FORTUNE -- The Federal Reserve voted Tuesday to approve rules that will require banks to hold more capital against the loans they make or risky assets they buy. The rules, proposed in the Dodd-Frank banking reform law, are a result of the financial crisis, when a number of banks didn't have enough capital to cover their bad loans, and had to be bailed out by the government.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment for proponents of banking reform rules will be the fact that mortgages and mortgage bonds will get roughly the same treatment under the new rules as they did before the financial crisis. The Fed had initially proposed that banks be required to hold more capital against loans that were deemed to be riskier, mostly measured by the size of a borrower's downpayment. But a number of bankers complained this would restrict mortgage lending and hurt the housing recovery.
The Fed's final proposal sticks with its old rules for mortgages. But a Fed official said banks would essentially be required to hold more capital against mortgage loans, because the new rules require banks to hold more capital to cover all losses. And that includes mortgages. Still, hypothetically under the new rules, a bank making a $200,000 subprime mortgage would have to hold just $7,000 to cover the possibility of the home loan going unpaid.
The new rules would require banks to raise an additional $4.5 billion of capital, according to the Fed's analysis, by the time the regulations go into effect in early 2015. The Fed did not say which banks would need to raise capital, though it's widely believed that most of the banks that don't currently comply with the rules are relatively small. According to the Fed, 95% of the nation's banks with $10 billion in assets or more had enough capital to meet the new minimum requirements. Citigroup (C), the smallest of the nation's largest four banks, has assets worth $1.3 trillion.
Perhaps the biggest rule change is a new supplementary capital requirement that will test how much capital banks hold against all their assets, including derivatives. That would include credit default swaps, the bond insurance-like contracts that swamped insurer AIG (AIG), and are generally believed to have made the financial crisis worse.
In the past, derivatives have been largely excluded from the capital rules in the U.S. but European bank regulators have previously included some derivatives in their calculations. The new rules would require banks to hold enough capital to cover a 3% drop in all their assets, which includes loans, any stocks and bonds or other investment they may hold, as well as derivatives. The rules generally follow the so-called Basel III banking requirements that were proposed by international banking regulators a few years ago.
Last month, FDIC vice chairman Thomas Hoenig said that if derivatives were included in the capital rule calculations, a number of large international banks would fall short of what was needed. The only U.S. bank that Hoenig felt wouldn't meet the requirements was Morgan Stanley (MS), which, according to Hoenig's calculation, had enough capital to cover only a 2.55% drop in its total assets. Swiss bank UBS (UBS) and French banks Credit Agricole (CRARY), and Societe Generale (SCGLY) also came up short. But Hoenig's calculations only factored in so-called tangible capital, excluding assets that banks count on their balance sheet, but are hard to sell. The new rules appear to give banks credit for those types of capital in the Fed's calculations.
Excluding derivatives, banks would have to hold enough capital to cover a 4% drop in their remaining assets -- generally called the leverage ratio. That's less than the 6% some had recently speculated the Fed would require. According to a recent report from Goldman Sachs, nearly all of the nation's largest banks would be able to meet the 4% threshold. Only Bank of New York (BK) would fall below that level with 3.9%. Morgan Stanley was the next lowest bank, with a leverage ratio of 4.5%.
The New York Fed dropped the ball during the Libor scandal. Could it happen again?
By Sheila Bair, contributor
FORTUNE – A lot of fingers are pointing in a lot of directions in the Libor price-fixing affair. Tim Geithner is pointing his finger at the Bank of England. Republicans in Congress are pointing their fingers at Geithner. The big banks are pointing their fingers at one another. But one party to MOREAug 17, 2012 5:00 AM ET
The ratings changes might further consolidate Wall Street's riskiest business into the hands of JPMorgan and Goldman.
Fortune -- There's plenty of irony in the Moody's downgrade of big U.S. banks. But here's the biggest one: The lower ratings, which acknowledge that banks aren't as safe as we thought they were, might actually make the banks riskier.
In one sense, the downgrades will do something that regulations have yet to accomplish. They'll MOREStephen Gandel, senior editor - Jun 22, 2012 12:27 PM ET
Could a Greek default ripple through the U.S. financial system?
It seems like a long shot. U.S. banks hold just $7.3 billion in loans to Greece and numbers disclosed by Bank of America (BAC), for instance, show a Greek government default would barely dent quarterly profits, such as they are.
Yet no one can safely predict that a Greek default would be contained. For this we can thank the risk-hiding magic of MOREColin Barr - Jun 9, 2011 6:25 AM ET
Wall Street banks are lining up against a derivatives regulation in the Dodd-Frank Act. Teaming up with Republicans, they may prove that procrastination ultimately prevails.
By Cyrus Sanati, contributor
FORTUNE -- Nearly a year after passage of the landmark Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, the battle over the future of financial regulation in the United States continues in the lobbies of Washington. Major provisions of the law, most notably those connected with MOREJun 6, 2011 10:23 AM ET
As regulators start to scrutinize the proposed combination of the NYSE and the Deutsche Börse, they'll need to take into account much more than just equity trading.
By Cyrus Sanati, contributor
The battle for the soul of Wall Street continues as the fate of the New York Stock Exchange remains up in the air. The NYSE's tentative $10 billion sale to Germany's Deutsche Börse will need to pass through a regulatory gauntlet MOREMar 2, 2011 10:13 AM ET
Score one for Warren Buffett in his crusade against the financial world's worship of mathematical mumbo jumbo.
One of Buffett's most controversial bets -- a bubble-era wager on the long-term value of stock market indexes, using tools he once scorned as "weapons of financial mass destruction" -- started to pay off in the fourth quarter.
Berkshire (BRKA) posted a $222 million gain after its trading counterparty asked to unwind eight derivatives contracts MOREColin Barr - Feb 26, 2011 7:57 AM ET
The nation's top antitrust cop urged regulators to stiffen derivatives trading rules -- or risk having giant banks join up to make a mockery of financial reform.
The Justice Department said Tuesday that rulemaking proposals floated this fall by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission "may not sufficiently protect and promote competition in the industry."
Justice took issue with how the SEC and CFTC would restrict Wall Street ownership MOREColin Barr - Dec 29, 2010 1:27 PM ET
Richard Bookstaber, adviser to the SEC on risk, discusses how to regulate it, how Wall Street ran amok, and what needs to happen to make markets work.
By Nancy Miller, contributor
Richard Bookstaber, veteran Wall Street risk manager and hedge fund manager, made a splash on the eve of the financial meltdown with the publication of Demon of Our Own Design, a book that warned the markets had grown too complex and MOREDec 23, 2010 5:00 AM ET
Chalk up another vote against Blanche Lincoln's crackdown on the financial weapons of mass destruction.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said in a speech in Washington Tuesday that the regulatory reform bill passed by the Senate last week "goes too far" in proposing to bar the biggest banks from dealing in derivatives.
Five bank holding companies -- JPMorgan Chase (JPM), Bank of America (BAC), Goldman Sachs (GS), Citigroup (C) and Morgan Stanley (MS) MOREColin Barr - May 25, 2010 4:58 PM ET
|America's economic mobility myth|
|Snowden docs had NYTimes exec fearing for his life|
|Tech firms call on U.S. to reform spying activities|
|2 million Facebook, Gmail and Twitter passwords stolen in massive hack|
|Where should you put your money now?|