The Clearing House Association along with SIFMA and the FSR (the Associations) filed a comment letter with the Fed in response to its proposal (the Proposal) to impose an additional capital surcharge requirement on U.S. G-SIBs. “We strongly agree that robust capital levels at all banks promote the safety, soundness and stability of the financial system, and while we believe that a properly structured G-SIB capital surcharge can have the effect of reducing systemic risk, the Federal Reserve’s proposal has significant weaknesses,” said Jim Aramanda, CEO of TCH. “Though we understand that a number of the shortcomings of the Proposal have been imported from the internationally-agreed Basel G-SIB framework, we recommend, at a minimum, that the proposal be revised to better reflect the actual systemic risks posed by U.S. G-SIBs by ameliorating the impact of short-term foreign exchange fluctuations and better reflecting the market for financial services in the U.S. We also urge the Federal Reserve to ensure that the rulemaking process is appropriately transparent by disclosing publicly the analyses and data underlying critical elements of the proposal, including the doubling of the capital surcharge components, and avoid imposing unnecessary costs on funding sources that are beneficial to all market participants,” said Aramanda. In order to avoid undermining the credibility and effectiveness of any U.S. G-SIB capital surcharge framework from a policy perspective, the Associations recommend that the Fed at a minimum, adhere to the Basel international G-SIB framework commencing in 2016 with appropriate changes to address the critical deficiencies in the U.S. proposal described above.
You Might Also Be Interested In...
Regulatory Reporting and Accounting BPI and IIB Comment on Federal Reserve Proposal to Revise FR Y-7Q Capital and Asset Report for Foreign Bank Organizations
Bank Capital and Stress Testing DFAST 2022: Volatility, Capital Increases, and the Implications for the U.S Economy
Bank Capital and Stress Testing BPI Statement on the Federal Reserve’s Release of the 2022 Stress Test Results
Bank Capital and Stress Testing Potential Costs Of Banning Capital Distributions By Banks In Bad Times
Bank Capital and Stress Testing A Modification to the Basel Committee’s Standardized Approach to Operational Risk
Regulatory Reporting and Accounting BPI Comments on Federal Reserve Implementation of Capital Assessments and Stress Testing Reports
More Posts by This Author
Digital Assets BPI Comments on Treasury Department Review of Digital Assets in Response to Executive Order
Community Reinvestment Act BPI Comments on Federal Banking Agencies’ Community Reinvestment Act Proposal
Bank Liquidity The Bank of England Just Released Its Plan for Getting Smaller. The Fed Could Learn from it.