29/06/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 29/06/2024 20:04
The Bank Policy Institute issued the following statement on the 2024 stress tests:
"This week, it was widely noted that the nation's largest banks had passed the Federal Reserve's stress test. This reflects a continuing misunderstanding of that test, which is unsurprising, given its opacity and complexity.
Since 2020, the results of that test have not been a one-time pass-fail grade; instead, the stress losses are used to calculate an additional binding capital charge on the covered banks. The result of this year's test is an increase in capital requirements for over half of the banks; about one-third of the banks see capital requirement increases of 70 basis points or more; five banks show capital requirement increases exceeding 200 basis points. And the rationale for these increases is very difficult to discern, given the secrecy of the Federal Reserve Board models used to calculate the charge.
A bank 'passing' the test simply means that it is not required to raise capital or shrink assets immediately, and in that sense, banks 'passed' the test.But banks passed because they now all hold large excess capital as an uncertainty buffer given the randomness of each year's test results. Note that for those banks that did not see capital increases, that buffer was held for no reason; that capital could have been allocated to fund a larger number of loans; presumably much of it will now be used for share repurchases."
In addition, this year's stress test results show why transparency is needed, a new BPI analysis explains.
The results reveal significant challenges that need to be remedied. These results demonstrate the necessity of transparency in stress test models and scenarios and the opportunity for public comment, a key theme of testimony at a House hearing this week by BPI's Francisco Covas. Read more here.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday held that the SEC cannot rely on in-house courts to resolve an enforcement dispute involving anti-fraud provisions of Federal securities law - a significant rejection of administrative enforcement proceedings which dozens of federal agencies employ to enforce laws enacted by Congress. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled in favor of a constitutional challenge to the SEC's internal courts, which have garnered legal scrutiny in recent years for their lack of due process as compared to U.S. federal courts (or so-called Article III courts). The case, Jarkesy v. SEC, could have major implications for other regulatory agencies using such courts to pursue civil penalties for statutory violations.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday scrapped a longstanding precedent known as Chevron deference that grants broad discretion on interpreting federal law to federal agencies tasked with implementing the statute at issue. The Chevron doctrine directed judges to "defer" to federal agencies' legal interpretations of ambiguous statutory text. The Court in a 6-3 ruling held that the test established in the eponymous Chevron case - Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council - improperly prioritized the executive branch's legal interpretations over the judicial branch's. While the cases at issue before the Court centered on legal challenges by the fishing industry, the decision has important implications for financial regulatory agencies that have traditionally enjoyed this discretion. Significantly, the ruling applies only prospectively, and does not jeopardize past cases decided based on Chevron deference.
Federal Reserve Governor Michelle Bowman reiterated in a speech this week the need to consider the costs and benefits of the Basel capital proposal before finalizing it. She described the response to the proposal as "overwhelmingly negative from a broad range of commenters." Two key features of the U.S. proposal are its significant expansion of capital requirements, both in the range of banks they apply to and their calibration; and its extension beyond the international Basel agreement, she said.
A recent report by PwC paints a grim picture of the economic effects of the Basel Endgame proposal. The report examines the impact of the proposal on economic growth in different economic conditions, and also assesses its effects on key financial products and asset classes. The Basel proposal would negatively affect GDP regardless of the economic outlook, according to this report. Its main takeaway: The costs would outweigh the benefits.
The proposal could reduce credit availability for expanding homeownership, and hurt privately listed but creditworthy firms such as mutual funds, the report says. It also discusses how the proposal diverges from the Basel measures in other jurisdictions.
Evolve Bank & Trust, a small Arkansas lender known for partnering with fintechs like Dave and Marqeta, confirmed this week that it had experienced a cyber hack. Evolve did not name the attacker, but Russian-linked hacking group LockBit 3.0 posted data from Evolve's systems this week, after previously claiming they had hacked the Federal Reserve. It does not appear that any sensitive Fed data has been released by the group, according to Bloomberg. Evolve received a cease-and-desist order from the Federal Reserve and the Arkansas state banking regulator on June 14, flagging shortcomings in the bank's oversight of its fintech partnership and in its anti-money laundering controls.
General Motors' lending arm withdrew its application for an industrial loan company charter with federal deposit insurance, according to the company this week. GM submitted the application in 2020 to the FDIC and to the Utah Department of Financial Institutions. The Utah regulator had approved the application earlier this month, according to GM. The automaker said in a press release that "we look forward to refiling with the FDIC [and Utah state regulator]." Utah is a key hub for ILCs, a quasi-bank charter that commingles banking and commerce, which are generally banned from being combined under the law. GM previously operated an ILC through GMAC, its lending arm that nearly collapsed in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008.
In a recent letter, BPI, the American Bankers Association, The Clearing House and the New York Bankers Association corrected the record on the CFPB's incorrect interpretation of the law on wire transfers. The letter referred to the CFPB's erroneous legal stance in the New York v. Citibank case, which centers on banks' responsibilities under the law in wire transfer scams. The CFPB contends that the Electronic Fund Transfer Act - the federal law providing certain consumer protections to specific types of electronic payments - applies in the case because the bank linked wire transfer capabilities to its online banking platform and a fraudster initiated an online wire transfer. But this interpretation is wrong, and represents a reversal of the CFPB's own previous view.
On Friday, FinCEN released a notice of proposed rulemaking on AML/CFT programs that is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on July 3. This proposal is a complement to the proposed inter-agency amendments to the AML/CFT compliance program rule that was approved by the FDIC Board and released on June 20. The comment period for the FinCEN proposal expires in September.
The proposal aims to help strengthen and modernize financial institutions' AML/CFT programs consistent with the Anti-Money Laundering Act to explicitly require such programs to be "effective, risk-based, and reasonably designed," enabling financial institutions to focus their resources consistent with their risk profiles. The amendments proposed in the measure are based on 2020 changes to the Bank Secrecy Act.
The measure would:
In its press release, FinCEN included a fact sheet for reference.
The American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, Institute of International Bankers and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association raised serious concerns on Friday in a letter to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on its plan to implement new cyber incident reporting laws. The proposed rule would require victims of cyber incidents, like a data breach or other attack, to report to CISA within 72 hours of determining that an incident has occurred.
"Congress directed CISA to create a rule that gives regulators timely intelligence without diverting front-line defenders from the immediate task of stopping the attack," the Associations commented upon filing the letter. "CISA has thus far failed to strike that balance, disregarded congressional intent and risks straining the U.S. financial system's cyber defenses. Significant changes must be made for this proposal to be useful to regulators and industry; otherwise, CISA is moving forward with another requirement that prioritizes routine government reporting over the security needs of firms."
The proposal is in response to the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, which financial institutions supported when it became law in March 2022. CISA engaged in a series of listening sessions following CIRCIA's passage, and the Department of Homeland Security also issued its own set of recommendations identifying 45 different reporting requirements across the federal government, each with disparate standards and thresholds, that warrant greater harmonization. However, the proposal does not adequately address these shortcomings.
The Senate Banking Committee has scheduled a nomination hearing for FDIC Chair nominee Christy Goldsmith Romero on July 11, according to American Banker. Goldsmith Romero was nominated to replace Chair Martin Gruenberg, who has said he will resign when his successor is confirmed. Gruenberg has faced pressure to resign amid the reports of toxic workplace culture and misconduct at the agency under his leadership.
Here's the latest in crypto.