Search Penny Hill Press

Monday, September 30, 2013

U.S. Implementation of the Basel Capital Regulatory Framework


Darryl E. Getter
Specialist in Financial Economics


The Basel III international regulatory framework, which was produced in 2010 by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision at the Bank for International Settlements, is the latest in a series of evolving agreements among central banks and bank supervisory authorities to standardize bank capital requirements, among other measures. Capital serves as a cushion against unanticipated financial shocks (such as a sudden, unusually high occurrence of loan defaults), which can otherwise lead to insolvency. The Basel III regulatory reform package revises the definition of regulatory capital and increases capital holding requirements for banking organizations. The quantitative requirements and phase-in schedules for Basel III were approved by the 27 member jurisdictions and 44 central banks and supervisory authorities on September 12, 2010, and endorsed by the G20 leaders on November 12, 2010. Basel III recommends that banks fully satisfy these enhanced requirements by 2019. The Basel agreements are not treaties; individual countries can make modifications to suit their specific needs and priorities when implementing national bank capital requirements.

In the United States, Congress mandated enhanced bank capital requirements as part of financialsector reform in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act; P.L. 111-203, 124 Stat.1376). Specifically, the Collins Amendment to Dodd- Frank amends the definition of capital and establishes minimum capital and leverage requirements for banking subsidiaries, bank holding companies, and systemically important nonbank financial companies. In addition, Dodd-Frank removes a requirement that credit ratings be referenced when evaluating the creditworthiness of financial securities. Instead, the U.S. federal banking regulators (i.e., the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) are required to find other appropriate standards by which to determine the financial risks of bank portfolio holdings when enforcing the mandatory capital requirements.

This report summarizes the higher capital requirements for U.S. banks regulated for safety and soundness. The U.S. federal banking regulators announced the final rules for implementation of Basel II.5 on June 7, 2012, and for the implementation of Basel III on July 9, 2013. Although higher capital requirements for most U.S. banking firms may reduce the insolvency risk of the deposit insurance fund, which is maintained by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, it arguably could translate into more expensive or less available bank credit for borrowers. Whether higher capital requirements would result in a reduction of overall lending or systemic risk remains unclear. Prior to the financial crisis, banks maintained capital levels that exceeded the minimum regulatory requirements, yet the economy still saw widespread lending. Bank capital reserves also may have limited effectiveness as a systemic risk mitigation tool if a significant amount of lending occurs outside of the regulated banking system. For an introduction to some of the topics covered in this report, see CRS Report R43002, Financial Condition of Depository Banks, by Darryl E. Getter.


Date of Report: September 16, 2013
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: R42744
Price: $29.95



To Order:

R42744.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART


e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Friday, September 27, 2013

The FHA Single-Family Mortgage Insurance Program: Financial Status and Related Current Issues


Katie Jones
Analyst in Housing Policy

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insures home mortgages made by private lenders against the possibility that the borrower will default, or not repay the mortgage as promised. If the borrower defaults, FHA pays the lender the remaining principal amount owed. By insuring lenders against the possibility of borrower default, FHA is intended to expand access to mortgage credit to households who might not otherwise be able to obtain a mortgage at an affordable interest rate or at all, such as those with smaller downpayments or weaker credit histories. FHA also traditionally plays a countercyclical role in the mortgage market. That is, it generally insures more mortgages during periods when lenders and private mortgage insurers tighten their lending standards and reduce activity in response to market conditions, and it generally insures fewer mortgages at times when lenders and private mortgage insurers make mortgage credit more easily available.

When an FHA-insured mortgage goes to foreclosure, the lender files a claim with FHA for the remaining amount owed on the mortgage. Claims on FHA-insured loans are paid out of the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMI Fund), which is funded through fees paid by borrowers, rather than through appropriations. However, if FHA were ever unable to pay claims that it owed, it can draw on permanent and indefinite budget authority with the U.S. Treasury to pay those claims without additional congressional action.

In recent years, increased foreclosure rates, as well as economic factors such as falling house prices, have contributed to an increase in expected losses on FHA-insured loans. This increase in expected losses has put pressure on the MMI Fund and reduced the amount of resources that FHA has on hand to pay for additional, unexpected future losses. This has led to concern that FHA may need to draw on its permanent and indefinite budget authority for funds from Treasury to hold in reserve to pay for these higher expected future losses, or, eventually, to pay insurance claims.

An annual actuarial review of the MMI Fund released in November 2012 showed that, according to current estimates, FHA does not currently have enough funds on hand to cover all of its expected future losses on the loans that it currently insures. The results of this actuarial review heightened concerns that FHA could need funds from Treasury. However, whether FHA actually needs to draw funds from Treasury is determined by the annual budget process, not by the actuarial review. The President’s FY2014 budget request included $943 million for the MMI Fund, which would mark the first time that FHA has needed funds from Treasury for its singlefamily programs. FHA has until the end of FY2013 to draw the funds, and the final amount needed could be impacted by changes during the fiscal year.

FHA faces an inherent tension between protecting its financial health and fulfilling its mission of facilitating access to mortgages. FHA has recently proposed or implemented a number of changes to its single-family mortgage insurance program that are intended to minimize risk to the MMI Fund while still allowing FHA to support the mortgage market and ensure access to affordable mortgages. These changes have included increasing the fees that it charges to borrowers for insurance, modifying its underwriting criteria, and taking steps to increase oversight of lenders who make FHA-insured loans. While many of these changes were made administratively by FHA, some involved congressional action. Congress has also considered, and continues to consider, additional legislation aimed at protecting the financial health of the MMI Fund. 
.


Date of Report: September 9, 2013
Number of Pages: 47
Order Number: R42875
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R42875.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Unemployment Insurance: Legislative Issues in the 113th Congress


Julie M. Whittaker
Specialist in Income Security

Katelin P. Isaacs
Analyst in Income Security


The 113
th Congress may face a number of issues related to currently available unemployment insurance programs: Unemployment Compensation (UC), temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08), and Extended Benefits (EB). With the national unemployment rate decreasing but still high, the weekly demand for extended unemployment benefits continues at elevated levels. Congress deliberated multiple times on whether to extend the authorization for several key temporary unemployment insurance provisions in the 112th Congress and may do so again in the 113th Congress. The signing of P.L. 112-240 on January 2, 2013, now means that the EUC08 program expires the week ending on or before January 1, 2014. The 100% federal financing of the EB program expires on December 31, 2013. In addition, the option for states to use three-year EB trigger lookbacks (the period of time considered in determining an active EB program within a state) expires the week ending on or before December 31, 2013.

The 113
th Congress will face these expirations as well as likely unemployment insurance policy issues, including unemployment insurance financing, integrity measures, and the appropriate length and availability of unemployment benefits.

This report provides a brief overview of the three unemployment insurance programs—UC, EUC08, and EB—that may currently pay benefits to eligible unemployed workers. This report contains a brief explanation of how the EUC08 program, as well as some other UC-related payments, began to experience reductions in benefits as a result of the sequester order contained within the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).

This report also includes descriptions of the unemployment insurance provisions within H.R. 51, H.R. 188, H.R. 1172, H.R. 1229, H.R. 1277, H.R. 1502, H.R. 1530, H.R. 1617, H.R. 2177, H.R. 2448, H.R. 2821, H.R. 2826, H.R. 2889, S. 18, S. 803, and S. 1099, as well as the President’s Budget Proposal for FY2014. 


Date of Report: September 5, 2013
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: R42936
Price: $29.95


To Order:
 
R42936.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART



e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Inflation and the Real Minimum Wage: A Fact Sheet


Craig K. Elwell
Specialist in Macroeconomic Policy

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 established the hourly minimum wage rate at 25 cents for covered workers.
1 Since then, it has been raised 22 separate times, in part to keep up with rising prices. Most recently, in July 2009, it was increased to $7.25 an hour. Because there have been some extended periods between these adjustments while inflation generally has increased, the real value (purchasing power) of the minimum wage has decreased substantially over time.


Date of Report: September 12, 2013
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: R42973
Price: $19.95




To Order:

 
R42973.pdf   to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART



e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.