CECL Analyst: If You Want to Pass a CECL Audit, Be Sure to Show Your Work
Newswatch recently talked with Atul Nepal, a Quantitative Analyst at MountainView Financial Solutions, a Situs company, about the impact of the current expected credit losses (CECL) standard, which was issued in 2016 and will begin to go into effect in 2020.
(1) What is the best model to use for small financial institutions? What about larger institutions?
For any size institution, the best model to use will largely be dependent upon the institution’s data availability. If a financial institution has significant data (volume and quality), that institution will have more modeling options and will be able to segment loan pools for a more granular loan-level analysis. Conversely, a very small institution may not have enough data for an analysis to be statistically relevant and will need to look at testing multiple methodologies and seek out supplemental data for missing historical loss data for each of the asset types. Each methodology will have its own drawbacks, and data limitations may skew the estimate; therefore, institutions should apply multiple methods to identify which methodology will stand up to the scrutiny. While regulators do not provide prescriptive guidance, they have stated that they expect that most small, community institutions will require only simple modeling techniques.
Generally speaking, I can say that the better the data capture (the more robust and granular), the more sophisticated the modeling techniques an institution can use. This is not an exhaustive list, but small institutions may opt for techniques that are widely used for measuring impairments currently, such as discounted cash flow analysis, vintage analysis, static pool analysis or the average charge-off methods, while mid-sized and large institutions will find success with all of the above listed techniques plus roll rate, probability-of-default, and regression type analysis. Ultimately, you should be able to provide reasonable and supportable loss estimates using necessary methods that represents your institutional risk appetite.
(2) How can financial institutions be sure that their methodology will pass an audit?
Again, CECL is non-prescriptive so a lot of financial institutions have expressed concern about how auditors will assess their methodologies. That said, model and accounting audits are not new and there are a few things institutions should focus on based on other non-CECL audits. These include:
(3) If a financial institution did a lot of work with Dodd-Frank Annual Stress Testing (DFAST), how can it leverage that work for CECL?
Many institutions put significant effort into DFAST/CCAR, and there is absolutely an opportunity to put that hard work to good use in CECL. One of the many benefits that came out of DFAST/CCAR implementation is that most of the process had to be documented, validated and audited; therefore, the modeling structure, governance and assumptions used in DFAST/CCAR can also be used for CECL with some modification to account for effective life of portfolio. In fact, DFAST/CCAR institutions have an advantage over other institutions since they will know what to expect from an internal and external audit process to adjust the structural requirements needed to support CECL modeling.
In addition, DFAST/CCAR institutions used the stress testing exercise to capture data for credit modeling. They maintained a data warehouse to capture and vet significant amounts of data required for nine quarter projections. This has really established a great foundation to aggregate and manage historical data that can be used for CECL. Now, financial institutions that have gone through DFAST can build on that foundation and extend data warehousing to capture an effective life of assets as required under CECL.
Struggling to know which model to use? Contact Andrew Phillips at email@example.com today to discuss your CECL challenges.
Mortgage Rate Hike Not Detrimental to Housing Market
Rising mortgage rates are top of mind for the industry after the Federal Open Market Committee’s decision to raise the federal funds rate last week, but short-term rate changes matter little to the housing market, according to First American Financial Corp. Chief Economist Mark Fleming.
An increase in mortgage rates is actually a sign of a healthier economy, so growth in household income helps to offset the rise in rates. A much greater hurdle for homebuyers is limited home inventory, which is keeping potential homeowners out of the market and putting upward pressure on house values.
“Homebuyers can adjust to higher mortgage rates by substituting a lower adjustable-rate mortgage for the fixed-rate mortgage or buy a less expensive home. In other words, the housing market is flexible and can adjust to moderately higher mortgage rates without significant impact,” said Fleming.
Read more: National Mortgage News
BIS Wants Tighter Rules for Funds Offering Credit, Fintech
Regulations introduced after the financial crisis a decade ago to smooth out banking booms and busts should be extended to funds that provide credit, or shadow banks, and fintech firms, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) said earlier this week.
The introduction of “macroprudential” policy requiring banks to build up separate “countercyclical” buffers of capital if credit markets become frothy was a core crisis-era innovation.
The buffers can be released if loans begin turning sour and maintain resilience of the financial system to shocks – a departure from the traditional “microprudential” focus on the stability of individual banks.
The BIS, a forum for the world’s central banks, said in its annual report that macroprudential tools devised so far might still not be effective enough in dealing with risks from other financiers, such asset management funds.
Read more: Reuters
U.S. Banks Could Boost Payouts by $30 Billion After Stress Tests
Harsher Federal Reserve stress tests this year won’t stop U.S. banks from increasing their payouts to shareholders.
As the annual review gets under way this week, the 25 largest lenders are gearing up to announce dividends and buybacks totaling roughly $30 billion more than last year, representing a 25 percent increase, according to analysts’ estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. are likely to distribute more than 100 percent of their profits in the next four quarters, according to the estimates. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley might not be so lucky. Their earnings are more closely linked to capital markets, which suffer more under the tougher macroeconomic scenario in this year’s test.
Read more: Bloomberg
Thank you for choosing the Situs Newswatch. If you want to see your company here or have an idea for coverage, please respond to this email or email firstname.lastname@example.org for more information.