(a) Reevaluation and rescission. The Council shall, not less frequently than annually--
(1) Reevaluate each currently effective determination made under Sec. 1310.10(a); and
(2) Rescind any such determination, if the Council determines that the nonbank financial company no longer meets the standard under Sec. 1310.10(a), taking into account the considerations in Sec. 1310.11(a) or Sec. 1310.11(b), as applicable.
(b) Notice of reevaluation; submission of materials. The Council shall provide written notice to each nonbank financial company subject to a currently effective determination prior to the Council's reevaluation of such determination under paragraph (a) of this section and shall provide such nonbank financial company an opportunity to submit written materials, within such time as the Council determines to be appropriate (which shall be not less than 30 days after the date of receipt by the nonbank financial company of such notice), to the Council to contest the determination, including materials concerning whether, in the nonbank financial company's view, material financial distress at the nonbank financial company, or the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the nonbank financial company, could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.
(c) Vote required. Any determination of the Council under paragraph (a)(2) of this section to rescind a determination made with respect to a nonbank financial company shall--
(1) Be made by the Council and shall not be delegated by the Council; and
(2) Require the vote of not fewer than two-thirds of the voting members of the Council then serving, including the affirmative vote of the Chairperson of the Council.
(d) Notice of rescission. If the Council rescinds a determination with respect to any nonbank financial company under paragraph (a) of this section, the Council shall notify the nonbank financial company, in writing, of such rescission and publicly announce such rescission.
Sec. Appendix A to Part 1310--Financial Stability Oversight Council
Guidance for Nonbank Financial Company Determinations
I. Introduction
Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act'') \1\ authorizes the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the ``Council'') to determine that a nonbank financial company will be supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the ``Board of Governors'') and be subject to prudential standards in accordance with title I of the Dodd-Frank Act if either of two standards is met. Under the first standard, the Council may subject a nonbank financial company to supervision by the Board of Governors and prudential standards if the Council determines that ``material financial distress'' at the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. Under the second standard, the Council may determine that a nonbank financial company will be supervised by the Board of Governors and subject to prudential standards if the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act also lists 10 considerations that the Council must take into account in making a determination.\2\---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 12 U.S.C. 5323.
\2\ In addition to these considerations, the Council may consider any other risk-related factors that the Council deems appropriate. 12 U.S.C. 5323(a)(2)(K) and (b)(2)(K).---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section II of this document describes the manner in which the Council intends to apply the statutory standards and considerations in making determinations under section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act. First, section II defines ``threat to the financial stability of the United States'' and describes channels through which a nonbank financial company could pose such a threat. Second, it discusses each of the two statutory standards for determination. Third, it describes the six-category framework that the Council intends to use to evaluate nonbank financial companies under each of the 10 statutory considerations. Section II also includes lists of sample metrics that may be used to evaluate individual nonbank financial companies under each of the six categories.
Section III of this document outlines the process that the Council intends to follow in non-emergency situations when determining whether to subject a nonbank financial company to Board of Governors supervision and prudential standards. Section III also provides a detailed description of the analysis that the Council intends to conduct during each stage of its review. In the first stage of the process, the Council will apply six uniform quantitative thresholds to nonbank financial companies to identify those nonbank financial companies that will be subject to further evaluation by the Council. Because the Council is relying in the first stage on quantitative thresholds using information available through existing public and regulatory sources, nonbank financial companies should be able to assess whether they will be subject to further evaluation by the Council. During the second stage of the evaluation process, the Council will analyze the identified nonbank financial companies using a broad range of information available to the Council primarily through existing public and regulatory sources. The third stage of the process will involve a comprehensive analysis of those nonbank financial companies using information collected directly from the nonbank financial company, as well as the information used in the first two stages.
II. Council Determination Authority and Framework
As noted above, the Council may determine that a nonbank financial company will be supervised by the Board of Governors and be subject to prudential standards if the Council determines that (i) material financial distress at the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States (the ``First Determination Standard'') or (ii) the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States (the ``Second Determination Standard,'' and, together with the First Determination Standard, the ``Determination Standards'').
The Council intends to interpret the term ``company'' broadly with respect to nonbank financial companies and other companies in connection with section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, to include any corporation, limited liability company, partnership, business trust, association, or similar organization.
This section provides definitions of the terms ``threat to the financial stability of the United States'' and ``material financial distress'' and describes how the Council expects to apply the Determination Standards.
a. Threat to the Financial Stability of the United States
The Determination Standards require the Council to determine whether a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. The Council will consider a ``threat to the financial stability of the United States'' to exist if there would be an impairment of financial intermediation or of financial market functioning that would be sufficiently severe to inflict significant damage on the broader economy.
In evaluating a nonbank financial company under one of the Determination Standards, the Council intends to assess how a nonbank financial company's material financial distress or activities could be transmitted to, or otherwise affect, other firms or markets, thereby causing a broader impairment of financial intermediation or of financial market functioning. An impairment of financial intermediation and financial market functioning can occur through several channels. The Council has identified the following channels as most likely to facilitate the transmission of the negative effects of a nonbank financial company's material financial distress or activities to other financial firms and markets:
Exposure. A nonbank financial company's creditors, counterparties, investors, or other market participants have exposure to the nonbank financial company that is significant enough to materially impair those creditors, counterparties, investors, or other market participants and thereby pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. In its initial analysis of nonbank financial companies with respect to this channel, the Council expects to consider metrics including total consolidated assets, credit default swaps outstanding, derivative liabilities, total debt outstanding, and leverage ratio.
Asset liquidation. A nonbank financial company holds assets that, if liquidated quickly, would cause a fall in asset prices and thereby significantly disrupt trading or funding in key markets or cause significant losses or funding problems for other firms with similar holdings. This channel would likely be most relevant for a nonbank financial company whose funding and liquid asset profile makes it likely that it would be forced to liquidate assets quickly when it comes under financial pressure. For example, this could be the case if a large nonbank financial company relies heavily on short-term funding. In its initial analysis of nonbank financial companies with respect to this channel, the Council expects to consider metrics including total consolidated assets and short-term debt ratio.
Critical function or service. A nonbank financial company is no longer able or willing to provide a critical function or service that is relied upon by market participants and for which there are no ready substitutes. The analysis of this channel will incorporate a review of the competitive landscape for markets in which a nonbank financial company participates and for the services it provides (including the provision of liquidity to the U.S. financial system, the provision of credit to low-income, minority, or underserved communities, or the provision of credit to households, businesses and state and local governments), the nonbank financial company's market share, and the ability of other firms to replace those services. Due to the unique ways in which a nonbank financial company may provide a critical function or service to the market, the Council expects to apply company-specific analyses with respect to this channel, rather than applying a broadly applicable quantitative metric.
The Council believes that the threat a nonbank financial company may pose to U.S. financial stability through the impairment of financial intermediation and financial market functioning is likely to be exacerbated if the nonbank financial company is sufficiently complex, opaque, or difficult to resolve in bankruptcy such that its resolution in bankruptcy would disrupt key markets or have a material adverse impact on other financial firms or markets.
The Council intends to continue to evaluate additional transmission channels and may, at its discretion, consider other channels through which a nonbank financial company may transmit the negative effects of its material financial distress or activities and thereby pose a threat to U.S. financial stability.
b. First Determination Standard: Material Financial Distress
Under the First Determination Standard, the Council may subject a nonbank financial company to supervision by the Board of Governors and prudential standards if the Council determines that ``material financial distress'' at the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. The Council believes that material financial distress exists when a nonbank financial company is in imminent danger of insolvency or defaulting on its financial obligations.
For purposes of considering whether a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability under this Determination Standard, the Council intends to assess the impact of the nonbank financial company's material financial distress in the context of a period of overall stress in the financial services industry and in a weak macroeconomic environment. The Council believes this is appropriate because in such a context, a nonbank financial company's distress may have a greater effect on U.S. financial stability.
c. Second Determination Standard: Nature, Scope, Size, Scale,
Concentration, Interconnectedness, or Mix of Activities
Under the Second Determination Standard, the Council may subject a nonbank financial company to supervision by the Board of Governors and prudential standards if the Council determines that the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. The Council believes that this Determination Standard will be met if the Council determines that the nature of a nonbank financial company's business practices, conduct, or operations could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability, regardless of whether the nonbank financial company is experiencing financial distress. The Council expects that there likely will be significant overlap between the outcome of an assessment of a nonbank financial company under the First and Second Determination Standards, because, in many cases, a nonbank financial company that could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability because of the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of its activities could also pose a threat to U.S. financial stability if it were to experience material financial distress.
d. Analytic Framework for Statutory Considerations
As required by section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Council's determination will be based on its judgment that a firm meets one of the Determination Standards described above. In evaluating whether a firm meets one of the Determination Standards, the Council will consider each of the statutory considerations. The discussion below outlines the analytic framework that the Council intends to use to organize its evaluation of a nonbank financial company under the statutory considerations and provides additional detail on the key data and analyses that the Council intends to use to assess the considerations.
1. Grouping of Statutory Considerations Into Six-Category Framework
The Dodd-Frank Act requires the Council to consider 10 considerations (described below) when evaluating the potential of a nonbank financial company to pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. The statute also authorizes the Council to consider ``any other risk-related factors that the Council deems appropriate.'' These statutory considerations will help the Council to evaluate whether one of the Determination Standards, as described in sections II.b and II.c above, has been met. The Council has developed an analytic framework that groups all relevant factors, including the 10 statutory considerations and any additional risk-related factors, into six categories: size, interconnectedness, substitutability, leverage, liquidity risk and maturity mismatch, and existing regulatory scrutiny. The Council expects to use these six categories to guide its evaluation of whether a particular nonbank financial company meets either Determination Standard. However, the Council's ultimate determination decision regarding a nonbank financial company will not be based on a formulaic application of the six categories. Rather, the Council intends to analyze a nonbank financial company using quantitative and qualitative data relevant to each of the six categories, as the Council determines is appropriate with respect to the particular nonbank financial company.
Each of the six categories reflects a different dimension of a nonbank financial company's potential to pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. Three of the six categories--size, substitutability, and interconnectedness--seek to assess the potential impact of the nonbank financial company's financial distress on the broader economy. Material financial distress at nonbank financial companies that are large, provide critical financial services for which there are few substitutes, or are highly interconnected with other financial firms or markets are more likely to have a financial or operational impact on other companies, markets, and consumers that could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. The remaining three categories--leverage, liquidity risk and maturity mismatch, and existing regulatory scrutiny of the nonbank financial company--seek to assess the vulnerability of a nonbank financial company to financial distress. Nonbank financial companies that are highly leveraged, have a high degree of liquidity risk or maturity mismatch, and are under little or no regulatory scrutiny are more likely to be more vulnerable to financial distress.
Each of the statutory considerations in sections 113(a)(2) and (b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act would be considered as part of one or more of the six categories. This is reflected in the following table, using the considerations relevant to a U.S. nonbank financial company for illustrative purposes.\3\---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The corresponding statutory considerations for a foreign nonbank financial company would be considered under the relevant categories indicated in the table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category or categories in
Statutory considerations: which this consideration
(A) The extent of the leverage of the Leverage.
company.(B) The extent and nature of the off- Size; interconnectedness.
balance-sheet exposures of the company.(C) The extent and nature of the Interconnectedness.
transactions and relationships of the
company with other significant nonbank
financial companies and significant bank
holding companies.(D) The importance of the company as a Size; substitutability.
source of credit for households,
businesses, and State and local
governments and as a source of liquidity
for the United States financial system.(E) The importance of the company as a Substitutability.
source of credit for low-income,
minority, or underserved communities, and
the impact that the failure of such
company would have on the availability of
credit in such communities.(F) The extent to which assets are managed Size; interconnectedness;
rather than owned by the company, and the substitutability.
extent to which ownership of assets under
management is diffuse.(G) The nature, scope, size, scale, Size; interconnectedness;
concentration, interconnectedness, and substitutability.
mix of the activities of the company.(H) The degree to which the company is Existing regulatory
already regulated by 1 or more primary scrutiny.
financial regulatory agencies.(I) The amount and nature of the financial Size; interconnectedness.
assets of the company.(J) The amount and types of the Liquidity risk and maturity
liabilities of the company, including the mismatch; size;
degree of reliance on short-term funding. interconnectedness.(K) Any other risk-related factors that Appropriate category or
the Council deems appropriate. categories based on the
nature of the additional
risk-related factor.------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Six-Category Framework
The discussion below describes each of the six categories and how these categories relate to a firm's likelihood to pose a threat to financial stability. The sample metrics set forth below under each category are representative, not exhaustive, and may not apply to all nonbank financial companies under evaluation. The Council may apply the sample metrics in the context of stressed market conditions.
Interconnectedness
Interconnectedness captures direct or indirect linkages between financial companies that may be conduits for the transmission of the effects resulting from a nonbank financial company's material financial distress or activities. Examples of the key conduits through which the effects may travel are a nonbank financial company's direct or indirect exposures to counterparties (including creditors, trading and derivatives counterparties, investors, borrowers, and other participants in the financial markets). Interconnectedness depends not only on the number of counterparties that a nonbank financial company has, but also on the importance of that nonbank financial company to its counterparties and the extent to which the counterparties are interconnected with other financial firms, the financial system and the broader economy. The Council's assessment of interconnectedness is intended to determine whether a nonbank financial company's exposure to its counterparties would pose a threat to U.S. financial stability if that company encountered material financial distress.
For example, metrics that may be used to assess interconnectedness include:
Counterparties' exposures to a nonbank financial company, including derivatives, reinsurance, loans, securities borrowing and lending, and lines of credit that facilitate settlement and clearing activities.
Number, size, and financial strength of a nonbank financial company's counterparties, including the proportion of its counterparties' exposure to the nonbank financial company relative to the counterparties' capital.
Identity of a nonbank financial company's principal contractual counterparties, which reflects the concentration of the nonbank financial company's assets financed by particular firms and the importance of the nonbank financial company's counterparties to the market.
Aggregate amounts of a nonbank financial company's gross or net derivatives exposures and the number of its derivatives counterparties.
The amount of gross notional credit default swaps outstanding for which a nonbank financial company or its parent is the reference entity.
Total debt outstanding, which captures a nonbank financial company's sources of funding.
Reinsurance obligations, which measure the reinsurance risk assumed from non-affiliates net of retrocession.
Substitutability
Substitutability captures the extent to which other firms could provide similar financial services in a timely manner at a similar price and quantity if a nonbank financial company withdraws from a particular market. Substitutability also captures situations in which a nonbank financial company is the primary or dominant provider of services in a market that the Council determines to be essential to U.S. financial stability. An example of the manner in which the Council may determine a nonbank financial company's substitutability is to consider its market share. The Council's evaluation of a nonbank financial company's market share regarding a particular product or service will include assessments of the ability of the nonbank financial company's competitors to expand to meet market needs; the costs that market participants would incur if forced to switch providers; the timeframe within which a disruption in the provision of the product or service would materially affect market participants or market functioning; and the economic implications of such a disruption. Concern about a potential lack of substitutability could be greater if a nonbank financial company and its competitors are likely to experience stress at the same time because they are exposed to the same risks. The Council may also analyze a nonbank financial company's core operations and critical functions and the importance of those operations and functions to the U.S. financial system and assess how those operations and functions would be performed by the nonbank financial company or other market participants in the event of the nonbank financial company's material financial distress. The Council also intends to consider substitutability with respect to any nonbank financial company with global operations to identify the substitutability of critical market functions that the company provides in the United States in the event of material financial distress of a foreign parent company.
For example, metrics that may be used to assess substitutability include:
The market share, using the appropriate quantitative measure (such as loans originated, loans outstanding, and notional transaction volume) of a nonbank financial company and its competitors in the market under consideration.
The stability of market share across the firms in the market over time.
The market share of the company and its competitors for products or services that serve a substantially similar economic function as the primary market under consideration.
Size
Size captures the amount of financial services or financial intermediation that a nonbank financial company provides. Size also may affect the extent to which the effects of a nonbank financial company's financial distress are transmitted to other firms and to the financial system. For example, financial distress at an extremely large nonbank financial company that is highly interconnected likely would transmit risk on a larger scale than would financial distress at a smaller nonbank financial company that is similarly interconnected. Size is conventionally measured by the assets, liabilities and capital of the firm. However, such measures of size may not provide complete or accurate assessments of the scale of a nonbank financial company's risk potential. Thus, the Council also intends to take into account off-balance sheet assets and liabilities and assets under management in a manner that recognizes the unique and distinct nature of these classes. Other measures of size, such as numbers of customers and counterparties, may also be relevant.
For example, metrics that may be used to assess size include:
Total consolidated assets or liabilities, as determined under generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (``GAAP'') or the nonbank financial company's applicable financial reporting standards, depending on the availability of data and the stage of the determination process.
Total risk-weighted assets, as appropriate for different industry sectors.
Off-balance sheet exposures where a nonbank financial company has a risk of loss, including, for example, lines of credit. For foreign nonbank financial companies, this would be evaluated based on the extent and nature of U.S.-related off-balance sheet exposures.
The extent to which assets are managed rather than owned by a nonbank financial company and the extent to which ownership of assets under management is diffuse.
Direct written premiums, as reported by insurance companies. This is the aggregate of direct written premiums reported by insurance entities under all lines of business and serves as a proxy for the amount of insurance underwritten by the insurance entities.
Risk in force, which is the aggregate risk exposure from risk underwritten in insurance related to certain financial risks, such as mortgage insurance.
Total loan originations, by loan type, in number and dollar amount.
Leverage
Leverage captures a company's exposure or risk in relation to its equity capital. Leverage amplifies a company's risk of financial distress in two ways. First, by increasing a company's exposure relative to capital, leverage raises the likelihood that a company will suffer losses exceeding its capital. Second, by increasing the size of a company's liabilities, leverage raises a company's dependence on its creditors' willingness and ability to fund its balance sheet. Leverage can also amplify the impact of a company's distress on other companies, both directly, by increasing the amount of exposure that other firms have to the company, and indirectly, by increasing the size of any asset liquidation that the company is forced to undertake as it comes under financial pressure. Leverage can be measured by the ratio of assets to capital, but it can also be defined in terms of risk, as a measure of economic risk relative to capital. The latter measurement can better capture the effect of derivatives and other products with embedded leverage on the risk undertaken by a nonbank financial company.
For example, metrics that may be used to assess leverage include:
Total assets and total debt measured relative to total equity, which is intended to measure financial leverage.
Gross notional exposure of derivatives and off-balance sheet obligations relative to total equity or to net assets under management, which is intended to show how much off-balance sheet leverage a nonbank financial company may have.
The ratio of risk to statutory capital, which is relevant to certain insurance companies and is intended to show how much risk exposure a nonbank financial company has in relation to its ability to absorb loss.
Changes in leverage ratios, which may indicate that a nonbank financial company is rapidly increasing its risk profile.
Liquidity Risk and Maturity Mismatch
Liquidity risk generally refers to the risk that a company may not have sufficient funding to satisfy its short-term needs, either through its cash flows, maturing assets, or assets salable at prices equivalent to book value, or through its ability to access funding markets. For example, if a company holds assets that are illiquid or that are subject to significant decreases in market value during times of market stress, the company may be unable to liquidate its assets effectively in response to a loss of funding. In order to assess liquidity, the Council may examine a nonbank financial company's assets to determine if it possesses cash instruments or readily marketable securities, such as Treasury securities, which could reasonably be expected to have a liquid market in times of distress. The Council may also review a nonbank financial company's debt profile to determine if it has adequate long-term funding, or can otherwise mitigate liquidity risk. Liquidity problems also can arise from a company's inability to roll maturing debt or to satisfy margin calls, and from demands for additional collateral, depositor withdrawals, draws on committed lines, and other potential draws on liquidity.
A maturity mismatch generally refers to the difference between the maturities of a company's assets and liabilities. A maturity mismatch affects a company's ability to survive a period of stress that may limit its access to funding and to withstand shocks in the yield curve. For example, if a company relies on short-term funding to finance longer-term positions, it will be subject to significant refunding risk that may force it to sell assets at low market prices or potentially suffer through significant margin pressure. However, maturity mismatches are not confined to the use of short-term liabilities and can exist at any point in the maturity schedule of a nonbank financial company's assets and liabilities. For example, in the case of a life insurance company, liabilities may have maturities of 30 years or more, whereas the market availability of equivalently long-term assets may be limited, exposing the company to interest rate fluctuations and reinvestment risk.
For example, metrics that may be used to assess liquidity and maturity mismatch include:
Fraction of assets that are classified as level 2 and level 3 under applicable accounting standards, as a measure of how much of a nonbank financial company's balance sheet is composed of hard-to-value and potentially illiquid securities.
Liquid asset ratios, which are intended to indicate a nonbank financial company's ability to repay its short-term debt.
The ratio of unencumbered and highly liquid assets to the net cash outflows that a nonbank financial company could encounter in a short-term stress scenario.
Callable debt as a fraction of total debt, which provides one measure of a nonbank financial company's ability to manage its funding position in response to changes in interest rates.
Asset-backed funding versus other funding, to determine a nonbank financial company's susceptibility to distress in particular credit markets.
Asset-liability duration and gap analysis, which is intended to indicate how well a nonbank financial company is matching the re-pricing and maturity of the nonbank financial company's assets and liabilities.
Short-term debt as a percentage of total debt and as a percentage of total assets, which indicates a nonbank financial company's reliance on short-term debt markets.
Existing Regulatory Scrutiny
The Council will consider the extent to which nonbank financial companies are already subject to regulation, including the consistency of that regulation across nonbank financial companies within a sector, across different sectors, and providing similar services, and the statutory authority of those regulators.
For example, metrics that may be used to assess existing regulatory scrutiny include:
The extent of state or federal regulatory scrutiny, including processes or systems for peer review; inter-regulatory coordination and cooperation; and whether existing regulators have the ability to impose detailed and timely reporting obligations, capital and liquidity requirements, and enforcement actions, and to resolve the company.
Existence and effectiveness of consolidated supervision, and a determination of whether and how non-regulated entities and groups within a nonbank financial company are supervised on a group-wide basis.
For entities based outside the United States, the extent to which a nonbank financial company is subject to prudential standards on a consolidated basis in its home country that are administered and enforced by a comparable foreign supervisory authority.
III. The Determination Process
The Council expects generally to follow a three-stage process of increasingly in-depth evaluation and analysis leading up to a proposed determination (a ``Proposed Determination'') that a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States. Quantitative metrics, together with qualitative analysis, will inform the judgment of the Council when it is evaluating a nonbank financial company for a Proposed Determination. The purpose of this process is to help determine whether a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.
In the first stage of the process (``Stage 1''), a set of uniform quantitative metrics will be applied to a broad group of nonbank financial companies in order to identify nonbank financial companies for further evaluation and to provide clarity for nonbank financial companies that likely will not be subject to further evaluation. In Stage 1, the Council will rely solely on information available through existing public and regulatory sources. The purpose of Stage 1 is to enable the Council to identify a group of nonbank financial companies that are most likely to satisfy one of the Determination Standards.
In the second stage (``Stage 2''), the nonbank financial companies identified in Stage 1 will be analyzed and prioritized, based on a wide range of quantitative and qualitative information available to the Council primarily through public and regulatory sources. The Council will also begin the consultation process with the primary financial regulatory agencies or home country supervisors, as appropriate. As part of that consultation process, the Council intends to consult with the primary financial regulatory agency, if any, of each significant subsidiary of the nonbank financial company, to the extent the Council deems appropriate. The Council also intends to fulfill its statutory obligation to rely whenever possible on information available through the Office of Financial Research (the ``OFR''), member agencies, or the nonbank financial company's primary financial regulatory agencies before requiring the submission of reports from any nonbank financial company.\4\---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 12 U.S.C. 5322(d)(3).---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following Stage 2, nonbank financial companies that are selected for additional review will receive notice that they are being considered for a Proposed Determination and will be subject to in-depth evaluation during the third stage of review (``Stage 3''). Stage 3 will involve the evaluation of information collected directly from the nonbank financial company, in addition to the information considered during Stages 1 and 2. At the end of Stage 3, the Council may consider whether to make a Proposed Determination with respect to the nonbank financial company. If a Proposed Determination is made by the Council, the nonbank financial company may request a hearing in accordance with section 113(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act and Sec. 1310.21(c) of the Council's rule.\5\---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 12 CFR 1310.21(c).---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council expects to follow this three-stage process and to consider the categories, metrics, thresholds, and channels described in this guidance to assess a nonbank financial company's potential to pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. In addition to the information described herein that the Council generally expects to consider, the Council also will consider quantitative and qualitative information that it deems relevant to a particular nonbank financial company, as each determination will be made on a company-specific basis. The Council may consider any nonbank financial company for a Proposed Determination at any point in the three-stage evaluation process described in this guidance if the Council believes such company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability.
a. Stage 1: Initial Identification of Nonbank Financial Companies for
Evaluation
In Stage 1, the Council will seek to identify a set of nonbank financial companies that merit company-specific evaluation. In this stage, the Council intends to apply quantitative thresholds to a broad group of nonbank financial companies. A nonbank financial company that is selected for further evaluation during Stage 1 will be assessed during Stage 2. During the Stage 1 process, the Council will evaluate nonbank financial companies using only data available to the Council, such as publicly available information and information member agencies possess in their supervisory capacities.
In the Stage 1 quantitative analysis, the Council intends to apply thresholds that relate to the framework categories of size, interconnectedness, leverage, and liquidity risk and maturity mismatch. These thresholds were selected based on (1) their applicability to nonbank financial companies that operate in different types of financial markets and industries, (2) the meaningful initial assessment that such thresholds provide regarding the potential for a nonbank financial company to pose a threat to financial stability in diverse financial markets, and (3) the current availability of data. These thresholds are intended to measure both the susceptibility of a nonbank financial company to financial distress and the potential for that nonbank financial company's financial distress to spread throughout the financial system. A nonbank financial company will be evaluated further in Stage 2 if it meets both the total consolidated assets threshold and any one of the other thresholds.\6\ The thresholds are:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ While the Council expects that its determinations under section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act will be with respect to individual legal entities, the Council has authority to assess nonbank financial companies, and their relationships with other nonbank financial companies and market participants, in a manner that addresses the statutory considerations and such other factors as the Council deems appropriate. For example, for purposes of applying the six thresholds to investment funds (including private equity firms and hedge funds), the Council may consider the aggregate risks posed by separate funds that are managed by the same adviser, particularly if the funds' investments are identical or highly similar. In performing this analysis, the Council may use data reported on Form PF with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Consolidated Assets. The Council intends to apply a size threshold of $50 billion in total consolidated assets. This threshold is consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act threshold of $50 billion in assets for subjecting bank holding companies to enhanced prudential standards.
Credit Default Swaps Outstanding. The Council intends to apply a threshold of $30 billion in gross notional credit default swaps (``CDS'') outstanding for which a nonbank financial company is the reference entity. Gross notional value equals the sum of CDS contracts bought (or equivalently sold). If the amount of CDS sold on a particular nonbank financial company is greater than $30 billion, this indicates that a large number of institutions may be exposed to that nonbank financial company and that if the nonbank financial company fails, a significant number of financial market participants may be affected. This threshold was selected based on an analysis of the distribution of outstanding CDS data for nonbank financial companies included in a list of the top 1,000 CDS reference entities.
Derivative Liabilities. The Council intends to apply a threshold of $3.5 billion of derivative liabilities. Derivative liabilities equal the fair value of derivative contracts in a negative position. For nonbank financial companies that disclose the effects of master netting agreements and cash collateral held with the same counterparty on a net basis, the Council intends to calculate derivative liabilities after taking into account the effects of these arrangements. This threshold serves as a proxy for interconnectedness, as a nonbank financial company that has a greater level of derivative liabilities would have higher counterparty exposure throughout the financial system.
Total Debt Outstanding. The Council intends to apply a threshold of $20 billion in total debt outstanding. The Council will define total debt outstanding broadly and regardless of maturity to include loans (whether secured or unsecured), bonds, repurchase agreements, commercial paper, securities lending arrangements, surplus notes (for insurance companies), and other forms of indebtedness. This threshold serves as a proxy for interconnectedness, as nonbank financial companies with a large amount of outstanding debt are generally more interconnected with the broader financial system, in part because financial institutions hold a large proportion of outstanding debt. An analysis of the distribution of debt outstanding for a sample of nonbank financial companies was performed to determine the $20 billion threshold. Historical testing of this threshold demonstrated that it would have captured many of the nonbank financial companies that encountered material financial distress during the financial crisis in 2007-2008, including Bear Stearns, Countrywide, and Lehman Brothers.
Leverage Ratio. The Council intends to apply a threshold leverage ratio of total consolidated assets (excluding separate accounts) to total equity of 15 to 1. The Council intends to exclude separate accounts from this calculation because separate accounts are not available to claims by general creditors of a nonbank financial company. Measuring leverage in this manner benefits from simplicity, availability and comparability across industries. An analysis of the distribution of the historical leverage ratios of large financial institutions was used to identify the 15 to 1 threshold. Historical testing of this threshold demonstrated that it would have captured the major nonbank financial companies that encountered material financial distress and posed a threat to U.S. financial stability during the financial crisis, including Bear Stearns, Countrywide, IndyMac Bancorp, and Lehman Brothers.
Short-Term Debt Ratio. The Council intends to apply a threshold ratio of total debt outstanding (as defined above) with a maturity of less than 12 months to total consolidated assets (excluding separate accounts) of 10 percent. An analysis of the historical distribution of the short-term debt ratios of large financial institutions was used to determine the 10 percent threshold. Historical testing of this threshold demonstrated that it would have captured a number of the nonbank financial companies that faced short-term funding issues during the financial crisis, including Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.
The Council intends generally to apply the Stage 1 thresholds using GAAP when such information is available. If GAAP information with respect to a nonbank financial company is not available, the Council may rely on data reported under statutory accounting principles, international financial reporting standards, or such other data as are available to the Council.
For purposes of evaluating any U.S. nonbank financial company, the Council intends to apply each of the Stage 1 thresholds based on the global assets, liabilities and operations of the company and its subsidiaries. In contrast, for purposes of evaluating any foreign nonbank financial company, the Council intends to calculate the Stage 1 thresholds based solely on the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of the foreign nonbank financial company and its subsidiaries.
The Council intends to reapply the Stage 1 thresholds to nonbank financial companies using the most recently available data on a quarterly basis, or less frequently for nonbank financial companies with respect to which quarterly data are unavailable.
The Council intends to review the appropriateness of both the Stage 1 thresholds and the levels of the thresholds that are specified in dollars as needed, but at least every five years, and to adjust the thresholds and levels as the Council may deem advisable.
The Stage 1 thresholds are intended to identify nonbank financial companies for further evaluation by the Council and to help a nonbank financial company predict whether such company will be subject to additional review. Because the uniform quantitative thresholds may not capture all types of nonbank financial companies and all of the potential ways in which a nonbank financial company could pose a threat to financial stability, the Council may initially evaluate any nonbank financial company based on other firm-specific qualitative or quantitative factors, irrespective of whether such company meets the thresholds in Stage 1.
A nonbank financial company that is identified for further evaluation in Stage 1 would be further assessed during Stage 2 (the ``Stage 2 Pool'').
b. Stage 2: Review and Prioritization of Stage 2 Pool
After the Stage 2 Pool has been identified, the Council intends to conduct a robust analysis of the potential threat that each of those nonbank financial companies could pose to U.S. financial stability. In general, this analysis will be based on information already available to the Council through existing public and regulatory sources, including information possessed by the company's primary financial regulatory agency or home country supervisor, as appropriate, and information voluntarily submitted by the company. In contrast to the application of uniform quantitative thresholds to a broad group of nonbank financial companies in Stage 1, the Council intends to evaluate the risk profile and characteristics of each individual nonbank financial company in the Stage 2 Pool based on a wide range of quantitative and qualitative industry-specific and company-specific factors. This analysis will use the six-category analytic framework described in section II.d above. In addition, the Stage 2 evaluation will include a review, based on available data, of qualitative factors, including whether the resolution of a nonbank financial company, as described below, could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability, and the extent to which the nonbank financial company is subject to regulation.
Based on this analysis, the Council intends to contact those nonbank financial companies that the Council believes merit further evaluation in Stage 3 (the ``Stage 3 Pool'').
c. Stage 3: Review of Stage 3 Pool
In Stage 3, the Council, working with the OFR, will conduct a review of each nonbank financial company in the Stage 3 Pool using information collected directly from the nonbank financial company, as well as the information used in the first two stages. The review will focus on whether the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to U.S. financial stability because of the company's material financial distress or the nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the activities of the company. The transmission channels discussed above, and other appropriate factors, will be used to evaluate a nonbank financial company's potential to pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. The analytic framework consisting of the six categories set forth above, and the metrics used to measure each of the six categories, will assist the Council in assessing the extent to which the transmission of material financial distress is likely to occur.
Each nonbank financial company in the Stage 3 Pool will receive a notice (a ``Notice of Consideration'') that the nonbank financial company is under consideration for a Proposed Determination. The Notice of Consideration likely will include a request that the nonbank financial company provide information that the Council deems relevant to the Council's evaluation, and the nonbank financial company will be provided an opportunity to submit written materials to the Council.\7\ This information will generally be collected by the OFR.\8\ Before requiring the submission of reports from any nonbank financial company that is regulated by a member agency or any primary financial regulatory agency, the Council, acting through the OFR, will coordinate with such agencies and will, whenever possible, rely on information available from the OFR or such agencies. Council members and their agencies and staffs will maintain the confidentiality of such information in accordance with applicable law.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See section 1310.21(a) of the rule.
\8\ Under section 112(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, if the Council is unable to determine whether a U.S. nonbank financial company poses a threat to U.S. financial stability based on such information, the Council may request that the Board of Governors conduct an examination of the nonbank financial company to determine whether it should be supervised by the Board of Governors.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information requests likely will involve both qualitative and quantitative data. Information relevant to the Council's analysis may include confidential business information such as internal assessments, internal risk management procedures, funding details, counterparty exposure or position data, strategic plans, resolvability, potential acquisitions or dispositions, and other anticipated changes to the nonbank financial company's business or structure that could affect the threat to U.S. financial stability posed by the nonbank financial company.
In evaluating qualitative factors during Stage 3, the Council expects to have access, to a greater degree than during earlier stages of review, to information relating to factors that are not easily quantifiable or that may not directly cause a company to pose a threat to financial stability, but could mitigate or aggravate the potential of a nonbank financial company to pose a threat to the United States. Such factors may include the opacity of the nonbank financial company's operations, its complexity, and the extent to which it is subject to existing regulatory scrutiny and the nature of such scrutiny.
The Stage 3 analysis will also include an evaluation of a nonbank financial company's resolvability, which may mitigate or aggravate the potential of a nonbank financial company to pose a threat to U.S. financial stability. An evaluation of a nonbank financial company's resolvability entails an assessment of the complexity of the nonbank financial company's legal, funding, and operational structure, and any obstacles to the rapid and orderly resolution of the nonbank financial company in a manner that would mitigate the risk that the nonbank financial company's failure would have a material adverse effect on financial stability. In addition to the factors described above, a nonbank financial company's resolvability is also a function of legal entity and cross-border operations issues. These factors include the ability to separate functions and spin off services or business lines; the likelihood of preserving franchise value in a recovery or resolution scenario, and of maintaining continuity of critical services within the existing or in a new legal entity or structure; the degree of the nonbank financial company's intra-group dependency for liquidity and funding, payment operation, and risk management needs; and the size and nature of the nonbank financial company's intra-group transactions.
The Council anticipates that the information necessary to conduct an in-depth analysis of a particular nonbank financial company may vary significantly based on the nonbank financial company's business and activities and the information already available to the Council from existing public sources and domestic or foreign regulatory authorities. The Council will also consult with the primary financial regulatory agency, if any, for each nonbank financial company or subsidiary of a nonbank financial company under consideration in a timely manner before the Council makes any final determination with respect to such nonbank financial company, and with appropriate foreign regulatory authorities, to the extent appropriate.
Before making a Proposed Determination, the Council intends to notify each nonbank financial company in the Stage 3 Pool when the Council believes that the evidentiary record regarding such nonbank financial company is complete.
Based on the analysis performed in Stages 2 and 3, a nonbank financial company will be considered for a Proposed Determination. Before a vote of the Council with respect to a particular nonbank financial company, the Council members will review information relevant to the consideration of the nonbank financial company for a Proposed Determination. After this review, the Council may, by a vote of two-thirds of its members (including an affirmative vote of the Council Chairperson), make a Proposed Determination with respect to the nonbank financial company. Following a Proposed Determination, the Council intends to issue a written notice of the Proposed Determination to the nonbank financial company, which will include an explanation of the basis of the Proposed Determination. The Council expects to notify any nonbank financial company in the Stage 3 Pool if the nonbank financial company, either before or after a Proposed Determination of such nonbank financial company, ceases to be considered for determination. Any nonbank financial company that ceases to be considered at any time in the Council's determination process may be considered for a Proposed Determination in the future at the Council's discretion.
A nonbank financial company that is subject to a Proposed Determination may request a nonpublic hearing to contest the Proposed Determination in accordance with section 113(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act. If the nonbank financial company requests a hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in Sec. 1310.21(c) of the Council's rule,\9\ the Council will set a time and place for such hearing. The Council will (after a hearing, if a hearing is requested), determine by a vote of two-thirds of the voting members of the Council (including the affirmative vote of the Chairperson) whether to subject such company to supervision by the Board of Governors and prudential standards. The Council will provide the nonbank financial company with written notice of the Council's final determination, including an explanation of the basis for the Council's decision. When practicable and consistent with the purposes of the determination process, the Council intends to provide a nonbank financial company with a notice of a final determination at least one business day before publicly announcing the determination pursuant to Sec. 1310.21(d)(3), Sec. 1310.21(e)(3) or Sec. 1310.22(d)(3) of the Council's rule.\10\ The Council does not intend to publicly announce the name of any nonbank financial company that is under evaluation for a determination prior to a final determination with respect to such company. In accordance with section 113(h) of the Dodd-Frank Act, a nonbank financial company that is subject to a final determination may bring an action in U.S. district court for an order requiring that the determination be rescinded.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See 12 CFR 1310.21(c).
\10\ See 12 CFR 1310.21(d)(3), 1310.21(e)(3) and 1310.22(d)(3).---------------------------------------------------------------------------