Rethinking bank capital at a 'pivotal moment' for the Fed

Michael Barr, the Biden administration’s pick to serve as the Federal Reserve’s top regulator, said during his Senate confirmation hearing that he wants to rethink the Fed’s various capital requirements “as a whole, rather than piece by piece.”

Barr, who is expected to clear a Senate floor vote this summer to become the Fed’s next vice chair for supervision, struck a chord with that sentiment, particularly with Karen Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics. 

Michael Barr
Michael Barr, President Biden's pick to serve as the Federal Reserve's vice chair of supervision, said during his Senate confirmation that he wants "holistic" rethinking of the Fed's bank capital rules.

“After Michael said that, I thought this was just too important an idea at a moment that really could be pivotal,” Petrou said. “We need to bring attention to it and then try to help move it along, because if the U.S. just goes back to a rule-by-rule, piece-by-piece, bits-and-pieces capital regulation, we'll never get a coherent system without counterproductive impact.”

In a white paper published this week, Petrou urges the Fed to take that holistic approach beyond being a mere starting position and instead make it a guiding principle for rewriting the Fed’s capital framework. 

The paper, released Wednesday, describes the current regulatory framework as too vast, complex and restrictive for large banks while simultaneously being focused on the overall capital requirements at the expense of safeguarding against specific risks. 

“The rules for larger U.S. banks are even more of a morass than the global standards on which they are modeled, affording opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, creating pockets of unanticipated risk and contributing to the redesign of American finance into a sector that does far more for financiers than the real economy,” she wrote. “A holistic-capital construct is thus urgently needed.”

After garnering the support of five Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee along with the panel’s 12 Democrats in a vote last month, Barr is poised to usher in a new regulatory regime at the Fed. 

He will be tasked with balancing the Biden administration’s objectives for a more inclusive banking sector with needed changes that have been left unaddressed since the previous vice chair for supervision, Randal Quarles, left office last October. This to-do list includes amending the SLR for the current capital landscape and recalibrating its regulatory framework to ensure the final implementation of the Basel III endgame, also known as Basel IV, is capital neutral.

Federal Financial Analytics is not the only organization hoping to capitalize on this looming sea change to influence the Fed’s thinking on regulatory and supervision. Advocates for both banks and consumers alike argued for changes to bank capital standards last month following the release of the results from this year’s stress test. All 33 institutions passed the test with relative ease, leading some to say the banking system is sufficiently capitalized and others to conclude that the stress test is too lenient.

Petrou said the stress test, which is used to determine the stress capital buffer that the largest banks are required to hold for the year ahead, is just one of several moving pieces in the current capital framework. She hopes Barr and the Fed’s regulatory and supervision staff will revisit it along with various other requirements to see how they might be better aligned.

“It's an important opportunity, especially if somebody figures out how to make the SCB make sense with the [global systemically important bank] surcharge and the [total loss-absorbing capacity] capital add-ons,” she said. “These are all siloed requirements, each aimed at ultimately the same goal, which is sound banks that fail without moral hazard or systemic impact.”

Historically, Petrou notes, the Fed and other regulators have taken a piecemeal approach to setting capital requirement standards. This approach has created a set of rules that can be counterproductive while offering little guarantee of being able to protect financial stability. 

Existing capital requirements do not necessarily protect banks against exogenous shocks, she said. Instead, they can lead to a variety of unintended consequences, such as the dysfunction in the Treasuries market and the offloading of certain lending activity to unsupervised nonbanks.

“We're arguing for using capital where capital is useful, and there the capital standard should be quantitative, as straightforward as possible and as stringent as needed,” Petrou said. “The paper argues against the current framework, in which capital is often a proxy for effective supervision and powerful enforcement.”

Tweaking each requirement individually creates new blind spots and opens opportunities for regulatory arbitrage, Petrou said. Instead, she favors pairing a simplified capital framework with enhanced supervision methods, ones that can identify and address emerging risks.

“The goal of holistic capital is not to reduce regulatory capital,” she said. “It is to better align capital with the risk for which capital is effective, and to use supervision and enforcement in a really meaningful way to capture the other risks.”

For reprint and licensing requests for this article, click here.
Regulation and compliance Politics and policy Capital requirements
MORE FROM AMERICAN BANKER