noted plans to continue to push his regulatory relief bill, The Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015, through the Senate. Chairman Hensarling also outlined proposed legislation that would reform the Dodd-Frank Act, including eliminating certain Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III requirements for banks that hold higher levels of capital.

View Chairman Shelby’s remarks.

View coverage of Chairman Hensarling’s remarks.   

The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would remove outdated or unnecessary provisions of certain OCC rules to reduce the regulatory burden on national banks and federal savings associations subject to the rules. The proposed rulemaking is part of the OCC’s review of its rules required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (EGRPRA) every ten years. The proposed rule was developed following outreach to the industry conducted by the OCC individually and in connection with other US banking regulators. The proposed rule would make the following changes to OCC rules, among others: remove notice and approval requirements for certain changes in permanent capital involving national banks; remove certain financial disclosure requirements for national banks and remove certain unnecessary regulatory reporting, accounting and management policy requirements for federal savings associations. The proposed rule is open for comment for 60 days.

View proposed rule. 

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision launched a proposed consolidated and enhanced framework for Pillar 3 disclosures under Basel III. The Basel Committee announced in June 2014 that it was undertaking a review of Pillar 3.  In January, it issued its revised Pillar 3 disclosure requirements, completing the first phase of the review. 
 

Commission Implementing Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which amends the Implementing Technical Standards on supervisory reporting by providing for significant changes to the existing Liquidity Coverage Ratio reporting requirements under the Capital Requirements Regulation. The amending ITS introduce the templates and a large number of new data items necessary following the LCR requirements being implemented for credit institutions in January 2015. The European Banking Authority published its final draft amending ITS in June 2015. The changes include new templates and instructions for banks on capturing and reporting all necessary LCR items. The new templates cover liquid assets, outflows, inflows, collateral swaps and calculation of the LCR. The new instructions will only apply to banks; investment firms will continue to use current instructions and templates, at least for now. The amended ITS on supervisory reporting will apply from September 10, 2016. 

View the amending ITS.

The US Office of Financial Research (OFR) published a working paper using data on the credit default swap (CDS) market to assess the impact of a counterparty default on banks and the financial system as a whole. Using data from the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, the paper applies the supervisory scenarios of the Federal Reserve’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) to CDS markets as a proxy for banks’ trading books. The working paper finds that the indirect effects of the default of a bank’s largest counterparty on the bank’s other counterparties are more significant than the impact on the bank itself. Moreover, the paper finds that, when looking at the financial system as a whole, banks may realize greater losses from the failure of a counterparty shared by the industry when compared to losses from the failure of the individual bank’s largest counterparty. The report concludes that CCAR does not take into account the losses that occur to other counterparties of a banking organization as a result of the default of its largest counterparty, nor does it take into account the large counterparty exposures that exist for the core financial system as a whole.

View working paper.