Vanguard Speaks Out Against New Approach to Financial Risk

News July 31, 2023 at 10:06 AM
Share & Print

The Vanguard Group is warning the Financial Stability Oversight Council that applying the same, one-size-fits-all risk management rules to all types of financial services companies could backfire, by increasing the odds that different types of companies will crash at the same time.

Vanguard talks about the dangers of promoting regulatory "groupthink" in a letter it sent to FSOC last week, in a response to FSOC efforts to regain the ability to take over specific potentially risky nonbank financial services companies quickly.

Vanguard says FSOC seems to be moving toward replacing the different sets of solvency rules that regulators have developed for insurers, housing finance providers and other nonbank financial firms with one set of rules based on the Federal Reserve regulations for banks

That could "lead to increased correlation of risk management practices," Vanguard says. "Relying on a single, even if Federal Reserve-approved, risk management approach may increase the likelihood of herding behavior. This is a suboptimal way to mitigate macroprudential risk."

What It Means

Vanguard and its competitors have helped you convince your clients that diversification is a good approach to retirement planning.

Now, they're trying to sell FSOC on the idea that diversification might also help with financial system risk management.

The Background

Congress put the statutory language creating FSOC in the Dodd-Frank Act, in an effort to keep the kind of complicated, previously obscure financial system problems that nearly crashed the world financial system in 2008 from cropping up in the future.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is the chair of FSOC.

FSOC also includes heads of agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a voting member with insurance expertise, the head of the Treasury Department's Federal Insurance Office, and a representative from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Federal bank regulators already had the goal to swoop in and manage risk when a bank seemed to be likely to fail. One of FSOC's goals was to find a way to identify nonbanks as "systemically important financial institutions" (or SIFIs) and to give the Federal Reserve Board the ability to apply some of the same discipline they applied to banks to nonbank SIFIs.

FSOC began by taking an aggressive approach to identifying SIFIs. The SIFIs quickly escaped SIFI designations by taking steps such as restructuring their operations or going to court.

In 2019, FSOC agreed to back away from aggressive SIFI designation efforts; defer to nonbanks' primary regulators, when possible; and to emphasize the regulation of potentially risky activities rather than oversight over specific companies.

Originally, FSOC was going to set a June 27 deadline for comments. It then responded to commenters' requests for more time by pushing the deadline back to July 28.

Reactions

Some financial planning, consumer and investor organizations, such as Public Citizen and Better Markets, agreed with the FSOC in terms of its need to have the flexibility see problems at any kind of financial services company and act before the company's problems bring the U.S. financial system to the brink of collapse.

The American Council of Life Insurers, a group of insurers represented by The Insurance Coalition and even some federal financial services regulators argue that FSOC's proposed changes could add risk, by subjecting insurers, mutual fund managers and other nonbanks to costly, poorly fitting rules.

In 2008, for example, problems at AIG's derivatives operations led to a bailout that cost the U.S. federal government $185 billion, according to Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets.

"An 'entity-based' determination process is required to protect the U.S. economy and U.S. taxpayers from surprises like AIG," Kelleher says.

Public Citizen and Americans for Financial Reform are praising the FSOC proposal and asking FSOC to build climate change into the framework for addressing systemic risk at nonbank financial companies.

But a group of four federal regulators — including Hester Peirce, an SEC commissioner who was appointed by former President Donald Trump; Mark Uyeda, an SEC commissioner appointed by President Biden; and Summer Mersinger and Caroline Pham, who are both Commodity Futures Trading Commission members appointed by Biden — said they believe that an entities-based approach could distort the financial services markets.

"A systemic risk designation can increase moral hazard in the markets by identifying a particular firm as being too important to fail," the SEC and CFTC commissioners write in their letter.

Representatives for the American Council of Life Insurers say the mere possibility that some entities could be subject to an array of yet-to-be-developed Federal Reserve "prudential" standards, or risk management standards, "would create uncertainty about the viability of business models, products and reinsurance arrangements."

"These dynamics could have adverse and unintended consequences for customers," the ACLI warns.

Fidelity Investment says applying bank risk management rules to other financial companies is unwise because nonbanks perform different functions and do not generally agree to protect customers against all credit risk, market risk and liquidity risk.

BlackRock has supplemented its comment letter with an appendix that provides a listing of recent fund manager and fund failures, with the date of the event; the entity's assets under management in the year of the event; the current AUM figure, if known; and the outcome of the event.

Credit: Shutterstock

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center