Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 4, 2021 / Rules and Regulations that is actually in place at least 12
months before each planned submission date.
Commenters also raised questions or requested clarification about how the prohibited assumption, as related to the PSPAs, should be given effect when the Enterprises develop their resolution plans. One commenter interpreted the fact that PSPA support must be assumed away to mean that FHFA intended the Enterprises to plan for resolution after they had exited conservatorship and were well-capitalized, and asked FHFA
to clarify that interpretation. Another commenter suggested that Enterprise resolution plans should reflect the Enterprises actual assets and obligations at the time the plan is drafted and thus, as long as . . .
PSPA support continues to be available, a plan that assumes the opposite will be less useful in guiding the actual resolution. That commenter requested FHFA clarify that an Enterprise should not assume in its initial resolution plan a future state in which it is fully capitalized and released from conservatorship and that, for purposes of developing a resolution strategy, the PSPA support of the Enterprises existing obligations continues to apply.
Other commenters noted that the proposed rule clearly prohibited consideration of support provided by the PSPAs but did not address how the Enterprises should, or may, consider other aspects of the PSPAs, and thus needed clarification. One commenter identified potential . . . ambiguity regarding the scope of the assumption and suggested that the final rule clarify that the prohibited assumption means that the PSPAs would be assumed to have been terminated in their entirety . . . leaving no restrictions on the Enterprises freedom to raise debt or equity or transfer all or any portion of their assets without the U.S. Treasury Departments consent, and that the senior preferred stock will have been retired at no additional cost to the Enterprises. That commenter opined that without such clarification, PSPA
restrictions could operate as impediments to the rapid and orderly resolution of the Enterprises or to actions or steps designed to remediate other impediments. Another commenter requested FHFA to clarify that the rulemaking does not constitute any weakeningreal or perceivedof the existing PSPAs, due to concern that the rules prohibited assumption could cause investors to doubt the ongoing government support for the Enterprises and pull back from their participation in the secondary market.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:02 May 03, 2021

Jkt 253001

FHFA has carefully considered comments received on the proposed prohibited assumption and believes it should remain in the final rule as it was proposed, without change. One important purpose of the rule is to foster market discipline. The Enterprise charter acts make clear that they are private companies, and the Safety and Soundness Act makes no provision for funding a receivership. Statutory provisions clarify that neither the Enterprises themselves nor their securities or obligations are backed by the United States. Despite these provisions, investors, creditors, and others doing business with the Enterprises may perceive that the Enterprises have implicit United States government support. Financial support from the Treasury Department provided through the PSPAs, while explicitly limited to a finite amount of support and usable in receivership only for certain purposes, could encourage that perception.
To clarify the status of the Enterprises as privately owned corporations and to accurately reflect the provisions of the Enterprises charter acts and the Safety and Soundness Act, FHFA sought to make explicit in the Enterprise resolution planning rule that, in drafting their resolution plans, each Enterprise should assume that no extraordinary government support would be available to prevent it from being placed into receivership, to indemnify investors against losses, or to fund its resolution.
Changing the prohibited assumption as it relates to government support provided through the PSPAs would not be consistent with the policy of fostering market discipline. In addition, the support available under the PSPAs is finite in amount and cannot be replenished if drawn. There is no assurance that there would be any available capacity under the PSPA at the point in which an Enterprise is placed in receivership. FHFA believes it would be inconsistent with these limitations to allow the Enterprises to factor into their resolution plansplans that are premised upon some future adverse eventany remaining PSPA support that might exist today.
Although FHFA is not changing the prohibition against assuming the provision or continuation of extraordinary government support, questions commenters raised about the treatment of other aspects of the PSPAs in Enterprise resolution planning should be addressed. The PSPAs do exist and they remain in effect. In prohibiting the Enterprises from assuming the provision of support through the PSPAs, FHFA does not
PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

23583

intend the Enterprises to plan, today, for a future resolution that occurs after they are out of conservatorship and wellcapitalized. Likewise, FHFA does not intend an Enterprise to assume that the PSPAs have been terminated in their entirety. Resolution plans that could result from either of those approaches could be conjectural and less useful to FHFA and the Enterprises, where more useful resolution plans will reflect the Enterprises assets and obligations at the time the plan is developed.
For these reasons, while an Enterprise may not consider support provided by the PSPA in developing a resolution plan, an Enterprise may consider how other provisions of the PSPAs could impact resolution. An Enterprise may, for example, address constraints imposed by PSPA covenants, if appropriate within the context of the Enterprises full plan. An Enterprise may also identify an aspect of or provision in a PSPA as an impediment to resolution or in association with an identified material weakness in the Enterprises resolution plan, and such characterization would not, in itself, cause the resolution plan not to be credible. Other comments related to the identification of impediments in a resolution plan are addressed below.
Finally, FHFA interprets comments advocating for FHFAs reservation of discretion or express waiver authority regarding the assumption against extraordinary government support as comments calling for eliminating this assumption from the final rule. In that light, while it is appropriate to note that FHFA has retained general waiver authority in a separate rule,34 and does have discretion to develop resolution planning scenarios for Enterprise consideration, FHFA does not now anticipate using its discretion or waiver authority to change such essential underpinnings of resolution planning as the prohibited assumption of the provision or continuation of extraordinary government support.
Strategic Analysis; Identification of Impediments to Rapid and Orderly Resolution. FHFA proposed to require each Enterprise resolution plan to include a strategic analysis that, among other things, would identify and describe any potential material weaknesses or impediments to rapid and orderly resolution as conceived in the Enterprises plan and any actions or steps the Enterprise has taken or proposes to take, or which other market participants could take, to remediate or otherwise mitigate the 34 See
E:FRFM04MYR1.SGM

12 CFR 1211.2a.

04MYR1