Washington, D.C. – Banking regulators’ proposal to reform CAMELS ratings would make significant improvements, but further structural reforms would fully align CAMELS ratings with a bank’s financial condition, BPI said in a comment letter today.
What’s Happening. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, an interagency regulatory body, recently proposed revisions to the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, commonly known as CAMELS, aimed at focusing ratings on material financial risks. These proposed changes include eliminating the outsize influence of the Management rating—a particularly subjective factor—on a bank’s overall composite rating. While these proposed changes move in the right direction, additional reforms would improve the framework’s objectivity and accuracy.
- Why It Matters. Once an internal supervisory tool, CAMELS now carries binding legal and financial consequences. Ratings must therefore be grounded in material financial risks and objective standards. CAMELS rating reform, part of a broader effort to refocus supervision on material risk, is important because banks face severe consequences for lower ratings, with costs that reverberate to customers and the economy. In addition, the drift of CAMELS ratings toward subjective and opaque standards reflects an extralegal overreach.
“The proposal would make the CAMELS framework more objective and transparent, but further reform is needed to align ratings with actual safety and soundness. In particular, further reforms are needed to the Management component, which—despite its title—is not designed to reflect the overall quality or effectiveness of a bank’s management.” – Tabitha Edgens, BPI Executive Vice President and Co-Head of Regulatory Affairs
Recommendations. BPI recommends that regulators make the following changes:
- Eliminate the Management component or replace it with a Material Operational Risks and Internal Controls component.
- A Material Operational Risks and Internal Controls component would assess the extent to which certain operational risks or deficiencies in internal controls, like deficiencies related to cybersecurity, internal audit, or compliance, may adversely affect a bank’s financial condition.
- Tie each of the financial components to objective evaluation factors and remove overlapping evaluation factors among the components.
- Establish clearer standards for the composite rating and ensure that the CAMELS rating framework is applied consistently with the federal banking agencies’ standards governing MRAs.
###
About Bank Policy Institute
The Bank Policy Institute is a nonpartisan public policy, research and advocacy group that represents universal banks, regional banks and the major foreign banks doing business in the United States. The Institute produces academic research and analysis on regulatory and monetary policy topics, analyzes and comments on proposed regulations and represents the financial services industry with respect to cybersecurity, fraud and other information security issues.
Media Contact
Tara Payne
Bank Policy Institute
tara.payne@bpi.com
