INFOCUS. A Fundamental Shift in Models Used for Estimating Loan-Loss Reserves. The Importance of Getting CECL Right BY WILLIAN LANG WITH RYAN CHAREST
|
|
- Donald Ray
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 promontory.com INFOCUS OCTOBER 12, 2018 BY WILLIAN LANG WITH RYAN CHAREST A Fundamental Shift in Models Used for Estimating Loan-Loss Reserves The new U.S. accounting standard for current expected credit losses represents a fundamental change in financial institutions approach to estimating required loan-loss reserves and provisions. The Financial Accounting Standards Board created the CECL standard as a forward-looking measure for recognizing potential credit losses for loans and debt securities. CECL will generally take effect in 2020 for Securities and Exchange Commission registrants and in 2021 for financial institutions that are not registered with the SEC, with early adoption permitted as soon as William Lang is a managing director at Promontory and is an authority on financial risk management, quantitative analysis, and bank supervision and advises Promontory clients on stress testing, model validation, risk measurement, and capital planning. A central goal of CECL is to mitigate the procyclicality inherent in the current approach to loan-loss provisioning. Over the past 40 years, the allowance for loan and lease losses has been measured using the incurred-loss concept, where the ALLL reflects existing impairments to outstanding loans. Under CECL, the ALLL will be measured as the difference between the financial assets amortized cost basis and the net amount expected to be collected on the financial assets (i.e., expected lifetime credit losses). Thus, CECL reflects existing impairments and expected future losses for the portfolio. In addition to managing this accounting change, institutions will need to grapple with highly technical model-development and model-validation challenges. Specifically, the new standards require thoughtful identification and review of suitable sources of data; selection of appropriate modeling methodologies; as well as appropriate governance, documentation, challenge, and review of models and tools used to generate loss estimates. While there are some similarities and potential synergies between stress testing and CECL, there are significant differences and institutions must be alert to the unique challenges that CECL may pose. The Importance of Getting CECL Right The ALLL and loan-loss provisions are critical components of an institution s financial statements that impact net income and capital. Provisions are an expense that directly affect net income. Because the ALLL is a component of tier 2 capital, increases in the estimated ALLL reduce tier 1 capital and common equity. 1 Regulators are concerned about the appropriateness of the ALLL. The SEC is focused on accuracy of financial statements, and insufficient or excessive provisioning raises red flags. Financial institutions prudential supervisors also expect an appropriately estimated ALLL, but are typically more concerned about potential under-provisioning that can threaten safety and soundness. If a regulator 1 There is a cap on the amount of the ALLL eligible for recognition in tier 2 capital. For banks subject to the cap, an increase in the ALLL will also reduce total capital.
2 Since CECL represents an increase in complexity over the existing method for calculating the ALLL, regulators will be closely scrutinizing the risk management of models used to forecast losses under CECL. determines that the ALLL is inappropriate, accounting restatements, supervisory fines and sanctions, and potential litigation can result. A central component of determining the appropriateness of the ALLL is an assessment of the modeling methodologies used in the process. 2 Since CECL represents an increase in complexity over the existing method for calculating the ALLL, regulators will be closely scrutinizing the risk management of models used to forecast losses under CECL. Supervisors will expect strong model governance including independent model-validation activities that is proportionate to the risk and complexity of each model. Model Governance and Risk Management Under CECL The CECL standards require financial institutions to produce a statistically and economically sound forecast of credit losses. The models financial institutions use to implement the standard will fall under the Federal Reserve Board and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency s Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management. 3 A central theme of this guidance is the need for a function dedicated to model risk management (inclusive of model validation), which is independent of model developers and provides a strong effective challenge. Internal audit, in turn, must be independent of both, in accordance with long-standing practice and supervisory guidance. In practice, financial institutions typically employ a three-lines-of-defense framework for managing model risk. In this framework, model owners, developers, and users are the first line of defense; independent model risk management is the second; and internal audit is the third. Synergies and Differences Between CECL Estimates and Stress-Test Loss Estimates Under Baseline Conditions Frameworks for CECL compliance and stress testing are inherently similar, with overlap in the data used and estimates derived. For that reason, many financial institutions are leveraging capital stress-testing models such as those used for Dodd-Frank Act stress tests for CECL. Larger, 2 Consistent with supervisory guidance, this article uses the term model to refer to a quantitative method, system, or approach that applies statistical, economic, financial, or mathematical theories, techniques, and assumptions to process input data into quantitative estimates. The definition of model also covers quantitative approaches whose inputs are partially or wholly qualitative or based on expert judgment, provided that the output is quantitative in nature. 3 Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management, Federal Reserve Board and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (April 4, 2011). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. adopted this guidance on June 7, PROMONTORY Sightlines InFocus OCTOBER 12,
3 more complex financial institutions are anticipated to base much of their CECL loss forecasting on granular loan-level information and follow a construct similar to those used for their baseline forecasts in the annual and semiannual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review exercises. Midsize financial institutions are likely to base much of their CECL loss forecasting on pool-level information and to follow a construct similar to those used in their DFAST models. The CECL standard does not require any particular forecasting methodology. Multiple modeling constructs (including those for expected loss, rating transition, roll-rate, historical or empirical, charge-off, and discounted cash flows) will often be used at a single financial institution, with the choice of construct dependent on considerations such as data availability, segment materiality, differences in loan characteristics, supervisory expectations, and industry convergence. This is especially true for larger, more complex financial institutions. Both CECL estimates and stress-test results under baseline conditions produce estimates of expected losses. Moreover, CECL models should be used to estimate the ALLL under the various economic scenarios used for stress tests. As part of effective model governance, supervisors will expect institutions to be able to explain the drivers of these two alternative measures of expected losses, particularly when there are significant differences in loss rates across the two measures. Some important conceptual considerations for this analysis include: Principle of conservatism in stress testing: The design of stress-testing models emphasizes the quality of results under stressed conditions and includes a principle of conservatism. This can lead to reduced accuracy (i.e., overestimates) of baseline loss forecasts. Modestly higher baseline estimates than for CECL would not be unexpected. Inherent differences in forecast horizon between stress testing and CECL: Stresstesting models are constructed to produce losses over a nine-quarter horizon, while CECL requires lifetime losses. Financial institutions should consider comparing their stress-test results with CECL results that truncate losses at nine quarters. Static (CECL) vs. dynamic (stress test) portfolios: CECL only considers loss estimates for the existing portfolio of loans and securities, while stress testing considers future originations. Therefore, comparative analysis should focus on portfolio loss rates, rather than total losses, and consider the characteristics of new originations relative to the existing portfolio. Differences in economic scenarios: CECL forecasts must incorporate an internal assessment of the economic environment as of each quarter, while stress-test forecasts must use prescribed supervisory scenarios. 4 Financial institutions can use sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of the different scenarios on their estimated losses. Differences in reporting frequency: CECL calculations are quarterly, while stress-testing estimates are annual or semiannual. Differences in segmentation granularity: CECL requires segmenting portfolios into loans with similar risk characteristics, which may mean greater granularity than that offered by some DFAST models. Financial institutions can conduct sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of granularity on their loss estimates. 4 SR 13-1/CA 13-1: Supplemental Policy Statement on the Internal Audit Function and Its Outsourcing, Federal Reserve (Jan. 23, 2013). PROMONTORY Sightlines InFocus OCTOBER 12,
4 In the years since the 2008 financial crisis, expectations for model risk management including independent model validation have increased substantially and continue to increase. Financial institutions, in turn, have made significant investment in model-governance and model-validation activities. CECL s additional accounting and audit requirements: Unlike the stress-testing application of loss forecasting, CECL results will be audited and Sarbanes-Oxley Act controls will be required now that the results directly affect public financial statements. The bar for internal controls and documentation will be even higher under CECL than the already high standards in stress testing. CECL-Specific Considerations in Model Risk Management In the years since the 2008 financial crisis, expectations for model risk management including independent model validation have increased substantially and continue to increase. Financial institutions, in turn, have made significant investment in model-governance and model-validation activities. CECL s fundamental shift in provisioning brings a unique set of challenges for managing model risk: Many financial institutions will employ multiple CECL approaches across loan segments, adding to the complexity of the overall validation exercise. Vintage-disclosure requirements will require enhanced data-collection and reporting requirements across all financial institutions. The depth and scope of MRM activities will need to be tailored to the supervisory expectations surrounding the size and complexity of the financial institution. The depth and scope of risk management activities will need to be proportionate to model complexity, as implied by the selected methodology, which may vary by segment. The lifetime-loss concept underpinning CECL requires additional conceptual considerations, including: The sensitivity of loss-rate estimates to the following calculations, assumptions, and calibrations: Seasoning effects Vintage effects Amortization effects Prepayment and effective-maturity effects Discount rates PROMONTORY Sightlines InFocus OCTOBER 12,
5 Establishing a supportable approach for complying with the CECL requirement that forecasts of lifetime losses are reasonable and supportable. The different lifetimes associated with different loan types (e.g., revolving lines of credit and term loans). Approach to Model Validation Validation is a key component of effective model risk management. Validation processes that support effective model risk management emphasize three components which financial institutions can incorporate into their model validation and reviews ensuring that each is covered appropriately and aligns with the expectations for CECL: Developmental evidence and documentation: Developmental evidence should describe key decisions and highlight both strengths and potential weaknesses of the models and scenarios selected, in comparison to viable alternatives. Assessments of developmental evidence for CECL forecasting focus on data selection, dependent-variable definitions, variable selection, model selection, assumptions, and scenario design. Process verification and testing: Financial institutions will benefit from testing to determine whether models and data systems are functioning as designed, and whether performance is consistent with expectations. Such testing should be designed to confirm that internal processes are structured to operate in ways that promote the overall integrity of risk management. For example, processes should not be unduly reliant on manual intervention. Model-specific performance tracking (i.e., outcomes analysis): Financial institutions and their third-party advisers can review performance-tracking and -reporting frameworks to determine whether models are performing as expected and to ensure that appropriate actions are linked to potential or actual performance triggers. Back-testing may be used for certain components of CECL modeling frameworks; but data from historical ranges, including suitably severe periods, is rarely sufficient to compare predicted to actual outcomes. As a consequence, alternative methods are often used in lieu of traditional back-testing. Comprehensive model-validation exercises typically include a series of key documents and activities: A thoughtfully selected set of validation tests and review activities that are commensurate with the model s risks, including review of documentation, developmental evidence, implementation or process verification, benchmarking, and outcome-based performance analysis A model-validation report that summarizes all validation activities, evaluates the model with respect to these validation activities, and provides a well-organized summary of findings and issues Model grades and issue ratings that reflect a considered view of the impact of all issues identified during the validation that may affect a model s suitability for use Discussion of findings with model owners and/or developers PROMONTORY Sightlines InFocus OCTOBER 12,
6 Building a Strong Foundation for CECL Compliance Compliance with CECL requires paying careful attention to new technical accounting issues; but it also requires careful attention to identifying suitable sources of data, choosing appropriate forecasting methodologies, and the governance of CECL estimates. A critical component of governance is independent model risk management that encompasses independent validation. Model validators must be attuned to the unique features of CECL models, understand how these models operate, and be prepared to bring the appropriate level of rigor to the validation regardless of whether a particular forecast uses discounted cash flows, loan-level or pool-level expected losses, cumulative charge-off rates, rating transitions, or roll rates. Validators will face the additional challenge of performing the necessary reviews of vendor-supplied models, which may lack the transparency of internally developed models. To meet such challenges, validation resources must understand what examiners are likely to expect of financial institutions implementation of CECL. Given the extensive changes that CECL requires for models to support an appropriate ALLL, financial institutions need to move quickly to ensure they have a strong approach to managing CECL model risk. This will mean engaging independent model risk management early in the process to establish the requirements for model developers, owners, and users. This effort will include establishing checkpoints for various issues including assessments of data adequacy, reviews of internal controls, evaluation of the conceptual soundness of modeling approaches, and assessment of the adequacy of model documentation. Undertaking these steps early on will enable financial institutions to successfully implement models that will form the basis of an appropriate calculation of the ALLL under CECL. PROMONTORY Sightlines InFocus OCTOBER 12,
7 Contact Promontory For more information, please call or your usual Promontory contact or: William Lang Managing Director, New York Erik Larson Managing Director and Global Head for Quantitative Methodologies and Analytics, Washington, D.C Aaron Johnson Director and Chief of Staff, Quantitative Services, Washington, D.C To subscribe to Promontory s publications, please visit promontory.com/subscribe.aspx Follow Promontory on Promontory Financial Group, an IBM Company, excels at helping clients resolve critical issues, particularly those with a regulatory dimension. Promontory professionals have unparalleled regulatory experience and insight, and provide our clients with frank, proactive advice informed by best practices and regulatory expectations. Founded in 2001 by Chief Executive Officer Eugene A. Ludwig, former U.S. comptroller of the currency, Promontory became a wholly owned subsidiary of IBM in th Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC Telephone Fax promontory.com 2018 Promontory Financial Group, an IBM Company. All Rights Reserved.
NOVEMBER 2, Federal Reserve Proposal Sets Out New Expectations for Boards of Directors
promontory.com INFOCUS NOVEMBER 2, 2017 BY JULIE WILLIAMS, WILLIAM LANG, AND ALAN MICHAEL Federal Reserve Proposal Sets Out New Expectations for Boards of Directors The Federal Reserve Board in August
More informationMARCH 5, Federal Reserve Proposes Enhanced Risk Management Expectations for Large Financial Institutions
promontory.com INFOCUS MARCH 5, 2018 BY JULIE WILLIAMS, WILLIAM LANG, AND JUSTIN GUO Federal Reserve Proposes Enhanced Risk Management Expectations for Large Financial Institutions Julie Williams Managing
More informationSEPTEMBER 20, Third-Party Risk Management A Strategic Priority in Financial Innovation
promontory.com INFOCUS SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 BY YOKO OTANI, JULIE WILLIAMS, AND RACHEL ANDERIKA Third-Party Risk Management A Strategic Priority in Financial Innovation Arrangements between banking firms
More informationDISCLOSURE OF RESULTS OF STRESS TESTS UNDER THE DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
DISCLOSURE OF RESULTS OF STRESS TESTS UNDER THE DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT Covering the period from January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2018 under a hypothetical, severely
More informationDodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results. October 20, 2017
Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results October 20, 2017 Overview Synovus Financial Corp. (Synovus or the Company) regularly evaluates financial and capital forecasts under various economic scenarios as part
More informationJanuary 31, See 2
promontory.com InFocus January 31, 2014 Enhanced Expectations for Managing Liquidity Risk By Yoko Otani, Mark Levonian, and Stacy Coleman U.S. and international regulators are moving forward with initiatives
More informationINTERNAL CAPITAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS GUIDELINE. Nepal Rastra Bank Bank Supervision Department. August 2012 (updated July 2013)
INTERNAL CAPITAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS GUIDELINE Nepal Rastra Bank Bank Supervision Department August 2012 (updated July 2013) Table of Contents Page No. 1. Introduction 1 2. Internal Capital Adequacy
More information2015 CCAR Results and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure
2015 CCAR Results and Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure SEVERELY ADVERSE SCENARIO MARCH 13, 2015 A member of MUFG, a global financial group Table of Contents 1 Overview 3 2 Severely Adverse Scenario
More informationDodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2017 Results Disclosure. Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, N.A.
Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2017 Results Disclosure Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, N.A. October 17, 2017 I. Overview and Requirements Webster Financial Corporation ( Webster or the Holding
More informationFASB Releases the Final CECL Accounting Standard
FASB Releases the Final CECL Accounting Standard June 24, 2016 The Financial Accounting Standards Board s (FASB) latest Accounting Standards Update, ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments Credit Losses
More informationM&T Bank Corporation. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company. Company-Run Stress Test Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Disclosure.
M&T Bank Corporation Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company Company-Run Stress Test Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Disclosure March 12, 2015 1 Explanatory Note In accordance with the Dodd-Frank Wall
More informationSTRESS TESTING Transition to DFAST compliance
WHITE PAPER STRESS TESTING Transition to DFAST compliance Abstract The objective of this document is to explain the challenges related to stress testing that arise when a Community Bank crosses $0 Billion
More informationM&T Bank Corporation. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company. Company-Run Stress Test Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Disclosure.
M&T Bank Corporation Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company Company-Run Stress Test Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Disclosure June 21, 2018 1 Explanatory Note In accordance with Section 165(i)(2)
More informationThe Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision & The Basel Capital Accords
The Basel Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision & The Basel Capital Accords Basel Committee on Banking Supervision ( BCBS ) (www.bis.org: bcbs230 September 2012) Basel Committee on Banking
More informationDodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2017 Public Disclosure
Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2017 Public Disclosure October 25, 2017 About MB Financial, Inc. MB Financial, Inc., headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a financial holding company. The words MB Financial,
More informationDodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results June 25, 2015
Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results June 25, 2015 1 Forward Looking Information Certain statements contained in this this presentation and the accompanying slides may not be based upon historical facts
More informationCECL Time to Start Will Neeriemer, Partner DHG Financial Services. financial services
CECL Time to Start Will Neeriemer, Partner DHG Financial Services 1 About DHG DHG Financial Services, a national practice of Dixon Hughes Goodman, focuses on publicly traded and privately-held financial
More informationPractical insights on implementing IFRS 9 and CECL
Practical insights on implementing IFRS 9 and CECL We are pleased to present the fourth publication in a series 1 that highlights Deloitte Advisory s point of view about the significance of the Financial
More informationAccounting Update. John Rieger, Deputy Chief Accountant, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, DC
A Regulatory Update John Rieger, Deputy Chief Accountant, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Washington, DC Caren Hill, CPA, Western District, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Denver CO Tullus
More informationM&T Bank Corporation. Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company. Company-Run Stress Test Mid-Cycle Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Disclosure
M&T Bank Corporation Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company Company-Run Stress Test Mid-Cycle Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Disclosure October 9, 2018 1 Explanatory Note In accordance with Section
More informationHSBC North America Holdings Inc Mid-Cycle Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results. Date: September 15, 2014
Date: September 15, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Overview of the mid-cycle company-run Dodd-Frank Act stress test... 1 2. Description of the internal severely adverse scenario... 1 3. Forecasting methodologies
More information2015 Annual DFAST. SunTrust Banks, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act 2015 Annual Stress Test Results Disclosure. March 6, 2015
SunTrust Banks, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act 2015 Annual Stress Test Results Disclosure March 6, 2015 Page 1 of 8 03/6/2015 Overview SunTrust Banks, Inc. ( SunTrust or the Company ) regularly evaluates financial
More informationNorthern Trust Corporation
Northern Trust Corporation Pillar 3 Regulatory Disclosures For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015 Northern Trust Corporation PILLAR 3 REGULATORY DISCLOSURES For the quarterly period ended March
More informationHSBC North America Holdings Inc Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review and Annual Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results
2017 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review and Annual Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Date: June 30, 2017 CONTENTS Section 1. Overview of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review
More informationNorthern Trust Corporation
Northern Trust Corporation Pillar 3 Regulatory Disclosures For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016 Northern Trust Corporation PILLAR 3 REGULATORY DISCLOSURES For the quarterly period ended March
More informationGUIDELINES FOR THE INTERNAL CAPITAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR LICENSEES
SUPERVISORY AND REGULATORY GUIDELINES: 2016 Issued: 2 August 2016 GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERNAL CAPITAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR LICENSEES 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Central Bank of The Bahamas ( the
More informationCitizens Financial Group, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act Mid-Cycle Company-Run Stress Test Disclosure. July 6, 2015
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act Mid-Cycle Company-Run Stress Test Disclosure July 6, 2015 The information classification of this document is Public. Page 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction...
More informationRaymond James Financial, Inc. & Raymond James Bank, N.A Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure
Raymond James Financial, Inc. & Raymond James Bank, N.A. 2016 Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure October 28, 2016 1 As a bank holding company ( BHC ) with total consolidated assets of more than
More informationNavigating a sea change US Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) survey
Navigating a sea change US Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) survey Foreword...1 Executive summary...2 Introduction...4 About the survey...5 A comprehensive CECL program...6 Implementation timetable
More informationPILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. December 2012 PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended December 31, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 2 Introduction 3 Regulatory Capital 7 Capital Structure
More informationGuidelines on credit institutions credit risk management practices and accounting for expected credit losses
Guidelines on credit institutions credit risk management practices and accounting for expected credit losses European Banking Authority (EBA) www.managementsolutions.com Research and Development Management
More informationValley National Bancorp Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure
Valley National Bancorp 2017 Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure October 2017 2017 Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure for Valley National Bancorp and Valley National Bank Introduction
More informationUSAA Federal Savings Bank 2017 Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario
USAA Federal Savings Bank 2017 Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario June 15, 2017 In accordance with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (
More informationRaymond James Financial, Inc. & Raymond James Bank, N.A Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure
Raymond James Financial, Inc. & Raymond James Bank, N.A. 2017 Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure October 30, 2017 1 As a bank holding company ( BHC ) with total consolidated assets of more than
More informationPrudential Standard APS 117 Capital Adequacy: Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book (Advanced ADIs)
Prudential Standard APS 117 Capital Adequacy: Interest Rate Risk in the Banking Book (Advanced ADIs) Objective and key requirements of this Prudential Standard This Prudential Standard sets out the requirements
More informationMUFG Americas Holdings Corporation 2018 Dodd-Frank Act Mid-Cycle Stress Test Results
MUFG Americas Holdings Corporation 2018 Dodd-Frank Act Mid-Cycle Stress Test Results BHC Severely Adverse Scenario October 12, 2018 A member of MUFG, a global financial group Table of Contents 1 Overview
More informationDefining the Internal Model for Risk & Capital Management under the Solvency II Directive
14 Defining the Internal Model for Risk & Capital Management under the Solvency II Directive Mark Dougherty is an international Senior Corporate Governance and Risk Management professional and Chartered
More informationGuideline. Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) Chapter 8 Operational Risk. Effective Date: November 2016 / January
Guideline Subject: Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) Chapter 8 Effective Date: November 2016 / January 2017 1 The Capital Adequacy Requirements (CAR) for banks (including federal credit unions), bank
More informationOF RISK AND CAPITAL FOR BANKS USING ADVANCED SYSTEMS
ENTERPRISERISK BOARD OVERSIGHT OF RISK AND CAPITAL FOR BANKS USING ADVANCED SYSTEMS Boards can facilitate compliance by exercising oversight of the strategic plan, the wider internal governance structure,
More informationUSAA Federal Savings Bank 2018 Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario
USAA Federal Savings Bank 2018 Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario June 15, 2018 In accordance with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and
More information2018 Annual DFAST. SunTrust Banks, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act 2018 Annual Stress Test Results Disclosure. June 21, 2018
SunTrust Banks, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act 2018 Annual Stress Test Results Disclosure June 21, 2018 Page 1 of 8 06/21/2018 Overview SunTrust Banks, Inc. ( SunTrust or the Company ) regularly evaluates financial
More informationHSBC North America Holdings Inc Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review and Annual Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results
2018 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review and Annual Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Date: July 2, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Overview of the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review
More informationHancock Holding Company Dodd-Frank Act Annual Stress Test 2016 Results Disclosure
Hancock Holding Company Dodd-Frank Act Annual Stress Test 2016 Results Disclosure October 27, 2016 In this report, when we refer to Hancock, HHC or the Company we mean Hancock Holding Company and its consolidated
More informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
Guidance Paper No. 2.2.x INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS GUIDANCE PAPER ON ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT FOR CAPITAL ADEQUACY AND SOLVENCY PURPOSES DRAFT, MARCH 2008 This document was prepared
More informationJoint Statement on the New Accounting Standard on Financial Instruments - Credit Losses
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation National Credit Union Administration Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Joint Statement on the New Accounting
More informationCATHAY GENERAL BANCORP & CATHAY BANK DODD-FRANK ACT STRESS TEST RESULTS DISCLOSURE OCTOBER 26, 2016
CATHAY GENERAL BANCORP & CATHAY BANK DODD-FRANK ACT STRESS TEST RESULTS DISCLOSURE OCTOBER 26, 206 Overview Cathay General Bancorp was incorporated in 990 under the laws of the State of Delaware ( Bancorp
More informationThe Journey to Implementation Continues
POINT OF VIEW The Journey to Implementation Continues Shifting from an Incurred Loss to an Expected Loss Model Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) is a new accounting standard that will replace ASC 450-20
More informationAlly Financial Inc. Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2015 Estimates in the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario
EX-99.1 2 ccar2015disclosure-finalxi.htm COMPREHENSIVE CAPITAL ANALYSIS AND REVIEW 2015 Overview Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2015 Estimates in the Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario As required under
More information2015 Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST)
2015 Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test (DFAST) Company-Run Dodd-Frank Stress Test Submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank on January 5, 2015 Updated as of June 15, 2015 to include Morgan Stanley Private Bank, National
More informationValley National Bancorp Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure
Valley National Bancorp 2016 Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure October 2016 2016 Annual Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure for Valley National Bancorp and Valley National Bank Introduction
More informationFifth Third Bancorp Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test Disclosures June 21, 2018
Fifth Third Bancorp Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test Disclosures June 21, 2018 Fifth Third Bancorp ( Fifth Third, the Bancorp, or the Company ) hereunder is disclosing results from its 2018 company-run
More informationInvestors Bancorp, Inc Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Annual Results Disclosure Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario
Investors Bancorp, Inc. 2017 Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Annual Results Disclosure Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario October 25, 2017 Background As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
More informationBBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test Disclosures June 22, 2018
Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test Disclosures June 22, 2018 Overview for Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test ("DFAST") Disclosure (the "Company") is a bank holding company ("BHC") that is a covered company
More information2018 Mid-Cycle Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test (DFAST) Filed with Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
2018 Mid-Cycle Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test (DFAST) Filed with Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System October, 2018 Cautionary statement This 2018 Mid-cycle Dodd Frank Act Stress Test
More informationCECL and IFRS 9: Preparing today to be compliant tomorrow
CECL and IFRS 9: Preparing today to be compliant tomorrow kpmg.com 0 Table of Contents 1 A second look at the incurred loss model 2 2 A forward-looking approach 2-3 3 Next steps for dual reporters 4 4
More informationImpacts and concerns about IFRS9 implementation
Impacts and concerns about IFRS9 implementation Keynote speech by Mr Pedro Duarte Neves, Vice-Governor of the Banco de Portugal, at the meeting on Accounting for Derivatives and Financial Instruments organized
More informationCitizens Financial Group, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2015 (DFAST 2015) Company-Run Stress Test Disclosure. March 11, 2015
Citizens Financial Group, Inc. Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test 2015 (DFAST 2015) Company-Run Stress Test Disclosure March 11, 2015 The information classification of this document is Public. Page 1 I. Introduction...
More informationon credit institutions credit risk management practices and accounting for expected credit losses
EBA/GL/2017/06 20/09/2017 Guidelines on credit institutions credit risk management practices and accounting for expected credit losses 1 1. Compliance and reporting obligations Status of these guidelines
More informationPILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. December 2012 PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended June 30, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 2 Introduction 3 Regulatory Capital 7 Capital Structure 8
More informationWintrust Financial Corporation
Wintrust Financial Corporation 2017 Annual Stress Test Disclosures Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario October 27, 2017 Table of Contents Overview 4 Supervisory Severely
More informationBasel II Pillar 3 Disclosures Year ended 31 December 2009
DBS Group Holdings Ltd and its subsidiaries (the Group) have adopted Basel II as set out in the revised Monetary Authority of Singapore Notice to Banks No. 637 (Notice on Risk Based Capital Adequacy Requirements
More informationGUIDELINE ON ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINE ON ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT Insurance Authority Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Application 2 3. Overview of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) Framework and 4 General Requirements
More informationINTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS
Guidance Paper No. 2.2.6 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE SUPERVISORS GUIDANCE PAPER ON ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT FOR CAPITAL ADEQUACY AND SOLVENCY PURPOSES OCTOBER 2007 This document was prepared
More informationWells Fargo & Company. Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures
Wells Fargo & Company Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures For the quarter ended September 30, 2018 1 Table of Contents Disclosure Map.. 3 Introduction... 6 Executive Summary... 6 Company
More informationQuantifiable Risk Management Data Driven Approaches to Building a Predictive Risk Framework. Andrew Auslander, CFA, FRM
Quantifiable Risk Management Data Driven Approaches to Building a Predictive Risk Framework Andrew Auslander, CFA, FRM Quantifiable Risk Management Data driven Approaches to Building a Predictive Risk
More informationRESERVE BANK OF MALAWI
RESERVE BANK OF MALAWI GUIDELINES ON INTERNAL CAPITAL ADEQUACY ASSESSMENT PROCESS (ICAAP) Bank Supervision Department March 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 2 2.0 MANDATE... 2 3.0 RATIONALE...
More informationManaging a Transition to a New ALLL Process
Managing a Transition to a New ALLL Process Chris Martin Manager Credit & Risk (ALLL) Synovus Financial Corp What is the ALLL? The Allowance for Losses on Loans and Leases (ALLL), originally referred to
More informationUse of Internal Models for Determining Required Capital for Segregated Fund Risks (LICAT)
Canada Bureau du surintendant des institutions financières Canada 255 Albert Street 255, rue Albert Ottawa, Canada Ottawa, Canada K1A 0H2 K1A 0H2 Instruction Guide Subject: Capital for Segregated Fund
More informationINFOCUS. Navigating Credit Risk in Marketplace Lending Opportunities BY BARAK J. SANFORD
promontory.com INFOCUS MAY 17, 2016 Navigating Credit Risk in Marketplace Lending Opportunities BY BARAK J. SANFORD Internet-based marketplace or platform lenders have been crowding into the consumer and
More informationPRINCIPLES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INTEREST RATE RISK IN THE BANKING BOOK (IRRBB)
ANNEX 2F PRINCIPLES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INTEREST RATE RISK IN THE BANKING BOOK (IRRBB) There are numerous ways through which credit institutions currently identify and measure IRRBB and their methods
More informationHancock Holding Company Dodd Frank Act Annual Stress Test 2015 Results Disclosure
Hancock Holding Company Dodd Frank Act Annual Stress Test 2015 Results Disclosure June 23, 2015 In this report, when we refer to Hancock, HHC or the Company we mean Hancock Holding Company and its consolidated
More information2015 BOK Financial Corporation and BOKF, NA DFAST Public Disclosure
2015 BOK Financial Corporation and BOKF, NA DFAST Public Disclosure BOK Financial Corporation and BOKF, NA are required to perform annual company-run capital stress testing pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall
More informationRegulatory Capital Pillar 3 Disclosures
Regulatory Capital Pillar 3 Disclosures June 30, 2015 Table of Contents Background 1 Overview 1 Corporate Governance 1 Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process 2 Capital Demand 3 Capital Supply 3 Capital
More informationHSBC North America Holdings Inc Mid-Cycle Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results. Date: July 16, 2015
Date: July 16, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. Overview of Mid-Cycle Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test... 1 2. Description of the Bank Holding Company Severely Adverse scenario... 1 3. Forecasting
More informationCECL: Data, Scenarios and Cash Flow Thoughts
CECL: Data, Scenarios and Cash Flow Thoughts H. Walter Young November 14, 2016 2016 Risk Management Association Annual Risk Management Conference Dallas, Texas Table of Contents I. Data: Not all data is
More informationForward-looking Perspective on Impairments using Expected Credit Loss
WHITEPAPER Forward-looking Perspective on Impairments using Expected Credit Loss Author Deepak Parmani, Associate Director, Product Management Contributor Yanping Pan, Director-Research Contact Us Americas
More informationDodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test Disclosures
Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test Disclosures June 21, 2018 Table of Contents The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 3 BACKGROUND... 3 2018 SUPERVISORY SEVERELY ADVERSE
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended June 30, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Regulatory Capital 5 Capital Structure 6 Risk-Weighted
More informationBasel Committee on Banking Supervision. Consultative Document. Pillar 2 (Supervisory Review Process)
Basel Committee on Banking Supervision Consultative Document Pillar 2 (Supervisory Review Process) Supporting Document to the New Basel Capital Accord Issued for comment by 31 May 2001 January 2001 Table
More informationDodd-Frank Stress Tests for Mid-sized Banking Organizations
Dodd-Frank Stress Tests for Mid-sized Banking Organizations Joseph A. Jiampietro Hafize Gaye Erkan Goldman, Sachs & Co. Luigi L. De Ghenghi Andrew S. Fei Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP October 16, 2013 Goldman,
More information2018 Dodd-Frank Act Annual Stress Test (DFAST) Filed with Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on April 5th, 2018 Including UBS Bank USA
(DFAST) Filed with Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on April 5th, 2018 Including UBS Bank USA June, 2018 Cautionary statement This 2018 Dodd Frank Act Stress Test Disclosure presents stress
More informationCollective Allowances - Sound Credit Risk Assessment and Valuation Practices for Financial Instruments at Amortized Cost
Guideline Subject: Collective Allowances - Sound Credit Risk Assessment and Valuation Practices for Category: Accounting No: C-5 Date: October 2001 Revised: July 2010 This guideline outlines the regulatory
More informationComplying with CECL. We assess five ways to implement the new regulations. September 2017
Complying with CECL We assess five ways to implement the new regulations September 2017 Analytical contacts Manish Kumar Director, Risk & Analytics, India manish.kumar@crisil.com Manish Malhotra Lead Analyst,
More informationBB&T Corporation. Dodd-Frank Act Company-run Mid-cycle Stress Test Disclosure BB&T Severely Adverse Scenario
BB&T Corporation Dodd-Frank Act Company-run Mid-cycle Stress Test Disclosure BB&T Severely Adverse Scenario October 19, 2017 1 Introduction BB&T Corporation (BB&T) is one of the largest financial services
More informationWells Fargo & Company. Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures
Wells Fargo & Company Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures For the quarter ended June 30, 2018 1 Table of Contents Disclosure Map.. 3 Introduction... 6 Executive Summary... 6 Company Overview
More informationCertified Enterprise Risk Professional (CERP) Test Content Outline
Certified Enterprise Risk Professional (CERP) Test Content Outline SECTION 1: RISK GOVERNANCE Domain 1: Board and Senior Management Oversight (8%) Task 1: Provide relevant, timely, and accurate information
More informationHSBC North America Holdings Inc Mid-Cycle Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results. Date: October 9, 2018
Date: October 9, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Overview of the Mid-Cycle Company-Run Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test... 2. Description of the Bank Holding Company Severely Adverse Scenario... 3. Forecasting Methodologies
More informationIIF s Final Report on Market Best Practices for Financial Institutions and Financial Products
IIF s Final Report on Market Best Practices for Financial Institutions and Financial Products By Peter Green and Jeremy Jennings-Mares he Institute of International Finance (IIF) s T Board of Directors
More informationWells Fargo & Company. Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures
Wells Fargo & Company Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures For the quarter ended September 30, 2017 1 Table of Contents Disclosure Map... 3 Introduction... 6 Executive Summary... 6 Company
More informationWells Fargo & Company. Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures
Wells Fargo & Company Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures For the quarter ended June 30, 2017 1 Table of Contents Disclosure Map... 3 Introduction... 6 Executive Summary... 6 Company Overview...
More informationDodd-Frank Act 2014 Mid-Cycle Stress Test. Submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank on July 3, 2014
Dodd-Frank Act 2014 Mid-Cycle Stress Test Submitted to the Federal Reserve Bank on July 3, 2014 Table of Contents Section Pages 1. Requirements for Mid-Cycle Company-Run Stress Test 4 2. Description of
More informationCenter for Plain English Accounting
Report February 22, 2017 Center for Plain English Accounting AICPA s National A&A Resource Center available exclusively to PCPS members The Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) Model Are You Ready? Background
More informationSageworks Advisory Services PRACTICAL CECL TRANSITION EXPEDIENTS VERSUS CASH FLOWS
Sageworks Advisory Services PRACTICAL CECL TRANSITION EXPEDIENTS VERSUS CASH FLOWS Use of this content constitutes acceptance of the license terms incorporated at http://www./cecl-transition-content-license/.
More informationWells Fargo & Company. Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures
Wells Fargo & Company Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures For the quarter ended December 31, 2017 1 Table of Contents Disclosure Map... 3 Introduction... 5 Executive Summary... 5 Company
More informationRegulatory Capital Pillar 3 Disclosures
Regulatory Capital Pillar 3 Disclosures June 30, 2014 Table of Contents Background 1 Overview 1 Corporate Governance 1 Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process 2 Capital Demand 3 Capital Supply 3 Capital
More informationDFAST Public Disclosure: Texas Capital Bancshares 2015
& Dodd-Frank Act Company-Run Stress Test 2015 Public Disclosure June 15, 2015 Page 1 Contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario... 3 3. Risks Accounted For in Stress Testing
More informationWells Fargo & Company. Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Capital Disclosures
Wells Fargo & Company Basel III Pillar 3 Regulatory Disclosures For the quarter ended March 31, 2018 1 Table of Contents Disclosure Map Introduction Executive Summary Company Overview Basel III Overview
More informationRegulatory Capital Disclosures
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Regulatory Capital Disclosures For the period ended December 31, 2013 0 Page Introduction The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) is a leading global investment banking,
More information2017 Mid-Cycle Stress Test Disclosure
2017 Mid-Cycle Stress Test Disclosure MUAH Dodd-Frank Act Stress Test Results Severely Adverse Scenario October 13, 2017 A member of MUFG, a global financial group Table of Contents 1 Overview 3 2 Severely
More informationTD Group US Holdings LLC TD Bank, National Association TD Bank USA, National Association
TD Group US Holdings LLC TD Bank, National Association TD Bank USA, National Association Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing Results Supervisory Severely Adverse Scenario June 21, 2018 Overview The following
More information