Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations criteria for categories of prudential standards adopted in the final tailoring rule.

7929

standards adopted in the final tailoring rule.

TABLE ISCOPING CRITERIA FOR CATEGORIES OF PRUDENTIAL STANDARDS
U.S. banking organizations
I

U.S. GSIBs and their depository institution subsidiaries

N/A.

II

$700 billion or more in total assets; or $75 billion or more in cross-jurisdictional activity; and do not meet the criteria for Category I.

III

$250 billion or more in total assets; or $75 billion or more in weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, or off-balance sheet exposure; and do not meet the criteria for Category I or II.

IV

$100 billion or more in total assets; and do not meet the criteria for Category IIII.

The tailoring rule made two changes to the stress testing rules for firms subject to Category IV standards. First, the tailoring rule removed the requirement for firms subject to Category IV standards to conduct and publicly disclose the results of company-run stress tests as defined in the Boards stress testing rules. Second, the tailoring rule changed the frequency of the supervisory stress test for firms subject to Category IV standards from annual to biennial.7 In the tailoring rule, the Board also foreshadowed that it intended to provide greater flexibility to firms subject to Category IV standards to develop their annual capital plans and consider additional regulatory reporting burden relief in a separate proposal.8
As a part of the tailoring rule, covered savings and loan holding companies were made subject to the Boards supervisory stress test and company-run stress test requirements in the same manner as comparable bank holding companies. In the tailoring rule, the Board indicated that it would apply capital planning requirements to savings and loan holding companies as part of a separate notice.
iii. Overview of Proposed Rule and Summary of Comments On October 7, 2020, the Board issued a proposed rule proposed rule or proposal that would have modified the Boards capital planning and stress capital buffer requirements to be more
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Foreign banking organizations
Category
7 Both changes related to stress testing rules for firms subject to Category IV standards1 to remove the requirement to conduct and to publicly disclose the results of the company-run stress tests;
and 2 to change the frequency of the supervisory stress test to biennialwere consistent with amendments to section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act DoddFrank Act, Public Law 111203, 124 Stat. 1376
2010, made by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act EGRRCPA.
See Public Law 115174, 132 Stat. 1296 2018.
8 See 85 FR 15576, 15593, fn 57.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:49 Feb 02, 2021

Jkt 253001

consistent with the tailoring framework.9 Specifically, for firms subject to Category IV standards, the proposal would have generally removed the requirement under the capital plan rule to calculate forward-looking projections of capital under scenarios provided by the Board. In addition, the proposal would have reduced the frequency with which the Federal Reserve would calculate the decline in the CET1 capital ratios for firms subject to Category IV standards for purposes of the stress capital buffer requirement, by revising it from an annual to a biennial calculation. The proposal also would have given these firms the ability to elect to participate in the supervisory stress testand receive an updated stress capital buffer requirementin a year in which they would not generally be subject to the supervisory stress test.10
The proposal included changes to the Boards supervisory stress test and the company-run stress test rules.11 In particular, the proposal would have clarified the assumptions related to business plan changes, introduced revisions to the capital action assumptions, and required certain savings and loan holding companies to publicly disclose their stress tests results in a parallel manner to bank holding companies.
The proposal also solicited comment on several topics, including the Federal Reserves guidance on capital planning, a definition of common stock dividend for purposes of the capital plan rule, and the application of capital 9 85

FR 63222 Oct. 7, 2020.
proposal would have allowed the Board, under certain circumstances, based on the macroeconomic outlook or based on the firms risk profile, financial condition or corporate structure, to require a firm subject to Category IV standards to submit a capital plan under scenarios provided by the Board.
11 See 12 CFR part 252, subparts E and F.
10 The
PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

planning and stress capital buffer requirements to savings and loan holding companies.
The Board received thirteen comment letters from banking organizations, public interest groups, trade associations, and individuals. While many commenters were supportive of the proposal, some commenters opposed or requested additional clarification on parts of the proposed rule, including the changes related to capital planning requirements, the calculation and timing of the stress capital buffer requirement, and regulatory reporting changes for firms subject to Category IV requirements. In addition, commenters provided input on the Boards capital planning guidance, a definition of a common stock dividend for purposes of the capital plan rule, and the application of capital planning and stress capital buffer requirements to savings and loan holding companies. The Boards responses to the comments are provided in the discussion of the final rule. The Board also received several comments on issues not related to the proposal, which are not addressed below as they are outside the scope of this rulemaking.12
12 In particular, the Board received comments related to allowed distributions during a capital plan resubmission period, the definition of material in the capital plan rule, collecting additional data related to purchase accounting, reintroducing the materiality threshold for a regulatory reporting requirement, including climate risks in the stress test, the criteria for application of the global market shock and large counterparty default components, the calculation of capital and loss absorbing capacity requirements for intermediate holding companies, the requirements for including capital actions in company-run stress tests, the inclusion of leverage ratios in the stress test, and the volatility of the stress capital buffer requirement. The Board also received several technical comments on the supervisory stress test models, including related to its revenue model,
E:FRFM03FER1.SGM

Continued
03FER1