General Information & Client Services
  • Americas: +1.212.553.1653
  • Asia: +852.3551.3077
  • China: +86.10.6319.6580
  • EMEA: +44.20.7772.5454
  • Japan: +81.3.5408.4100
Media Relations
  • New York: +1.212.553.0376
  • London: +44.20.7772.5456
  • Hong Kong: +852.3758.1350
  • Tokyo: +813.5408.4110
  • Sydney: +61.2.9270.8141
  • Mexico City: +001.888.779.5833
  • Buenos Aires: +0800.666.3506
  • São Paulo: +0800.891.2518

The Fed’s Comprehensive Capital Planning and Review (CCAR) continues to be a barometer for capital adequacy of large banks in the US. With the results of the 2016 DFAST now in the books, we look at factors that will impact the Fed’s CCAR decisions next week and the challenges that firms will face in the future.

The 2016 supervisory severely adverse scenario was particularly challenging for the industry since it combined a downturn as severe as the Great Recession with negative short-term interest rates. As explained by Mark Zandi, our Chief Economist, “The narrower the [Treasury yield] curve, the more difficult it is for the banking system to lend at a profit, as its cost of funds is tied to short rates and its lending rates to long-term rates.” The severity of the scenario also presented challenges since the banks’ internally generated scenarios used for the capital plan submission must be as severe as the supervisory severely adverse scenario. The tight timeline associated with the DFAST/CCAR process coupled with scenario translation, result generation, and overarching governance process continue to make the scenario “surprises” operationally straining.

In addition to the unique stressful economic scenarios the Fed develops, there are some recurring themes that we have come to expect from the CCAR qualitative and quantitative reviews. As a quick CCAR refresher, each large bank ($50B+) is required to submit a capital plan that details their planned capital distributions, and the supporting information used to make these decisions. The Fed reviews these plans and can object to an organization’s planned capital distributions either on the grounds of (1) the quantitative stress test or (2) the qualitative review of capital planning and risk management (see Figure 1 below for trends in supervisory decisions).

The qualitative review will continue to be the driver for capital plan objections

  • As evidenced by the DFAST results, large banks continue to strengthen their balance sheets by building their capital base. For 2016, fewer banks are in jeopardy of missing the mark identified by the Fed for the quantitative portion of the stress test.
  • The Fed has continued to apply pressure on large banks to improve their risk management and capital planning. The review focused on banks’ modeling, internal controls, and governance of the capital planning process. Specifically, new areas of focus for 2016 will include material risk capture, frequency of risk review, and ongoing risk monitoring, and how these aspects link to the capital planning process.

Tailoring of supervisory expectations will impact the review

  • Newly issued supervisory guidance split the legacy CCAR universe of firms into two categories: (1) Large and Complex and (2) Large and Non-Complex. The Fed has signaled they will review the Large and Complex Firms with more scrutiny.
  • All firms will face additional scrutiny on the coordination of their stress testing framework and how it links to their risk identification process. Firms deemed Large and Complex face heightened expectations for loss modeling, risk management activities, and senior management governance of the process.

What to expect going forward

  • Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo has recently mentioned possible changes to the CCAR process. It’s likely that future CCARs may only include firms deemed “Large and Complex”. Capital planning reviews for “Large and Non-Complex” will still be conducted by regulators, but the process may more closely resemble the Fed’s 2012 and 2013 Capital Plan Review for new entrants (CapPR) or the Fed’s Liquidity Stress Testing review for firms not supervised under the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee framework.
  • Firms are looking for ways to make their stress testing process part of business as usual, partially in response to the capital planning guidance. Expect to see ongoing investments in infrastructure that improve cycle time, help coordinate stress testing with risk appetite monitoring, empower more scenario analysis, and provide actionable information to management in a timely fashion. This will enable firms to more efficiently leverage their stress testing framework for computing expected credit losses under the new allowance standards (CECL/IFRS 9). Additionally, it will allow for greater coordination between capital planning, liquidity planning, and resolution planning.
  • There is no shortage of unique stress scenarios the Fed may choose to include in future stress tests, but firms are also being pushed to improve their process for developing internal scenarios that reflect the specific vulnerabilities of their business model. Future BHC stress scenarios will need to incorporate all material risks and “knock-on” effects, as well as other unexpected nuances (such as negative interest rates introduced in the 2016 Fed scenario) in a compressed time horizon. Firms will also be pushed to incorporate more “what-if,” alternative scenarios in the future.
Figure 1. Adverse Actions on Capital Plans
Adverse Actions on Capital Plans
Source: Moody's Analytics

While the DFAST results are always interesting and provide information on the Fed’s modeling process, the Fed’s CCAR decisions released next week will have a more significant impact on the market. Two items to look for are capital plan objections and conditional non-objections. These identifiers mark firms the Fed has determined to have risk management weaknesses that may limit their ability to pay capital distributions. Stay tuned for our follow-up analysis of bank versus Fed model differences in an upcoming session in July 2016.

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS
Related Insights

CECL Methodologies Q&A

American Banker spoke with Anna Krayn from Moody's Analytics about CECL, the new FASB accounting standards on current expected credit loss.

February 2017 Pdf Anna Krayn

Getting Ready for CECL

The FASB’s new impairment standards won’t take effect until 2020, but institutions should start planning now. This webinar outlines key considerations for early CECL preparation, including: main challenges; expectations of auditors, regulators, and investors; planning in firms of varying sizes; and how to get started.

October 2016 WebPage Anna KraynEmil Lopez

CECL: The Road to CECL

In this webinar, we discuss what the new CECL standard is and why the FASB is changing Impairment Accounting. Key topics include the timeline for implementation, key differences are in the new impairment models compared with the existing ones, and how the allowance calculation process is likely to change.

September 2016 WebPage Anna KraynEmil Lopez

CECL Spotlight with Anna Krayn

As firms begin their implementation process for CECL, there are still more questions than answers as firms are beginning to plan for eventual implementation. However, there are some key benefits to early CECL adoption. In this live interview, Anna Krayn gives her perspective and recommendations.

September 2016 WebPage Anna Krayn

CECL: Disclosures and Timelines

In this webinar, we explore the implications of new disclosure requirements and the effective dates for CECL implementation. We explain why banks should start preparing for CECL now and what are the advantages to early implementation.

September 2016 WebPage Anna KraynEmil Lopez

The Long Road to CECL: Implementation Considerations

In this video cast, we will discuss the implications of the final CECL standard and approaches to implementation.

September 2016 WebPage Anna KraynEmil Lopez

The Long Road to CECL: Implementation Considerations Presentation Slides

As firms prepare for CECL, there are still many questions about the best approaches to implementation and how the regulatory requirements will impact adoption. In this webcast, we answer practitioners questions and provide suggested approaches for implementation.

September 01, 2016 Pdf Anna KraynEmil Lopez

Implications of the FASB's New Credit Loss Impairment Standard

On June 16, FASB issued the much anticipated financial instruments impairment standards update. The implications of this standard are significant and will change the way credit losses are measured for most financial assets (e.g. receivables, debt securities and loans).

June 2016 WebPage Anna KraynChristian Henkel

Reading the Tea Leaves of Recent Regulatory Guidance

In this article, we review the common themes reflected in recent regulatory guidelines released by the Federal Reserve and the BCBS.

June 2016 WebPage Anna KraynDavid LittleEd Young

Making Risk Appetite Stick: How Data and Analytics Can Help

In this webinar, we discuss how institutions can overcome challenges to ensure that risk appetite can be monitored as well as key analytic metrics which can be leveraged for strategic decision-making.

April 2016 WebPage Nihil PatelEd Young

Reading the Tea Leaves of Recent Regulatory Guidance

December 2015 was a busy month for regulatory agencies and global standard setters. Throughout the year the industry has been waiting for additional guidance on high impact topics including capital planning and allowance methodologies, and in the final stretch of 2015 both the Federal Reserve and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) complied. This paper will primarily focus on common themes in the two releases.

January 2016 Pdf Anna KraynEd YoungDavid Little

Using a Risk Appetite Framework to Align Strategy and Risk

In this article, we provide an overview of some common problems organizations face and introduce a solution to develop an integrated, transparent, measurable, and actionable Risk Appetite Framework.

December 2015 WebPage Anna KraynEd Young

From the Editor

Post-crisis regulatory drivers are giving rise to better risk management practices that will provide a competitive advantage. With this in mind, this edition of Risk Perspectives looks at the future of risk management, and the best practices of today that will form the successful risk management practices of the future.

December 11, 2015 WebPage Anna Krayn

Learnings from CCAR 2015 and Beyond

In this webinar, Moody's Analytics experts revisit the CCAR 2015 scenarios, review industry results and discuss how to identify and quantify Systemic Risk.

April 2015 WebPage Mark Zandi, Anna KraynDr. Samuel W. Malone

CCAR and DFAST Stress Testing Survey Insight

In an effort to better understand the stress testing challenges faced by US banks, David Little and his team have conducted a banking survey during a series of roundtables.

November 2014 WebPage David Little

Comparing DFAST 2014 Estimates for CCAR Banks Under the FRB's Severely Adverse Scenario

This quantitative analysis of CCAR 2014 Severely Adverse scenarios, Moody's Analytics finds that the Federal Reserve Bank's (FRB's) and banks' own modeled estimates of capital ratios, revenue, net income, and loan credit losses are generally well aligned, although variations in all measures and across all banks are evident. In addition, the FRB's estimates are generally more conservative than those of the individual banks, reflecting differences in the FRB's industry-based models vs. the banks' portfolio specific models, treatment of missing or invalid data in the FRB's modeling approach, and assumptions about projected balance sheet volumes. The wide variation among bank modeled estimates and their overall alignment with FRB modeled estimates argues against banks targeting general industry benchmarks (such as average loss rates) and in favor of building models around their own business models and portfolio characteristics.

July 2014 Pdf Danielle Ferry, Daniel BrownAnna Krayn

Learn the Fundamentals of Managing Liquidity Under Basel III Presentation

Changes to liquidity management regulations present significant challenges for organizations based in the United States. In this presentation, our experts discuss key aspects of the planned US Basel III liquidity regulations, critical challenges in implementing these regulations, and a best practice framework for delivering compliance with the US Basel III directive.

May 2014 Pdf Anna Krayn

Learn the Fundamentals of Managing Liquidity Under U.S. Basel III Webinar

In this webinar, recorded on May 1, 2014 Anna Krayn and Olivier Brucker discuss key aspects of the planned US Basel III liquidity regulations, critical challenges in implementing these regulations, and a best practice framework for delivering compliance with the US Basel III directive.

May 2014 WebPage Anna Krayn

When CCAR Met Basel

In this article, we discuss where CCAR and Basel III intersect, with a particular focus on the data, analytics, and reporting layers of a sound CCAR/Basel III IT architecture, and why banks should address both within an integrated platform to meet, and go beyond, regulatory compliance.

November 2013 WebPage Anna Krayn, Michael Richitelli

Liquidity Risk Management is a Game Changer

This article discusses the importance of managing and measuring liquidity risk, regulatory guidelines and implications, and how an effective enterprise-wide stress testing program requires and integrates liquidity risk.

November 2013 WebPage Cayetano Gea-CarrascoDavid Little

Modeling Credit Losses to Meet Stress Testing Requirements

This article discusses two conceptual approaches for modeling stressed credit losses: top-down and bottom-up. It highlights the benefits and challenges of using each approach and regulatory expectations.

November 2013 WebPage Thomas Day, Anna Krayn

Beyond the Regulation: Exploring an Innovative Tool to Gauge Counterparty Credit Risk

In this article, we highlight a new network-based toolkit that helps firms deal with associated regulatory requirements related to single-counterparty credit limits.