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
EBA published a report analyzing the impact of the unwind mechanism of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) for a sample of European banks over a three-year period, from the end of 2016 to the first quarter of 2020.
In response to questions from a member of the European Parliament, the ECB President Christine Lagarde issued a letter clarifying the possibility of amending the AnaCredit Regulation and making targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) dependent on the climate-related impact of bank loans.
IASB started the post-implementation review of the classification and measurement requirements in IFRS 9 on financial instruments and added the review as a project to its work plan.
FSB published a report that examines progress in implementing policy measures to enhance the resolvability of systemically important financial institutions.
EBA published a report on the benchmarking of national loan enforcement frameworks across 27 EU member states, in response to the call for advice from EC.
FSB published a letter from its Chair Randal K. Quarles, along with two reports exploring various aspects of the market turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 event.
RBNZ launched a consultation on the details for implementing the final Capital Review decisions announced in December 2019.
The Trustees of the IFRS Foundation, which are responsible for the governance and oversight of IASB, have announced the appointment of Dr. Andreas Barckow as the IASB Chair, effective July 2021.
HKMA issued a letter to consult the banking industry on a full set of proposed draft amendments to the Banking (Capital) Rules for implementing the Basel standard on capital requirements for banks’ equity investments in funds in Hong Kong.
ESRB published an opinion assessing the decision of Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) to extend the application period of a stricter measure for residential mortgage lending, in accordance with Article 458 of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).