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
Previous ArticleEBA Publishes Report on the Second Impact Assessment of IFRS 9
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).
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.
EBA published its risk dashboard for the first quarter of 2020 together with the results of the risk assessment questionnaire.
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.
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.
MAS published a statement guidance on dividend distribution by 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.
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.
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.
SRB published guidance on operational continuity in resolution and financial market infrastructure (FMI) contingency plans.