FDIC adopted the final rule to amend its company-run stress testing regulations applicable to state non-member banks and state savings associations, consistent with section 401 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection (EGRRCP) Act. The final rule revises the minimum threshold for applicability from USD 10 billion to USD 250 billion, revises the frequency of required stress tests by FDIC-supervised institutions, and reduces the number of required stress testing scenarios from three to two. The final rule also makes certain conforming and technical changes. The changes impact the FDIC form DFAST 14A (Summary and Scenario sections). The final rule is effective from November 25, 2019.
FDIC, on December 28, 2018, had issued a proposed rule to amend its stress testing requirements, consistent with section 401 of EGRRCP Act. FDIC has received six comments in response to the proposed rule. FDIC is adopting, without change, the proposed revisions to the stress testing rule. Section 401 of EGRRCP Act amended section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act by raising the minimum asset threshold for banks required to conduct stress tests from USD 10 billion to USD 250 billion. The final rule implements this change by eliminating the two existing subcategories of covered bank—“USD 10 to USD 50 billion covered bank” and “over USD 50 billion covered bank”—and revising the term covered bank to mean a state non-member bank or state savings association with average total consolidated assets that are greater than USD 250 billion.
No FDIC-supervised institutions with total consolidated assets of USD 600 million or less are subject to 12 CFR part 325. Therefore, the final rule would not affect any small, FDIC-supervised institutions. The final rule provides that, in general, an FDIC-supervised institution that is a covered bank as of December 31, 2019, is required to conduct, report, and publish a stress test once every two years, beginning on January 01, 2020. The final rule also adds a new defined term, “reporting year,” to the definitions at 12 CFR 325.2. The reporting year for a covered bank is the year in which a covered bank must conduct, report, and publish its stress test. The “reporting year” for most covered banks would generally be every even-numbered year. The final rule also removes the “adverse” scenario in the FDIC stress testing rule and maintains the requirement to conduct stress tests under the “baseline” and “severely adverse” stress testing scenarios. The final rule amends the definition of “severely adverse scenario” so that the term is defined relative to the “baseline scenario,” rather than relative to the “adverse scenario.”
The final rule revises the transition period in 12 CFR 325.3 to conform to the other changes in this final rule. FDIC may require a covered bank with significant trading activities to include trading and counterparty components in its adverse and severely adverse scenarios. The trading data to be used in this component is as of a date between January 01 and March 01 of a calendar year. FED and OCC extended this range to run from October 01 of the calendar year preceding the year of the stress test to March 01 of the calendar year of the stress test. The final rule adopts the same change to the FDIC stress testing regulation, extending the range of as-of dates from October 01 of the preceding calendar year to March 01 of the calendar year of the stress test. Extending the as-of date range ensures consistency with FED and OCC rules and increases the FDIC flexibility to choose an appropriate as-of date.
Related Link: Federal Register Notice
Effective Date: November 25, 2019
Keywords: Americas, US, Banking, Stress Testing, Dodd-Frank Act, EGRRCP Act, DFAST, Reporting, DFAT 14A, FED, OCC
Previous ArticleESAs Statement on Application of Scope of PRIIPs Regulation to Bonds
PRA published a set of questions and answers (Q&A) covering common queries regarding residential and commercial property valuations, for the purpose of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR), during the period of disruption caused by COVID-19 pandemic.
IOSCO proposed updates to its principles for regulated entities that outsource tasks to service providers.
MAS announced that the first phase of the Veritas initiative will commence with the development of fairness metrics in credit risk scoring and customer marketing.
BoE published the Statistical Notice 2020/4 to update the buy-to-let (BTL) Phase 2 and Phase 3 definitions for the Interest Rate Type data item.
FSI published a brief note that examines challenges facing the banking sector as a result of the payment deferral programs put in place to support borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
PRA published the policy statement PS14/20, which contains the supervisory statement SS1/20 and the feedback to responses to the consultation paper CP22/19 on expectations for investment by firms in accordance with the Prudent Person Principle, or PPP, as set out in the Investments Part of the PRA Rulebook.
EBA published an opinion following the notification by the French macro-prudential authority, the Haut Conseil de Stabilité Financière (HCSF), of its intention to extend a measure introduced in 2018 on the use of Article 458(9) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR).
As part of a Research Bulletin on the recent policy-relevant work, ECB published an article that examines the lessons learned from past crises for nonperforming loan resolution in the post COVID-19 period.
RBNZ published the financial stability report for May 2020. This review of the financial system in the country highlights that the economic disruption associated with COVID-19 will present challenges to the financial system.
ECB updated the guidance notes for reporting related to the statistics on holdings of securities by reporting banking groups (SHSG).