Featured Product

    GAO Report on FHA Capital Requirements and Stress Testing Practices

    December 11, 2017

    The U.S. GAO published a report on the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) budgetary reviews of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI Fund). The report assesses whether MMI Fund needs more budget authority to cover expected future costs and whether independent actuarial reviews provide complementary information on the fund’s finances. The report finds that capital requirements and stress testing practices need strengthening.

    Capital requirements and stress testing practices—tools for managing financial risks—for the MMI Fund are not consistent with all elements of the framework GAO developed to help assess these tools in the context of the FHA single-family mortgage insurance programs. FHA uses the actuarial reviews to assess whether the capital ratio of MMI Fund meets the 2% requirement and how fund components would perform under alternative economic scenarios. While the actuarial assessment does not directly determine the need for additional budget authority, it evaluates the fund’s ability to absorb unexpected losses and may prompt changes in FHA policies and insurance premiums. In accordance with the framework, capital assessments and stress tests of FHA are transparent and incorporate a number of relevant risk factors. However, areas of inconsistency include scenario-based requirement; accountability mechanisms; fund-wide stress tests; and stress test objectives.

    The report highlights that strengthening the capital requirement and stress testing practices of FHA could help ensure that the MMI Fund is able to withstand economic downturns and that stress test results are as relevant and useful as possible for risk management. Including reverse mortgages in the fund’s capital assessment has advantages and disadvantages. Unlike for stress tests, FHA jointly assesses forward and reverse mortgages to calculate a combined capital ratio. Subjecting the reverse mortgage portfolio to capital assessment has made its financial condition more transparent. However, the portfolio’s sensitivity to changes in economic assumptions makes the combined ratio more unpredictable. Alternative approaches also pose trade-offs. For example, a separate reverse mortgage capital requirement may help ensure the financial transparency of both portfolios; requiring FHA to hold more capital to account for the volatility of the reverse mortgage portfolio could compel FHA to raise insurance premiums or lower borrowing limits.

     

    Related Link: Press Release

    Keywords: Americas, US, Insurance, Banking, MMI Fund, Capital Requirements, Stress Testing, FHA, GAO

    Featured Experts
    Related Articles
    News

    PRA Consults on Implementation of Certain Provisions of CRD5

    PRA, via the consultation paper CP12/20, proposed changes to its rules, supervisory statements, and statements of policy to implement certain elements of the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD5).

    July 31, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EIOPA Report Identifies Key Financial Stability Risks for Insurers

    EIOPA published the financial stability report that provides detailed quantitative and qualitative assessment of the key risks identified for the insurance and occupational pensions sectors in the European Economic Area.

    July 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Publishes Risk Dashboard for First Quarter of 2020

    EBA published its risk dashboard for the first quarter of 2020 together with the results of the risk assessment questionnaire.

    July 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Issues Updates on Stress Test Exercise for Banks in EU

    EBA announced that the next stress testing exercise is expected to be launched at the end of January 2021 and its results are to be published at the end of July 2021.

    July 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    PRA Proposes Guidance Related to Matching Adjustment under Solvency II

    PRA published the consultation paper CP11/20 that sets out its expectations and guidance related to auditors’ work on the matching adjustment under Solvency II.

    July 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    MAS Issues Guidance on Dividend Distributions by Banks

    MAS published a statement guidance on dividend distribution by banks.

    July 30, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    APRA Updates Guidance on Capital Management for Banks

    APRA updated its capital management guidance for banks, particularly easing restrictions around paying dividends as institutions continue to manage the disruption caused by COVID-19 pandemic.

    July 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    FSB Report Reviews Macro-Prudential Framework and Tools in Germany

    FSB published a report that reviews the progress on data collection for macro-prudential analysis and the availability and use of macro-prudential tools in Germany.

    July 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    EBA Urges Firms to Finalize Preparations for End of Brexit Transition

    EBA issued a statement reminding financial institutions that the transition period between EU and UK will expire on December 31, 2020; this will end the possibility for the UK-based financial institutions to offer financial services to EU customers on a cross-border basis via passporting.

    July 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    News

    SRB on Operational Continuity in Resolution and FMI Contingency Plans

    SRB published guidance on operational continuity in resolution and financial market infrastructure (FMI) contingency plans.

    July 29, 2020 WebPage Regulatory News
    RESULTS 1 - 10 OF 5604