US Agencies (FDIC, FED, and OCC) are proposing to establish risk-based categories for determining applicability of requirements under the regulatory capital rule, the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) rule, and the proposed net stable funding ratio (NSFR) rule for large U.S. banking organizations. The proposal would establish four categories of standards and apply tailored capital and liquidity requirements for banking organizations subject to each category. The proposal is consistent with a separate proposal issued by FED that would apply certain prudential standards for large U.S. banking organizations based on these categories. Comments must be received by January 22, 2019.
This proposal would not amend the capital and liquidity requirements applicable to an intermediate holding company of a foreign banking organization or its subsidiary depository institutions. It would also not amend the requirements applicable to federal branches or agencies of foreign banking organizations. The US Agencies are proposing to amend the scope of certain aspects of the regulatory capital and LCR rules; the agencies are also re-proposing the scope of NSFR rule. The proposal would update the regulatory distinction between advanced approaches and standardized approach banking organizations and further tailor the capital and liquidity requirements applicable to large banking organizations according to risk-based indicators. Among others, the proposed rule would require changes to the FFIEC 031, 041, 051, and 101 call reports, which will be addressed in a separate Federal Register notice.
For banking organizations with consolidated assets of USD 100 billion or more, the proposal would establish four categories of standards based on size, cross-jurisdictional activity, weighted short-term wholesale funding, off-balance sheet exposure, and non-bank assets:
- The most stringent set of standards (Category I) would apply to U.S. global systemically important bank holding companies (G-SIBs) and their subsidiary depository institutions. The proposed standards are consistent with the BCBS standards, subject to notice and comment rulemaking in the United States.
- The second set of standards (Category II) would apply to banking organizations that are very large or have significant international activity. Like Category I, the agencies intend for Category II standards to be consistent with the BCBS standards, subject to notice and comment rulemaking in the United States.
- The third set of standards (Category III) would apply to banking organizations with consolidated assets of USD 250 billion or more that do not meet the criteria for Category I or II and to other banking organizations with consolidated assets of USD 100 billion or more, but less than USD 250 billion, that meet or exceed specified indicators of risk. Category III standards would reflect these banking organizations' heightened risk profiles relative to smaller and less complex banking organizations.
- The fourth set of standards (Category IV) would apply to banking organizations with consolidated assets of USD 100 billion or more that do not meet the thresholds for one of the other categories. These banking organizations generally have greater scale and operational and managerial complexity relative to smaller banking organizations, but less than banking organizations that would be subject to Category I, II, or III standards. Category IV standards are less stringent than Category III standards, reflecting the lower risk profile of these banking organizations relative to other banking organizations with USD 100 billion or more in total consolidated assets.
Related Link: Federal Register Notice
Comment Due Date: January 22, 2019
Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, LCR, NSFR, Regulatory Capital, G-SIB, Proportionality, Reporting, US Agencies
Previous ArticleUS Agencies Propose to Amend Regulations Implementing Volcker Rule
APRA has concluded its review of the comprehensive plans of authorized deposit-taking institutions for the assessment and management of loans with repayment deferrals.
ESAs (EBA, EIOPA, and ESMA) published the first joint report that assesses risks in the financial sector since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
BoE and HM Treasury confirmed that the COVID Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) will close for new purchases of commercial paper, with effect from March 23, 2021.
ECB published a decision allowing the euro area banks under its direct supervision to exclude certain central bank exposures from the leverage ratio.
ESAs launched a survey seeking feedback on the presentational aspects of product templates under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR or Regulation 2019/2088).
ECB published input of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) into the EBA feasibility report on reducing the reporting burden for banks in EU.
EC adopted a decision determining, for a limited period of time, that the regulatory framework applicable to central counterparties, or CCPs, in the UK and Northern Ireland is equivalent to the requirements laid down in the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR or Regulation 648/2012).
EBA has decided to phase out the guidelines on legislative and non-legislative moratoria of loan repayments, in accordance with the earlier specified end of September deadline.
EBA published an Opinion addressed to EC to raise awareness about the opportunity to clarify certain issues related to the definition of credit institution in the upcoming review of the Capital Requirements Directive and Regulation (CRD and CRR).
ECB finalized the guide on assessment methodology for the internal model method for calculating exposure to counterparty credit risk (CCR) and the advanced method for own funds requirements for credit valuation adjustment (A-CVA) risk.