US will implement FRTB, insists Fed official
Isda AGM: “I don’t know why people doubt” US adoption, says Lynch
Read all our coverage from the Isda AGM here
A Federal Reserve official has sought to dismiss concerns the US will not follow through on a radical overhaul of trading book capital standards.
International regulators have been working on the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book since 2012. The rules had been expected to produce a significant jump in capital for big dealers, but proposals issued in March could lessen the impact.
“Internationally, when I talk to people, probably the second most frequent question I get is ‘Is the US going to implement FRTB?’, and I want to make sure people know we are, because it is such a common question. I don’t know why people doubt that we are, but there is a serious doubt in some people’s minds. So: we are,” said David Lynch, deputy associate director with the Fed.
Lynch was speaking on a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association in Miami on April 26.
Questions about US commitment to the FRTB emerged in the months after the election of President Trump. In February 2017, the president called for the US Department of the Treasury to report on whether the country’s existing financial regulatory system promoted a set of core principles, including the competitiveness of US financial institutions.
The first instalment of that report appeared in June last year, advising US regulators to postpone implementation of FRTB until it could be “appropriately calibrated”. In December, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision voted to delay the rules internationally until 2022 – its new proposals were issued in March.
Delivering a keynote speech at last week’s Isda event, Craig Phillips, Counselor to the Secretary at the US Treasury, struck a cool note on FRTB.
We do support adoption in principle, but [the rules] have to be thoughtfully implemented on top of capital and liquidity regimes we already have here in US
Craig Phillips, Counselor to the Secretary at the US Treasury
Phillips praised President Trump for “brilliantly issuing” his February 2017 executive order, and welcomed the Basel Committee’s decision to postpone implementation.
He added: “We do support adoption in principle, but [the rules] have to be thoughtfully implemented on top of capital and liquidity regimes we already have here in US.”
The Fed’s Lynch said he did not anticipate any delays in US adoption of the rules. The Basel Committee plans to complete its March consultation and finalise the rules this year, he said, clearing the way for the Fed and its fellow US bank regulators to propose their own version of the rules and gather feedback.
“That will probably take most of next year, so I think we’re looking at 2019-ish – I hate to give very definitive dates on this of course, but I think this is where we get final rules in the US. That’s important because it does give people enough time to complete their implementation before 2022,” he said.
Lynch conceded the original version of the FRTB would have generated too big a capital hit. He attributed this to the data provided by banks during studies of the regime’s impact.
“As people got better at doing the calculations, we saw they had missed some of the risks in their books; they didn’t recognise some elements of it. Over time they got better at that, and as a result we recognised we had over-calibrated,” he said.
This could be seen as a vindication of one industry claim: during the drafting of the rules, banks complained repeatedly that some of the details were unclear or incomplete, and argued regulators would be collecting poor-quality data as a result.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Esma supervision proposals ensnare Bloomberg and Tradeweb
Derivatives and bonds venues would become subject to centralised supervision
Industry frowns on FCA’s single-sided trade reporting efforts
Buy side warns UK attempt to ease Mifir burden may miss target; dealers aren’t happy either
One vision, two paths: UK reporting revamp diverges from EU
FCA and Esma could learn from each other on how to cut industry compliance costs
Market doesn’t share FSB concerns over basis trade
Industry warns tougher haircut regulation could restrict market capacity as debt issuance rises
FCMs warn of regulatory gaps in crypto clearing
CFTC request for comment uncovers concerns over customer protection and unchecked advertising
UK clearing houses face tougher capital regime than EU peers
Ice resists BoE plan to move second skin in the game higher up capital stack, but members approve
ECB seeks capital clarity on Spire repacks
Dealers split between counterparty credit risk and market risk frameworks for repack RWAs
FSB chief defends global non-bank regulation drive
Schindler slams ‘misconception’ that regulators intend to impose standardised bank-like rules