On June 14, 2018, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) unanimously voted to pass the final rule to establish single-counterparty credit limits (SCCL) for covered large US bank holding companies (BHCs) and foreign banking organizations (FBOs). The final rule, which aims to limit the amount of exposure that large banks can maintain with a single counterparty, is generally aligned with the proposed rule issued in March 2016. Also, the rule represents the first instance of the FRB applying the new enhanced prudential standard (EPS) thresholds to specific classes of institutions as prescribed in the recently passed regulatory relief legislation (S.2155, Economic Growth, Regulatory Reform, and Consumer Protection Act).1
Optimizing your legal entity regulatory reporting process
Background for legal entity reporting
Depending upon the legal entity structure and headquarters of a parent bank, several different reporting forms are used to identify legal entities and associated information, including their purpose and type of legal form. This information is used for monitoring compliance with laws and regulations including by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (“Federal Reserve”): the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Regulation Y (Bank Holding Companies and Change in Bank Control), Regulation YY (Enhanced Prudential Standards), and Regulation QQ (Resolution Plans). This information is also an important component in regulators determining an institution’s level of complexity.
As events occur that affect a firm’s organizational structure, a report is filed to record the event driven (FR Y-10, Report of Changes in Organizational Structure). Annually, the end of the parent company fiscal year, a report is submitted that includes an organization chart and information concerning shareholders and public financial statements (FR Y-6, Annual Report of Holding Companies1, and FR Y-7, Annual Report of Foreign Banking Organizations2). The information from the event-driven forms are compared to the annual organizational chart. All of this information is commonly referred to as banking structure data.
On May 24, 2018, the bipartisan banking act S. 2155 (the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act”) has officially been signed into law. The Act, which marks the most significant changes to the Dodd-Frank Act since its enactment in 2010, was cleared by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2018, by a vote of 258 to 159.
Most notably, the Act would raise the statutory asset thresholds related to the imposition of enhanced prudential standards (EPS) and the Dodd-Frank Act stress tests (DFAST):
The significant changes in the accounting for credit losses (e.g., Current Expected Credit Losses or “CECL”, and International Financial Reporting Standards 9 or “IFRS 9”) can have a unique effect on the US branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations (FBOs). As US banking institutions are in the process of getting ready for the upcoming requirement, this may also be a good time to discuss the relevant Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (ALLL) considerations for the US branches and agencies of the FBOs. In this article, we consider the current reporting, common problems, and issues to be considered concerning the adoption of CECL.
On March 14, 2018, the Senate passed, by a vote of 67 to 31, S. 2155 (the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act”), which marks the most significant changes to the Dodd-Frank Act since its enactment in 2010.
Most notably, the bill would raise the statutory asset thresholds related to the imposition of enhanced prudential standards (EPS) and the Dodd-Frank Act stress tests (DFAST):
- EPS – The threshold would be raised from $50 billion to $250 billion, though the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) would retain the authority to impose EPS on banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets.
- DFAST – The threshold for the FRB’s annual supervisory stress test would be raised from $50 billion to $250 billion and the threshold for the company-run stress test would be raised from $10 billion to $250 billion, though the FRB would be required to conduct a separate, periodic supervisory stress test of banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets.
Below are several key takeaways with respect to the bill’s potential impact on regulatory thresholds.
On August 8, 2017, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the agencies) extended, from December 31, 2017 to December 31, 2018, the resolution plan deadline for 21 firms, including 19 foreign banking organizations (FBOs).
On January 29, 2018, the agencies issued firm-specific feedback to these 19 FBOs based on their last resolution plans filed in 2015.1 Although the feedback letters do not identify any deficiencies or shortcomings with respect to the 2015 plans,2 they outline key supervisory expectations that must be met as the FBOs prepare to file their next plans.
FBOs with US IHCs
Eight of the 19 FBOs were required to establish US intermediate holding companies (IHCs) as of July 1, 2016.3 Accordingly, these FBOs are required to describe any changes they have made to their resolution plan resulting from the implementation of the IHC requirement.
More than two years after issuing its proposal, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) finalized1 changes to the FR Y-7 (Annual Report of Foreign Banking Organizations) with respect to the US risk committee and home country stress testing certification requirements for foreign banking organizations (FBOs).
The changes are effective beginning with the reports submitted on or after March 1, 2018.
For more information on the reporting requirements, please click here.
In connection with its August 2017 proposal to establish a new rating system for large financial institutions (LFIs)1, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) issued proposed guidance on January 4, 2018 outlining supervisory expectations for senior management, business line management, and independent risk management (IRM) and controls in the form of principles.2
Once finalized, the guidance will help inform the FRB’s overall evaluation of a firm’s governance and controls (i.e., one of the three components of the new rating system, along with capital planning and positions and liquidity risk management and positions). The proposed guidance is generally consistent with a high-level preview of expectations provided in the August rating system proposal, though the guidance would now also extend to the US operations of foreign banking organizations (FBOs).3
The proposed guidance would apply to US bank holding companies (BHCs), savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs), and the combined US operations of FBOs with more than $50 billion in total assets, as well as state member bank subsidiaries of these organizations and nonbank financial companies designated for enhanced supervision by the Financial Stability Oversight Council.
The Federal Reserve (“Fed”) released the results of its Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) for 2017 on June 28. Key Facts:
- For the first time in CCAR’s seven-year history, the Fed did not object to any of the capital plans or capital distributions.
- One firm, Capital One, was required to resubmit its capital plan to address certain capital planning process weaknesses.
- The aggregate quantitative results were very similar to last year’s test, with all 34 firms exceeding required minimums.
- Two firms, American Express and Capital One, adjusted their original requested capital distributions taking advantage of a so called “mulligan” to fine tune their capital levels.
The prior week’s release of the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) results provided more detailed information on the Fed’s stress test. Compared to CCAR, those results exclude buybacks and capital issuances and hold past common dividends constant.
On December 19, 2016, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) finalized a rule requiring covered institutions to publicly disclose their Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), including quantitative and qualitative information underlying the LCR.1 Relative to the proposal, the final rule did not revise the reporting frequency or quantitative data requirements. However, it did amend the qualitative information requirements.