On October 31, 2014, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”) released the final Net Stable Funding Ratio (the “NSFR”) framework, which requires banking organizations to maintain stable funding (in the form of various types of liabilities and capital) for their assets and certain off-balance sheet activities. The NSFR finalizes a proposal first published by the Basel Committee in December of 2010 and later revised in January of 2014. Particularly given the historical trend as between the Basel Committee and U.S. banking agency implementation and in line with its Halloween release, it has left many wondering: Is it a trick or a treat?
Posts Tagged ‘Financial Regulation’
International Banking Regulators Reinforce Board Responsibilities for Risk Oversight and Governance Culture
In October 2014, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision of the Bank for International Settlements issued its consultative Guidelines [on] Corporate governance principles for banks (the “2014 Principles”). The 2014 Principles revise the Committee’s 2010 Principles for enhancing corporate governance (the “2010 Principles”), in which the Committee reflected on the lessons learned by many central banks and national bank supervisors from the global financial crisis of 2008-09, in particular with regard to risk governance practices and supervisory oversight at banks. The 2014 Principles also incorporate corporate governance developments in the financial services industry since the 2010 Principles, including the Financial Stability Board’s 2013 series of peer reviews and resulting peer review recommendations. The comment period for the 2014 Principles expires on January 9, 2015.
This post highlights certain themes in the 2014 Principles and identifies recent comments by U.S. banking regulators that indicate that supervised financial institutions can expect new regulations to address some of these themes.
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) last month proposed revisions to its operational risk capital framework. The proposal sets out a new standardized approach (SA) to replace both the basic indicator approach (BIA) and the standardized approach (TSA) for calculating operational risk capital. In our view, four key points are worth highlighting with respect to the proposal and its possible implications:
…continue reading: Operational Risk Capital: Nowhere to Hide
On October 16, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”) issued its summary instructions and guidance  (the “CCAR 2015 Instructions”) for its supervisory Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review program for 2015 (“CCAR 2015”) applicable to bank holding companies with $50 billion or more of total consolidated assets (“Covered BHCs”). Thirty-one institutions will participate in CCAR 2015, including the 30 Covered BHCs  that participated in CCAR in 2014, as well as one institution that is new to the program. 
In a flurry of regulatory actions on October 21 and 22, 2014, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the “FHFA”), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (collectively, the “Joint Regulators”) each adopted a final rule (the “Final Rule”) implementing the credit risk retention requirements of section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act for asset-backed securities (“ABS”). The section 941 requirements were intended to ensure that securitizers generally have “skin in the game” with respect to securitized loans and other assets.
On December 23, 2013, the Federal Reserve System celebrated its centennial. Over the course of that century, the Fed has become one of the most important governmental agencies in the history of the American republic, a transformation one scholar has labeled “the most remarkable bureaucratic metamorphosis in American history.” Its policies influence nearly every aspect of public and private life. Given this importance and influence, “[n]o one can afford to ignore the Fed.”
At the core of that “remarkable bureaucratic metamorphosis” is a much-invoked but as often misunderstood set of institutional arrangements that constitute the Fed’s unique independence. In the standard popular and academic account, law is at the center of that independence: indeed, it is the statute itself, under this view, that defines that independence. Economists and political scientists interested in central bank independence—having written enough on the phenomenon to give it an acronym (CBI)—take as given that law defines central bank independence. And legal academics, in the exceptional event that they have taken note of the Fed, have analyzed its independence within the context of administrative law and agency independence generally. Again, unsurprisingly, statutes are at the center of that analysis, too.
This week six federal agencies (Fed, OCC, FDIC, SEC, FHFA, and HUD) finalized their joint asset-backed securities (ABS) risk retention rule. As expected, the final rule requires sponsors of ABS to retain an interest equal to at least 5% of the credit risk in a securitization vehicle.
1. A win for the mortgage industry: The final rule effectively broadens the original proposal’s exemption from risk retention requirements for Qualified Residential Mortgages (QRM) by tying the definition of QRM to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau’s definition of Qualified Mortgage (QM). This alignment abandons the proposal’s most stringent requirements to obtain the QRM exemption, including that a residential mortgage have at least a 20% down payment. The final rule also provides an additional exemption for certain mortgages that would not meet the QRM standards, e.g., community-focused residential mortgages. The immediate impact of the rule on the industry is further muted, given the significant amount of mortgages issued by government sponsored entities (i.e., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae) that are currently exempt from the rule’s requirements. It may however be too soon for the industry to celebrate, as the final rule states that the agencies will reassess the effectiveness of the QRM definition at reducing securitization risk at most four years from now, and every five years thereafter.
On October 15, 2014, the Division of Swap Dealer and Intermediary Oversight (the “Division”) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) issued CFTC No-Action Letter No. 14-126 (“Letter 14-126”), which sets forth a number of conditions with which commodity pool operators (“CPOs”) that delegate their CPO responsibilities (the “Delegating CPO”) to registered CPOs (the “Designated CPO”) must comply in order to take advantage of no-action relief from the requirement to register as a CPO. The CPO community has anxiously awaited this letter because it clarifies the activities in which a Delegating CPO may engage and still qualify for relief from the requirement to register as a CPO. Essentially, the Letter makes more liberal several of the conditions set forth in CFTC Letter No. 14-69 (May 12, 2014) (“Letter 14-69” and, together with Letter 14-126, the “Letters”),  with which many Delegating CPOs could not comply. In addition, Letter 14-126 makes the relief self-executing, i.e., no form requesting relief or even a notice need be filed.
The term “shadow banking system” refers to the institutions that do not hold a banking license, but perform the basic functions of banks by refinancing loans to the economy with the issuance of money-like liabilities. Roughly speaking, licensed banks refinance the loans that they hold on their balance sheets with deposits or interbank borrowing, whereas the shadow banking system refinances securities backed by loan portfolios with quasi-deposits such as money market funds shares.
In my paper, Opacity in Financial Markets, forthcoming in the Review of Financial Studies, I study the implications of opacity in financial markets for investor behavior, asset prices, and welfare. In the model, transparent funds (e.g., mutual funds) and opaque funds (e.g., hedge funds) trade transparent assets (e.g., plain-vanilla products) and opaque assets (e.g., structured products). Investors observe neither opaque funds’ portfolios nor opaque assets’ payoffs. Consistent with empirical observations, the model predicts an “opacity price premium”: opaque assets trade at a premium over transparent ones despite identical payoffs. This premium arises because fund managers bid up opaque assets’ prices, as opacity potentially allows them to collect higher fees by manipulating investor assessments of their funds’ future prospects. The premium accompanies endogenous market segmentation: transparent funds trade only transparent assets, and opaque funds trade only opaque assets. A novel insight is that opacity is self-feeding in financial markets: given the opacity price premium, financial engineers exploit it by supplying opaque assets (that is, they render transparent assets opaque deliberately), which in turn are a source of agency problems in portfolio delegation, resulting in the opacity price premium.