It should come as no surprise when MetLife receives a proposed systemically risky financial institution(SIFI) designation when the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) meets July 31 in a closed session –if the decision is ready, whether or not people agree with it.
At least one other institution in consideration for a nonbank SIFI designation will also be discussed at the scheduled meeting, it appears from the FSOC notice.
There was a nonbank SIFI in Stage 2 (out of 3 stages before a designation is proposed) in late March, which could be a reinsurer like the behemoth Berkshire Hathaway, or an asset manager, like BlackRock, which also early on (2011) argued against its sector’s consideration by the FSOC. Yet, because the FSOC minutes show that the deputy director for financial stability in the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) provided an update on the status of the ongoing analysis of this nonbank financial company in Stage 2, a insurer or reinsurer could be under the microscope–although it could be an asset manager that owns an annuity company. Berkshire is expected by some to be named, along with other global reinsurers, a global systemically important reinsurer (G-SIR) in November by the Financial Stability Board. (FSB.)
For its part, MetLife has been meeting with Federal Reserve Board officials for at least two years as they have noted in presentations and filings, regulators and lawmakers have requested input on capital adequacy frameworks for insurers as an alternative to the Basel framework prescribed under the US Basel III final rule. met has been under consideration as a SIFI in stage 3 analysis for more than a year by the FSOC, where it came under review when it divested its bank holding company status. As such, it has been very familiar with Federal Reserve oversight and the onus of stress tests. Insurance-applicable capital standards have yet to be developed. All SIFIs will be subject to Basel III, and insurers are hoping for some insurance-centric adaptation.
What will be interesting, once the MetLife decision is released, will be the rationale used for determining MetLife’s proposed SIFI-hood, and the language of the dissent or dissents which could follow.
If a run on the bank scenario is not used as the starting culprit in the FSOC analysis, MetLife would still have to be shown to cause systemic risk in a failure if it were a SIFI. Its global position and leveraging, and enormous third party asset management arm, MetLife Investment Management, could conceivably be argued to cause any systemic risk problem more than the insurance operations. According to a snapshot profile, it it manages 12 accounts totaling an estimated $12.3 billion of assets under management with approximately 11 to 25 clients. It purchases commercial real estate. Asset managers are already being explored for their systemic risk.
There is a strong and lively camp that resolutely believes insurers are just not systemically risky. There are bills in the House, two approved by a panel, that would curtail FSOC’s SIFI designation process pending a review, allow certain members Congress and other agency officials to sit in on closed meetings, and new efforts this week to reform FSOC and the Office of Financial lResearch introduced by U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., Rep. John Delaney, D-Md, Spencer Bachus, R-AL., Kyrsten Sinema, D-Az., and Patrick Murphy, D-Fla.,
“Dodd-Frank turned four this week,” Ross stated. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly evident that aspects of the law are not working as promised. FSOC and OFR are agencies that were established to identify potential risks to our nation’s financial stability but they have been broadly criticized for their lack of transparency, flawed research, and inadequate designation process. …. In many cases, the SIFI designation can lead to a large cost increase for consumers.” Ross and fellow concerned House members wrote a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew in April detailing concerns with judging asset managers as risky and suggesting the need for specific ways in how they pose risk.
All of this concern, FSOC hand-wringing and legislation will come too late for MetLife, at least.
The rationale used for the case to create Prudential Financial’s SIFI designation was pummeled by many, including the insurance contingent on the FSOC, excepting Treasury official and FIO Director Michael McRaith, a nonvoting member. The run-on-the-bank scenario was held as improbable, and FSOC insurance expertise member Roy Woodall also worried about how the insurer could possibly ever exit from SIFI-hood under the scenario offered. FSOC began its examination from an assumption that Prudential was in distress from a run on the bank. Woodall dissented on Prudential’s SIFI designation, but not on AIG‘s.
“The Basis does not establish that any individual counterparty would be materially impaired because of losses resulting from exposure to Prudential. Instead, the Basis relies on broader market effects and aggregates the relatively small individual exposures to conclude that exposures across multiple markets and financial products are significant enough that material financial distress at Prudential could contribute to a material impairment in the functioning of key financial markets,” Woodall stated in his dissent.
Treasury officials were concerned about Prudential’s extensive derivatives portfolio and activities for hedging and otherwise.
The majority FSOC rationale offered for MetLife is likely to be a bit different, but invite still find criticism.
Prudential was officially designated by the FSOC on Sept. 19, 2013 after an appeal failed, and as such is subject to enhanced supervision by the FRB pursuant to Dodd-Frank.
Prudential states outright in its resolution plan filed with the Fed “the failure of the Company would not have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the United States.”
Prudential is also subject to regulation as an insurance holding company in the states where Prudential’s U.S. insurance company material legal entities are domiciled, which currently include New Jersey, Arizona and Connecticut.
There are no capital or enhanced standards or Basel 3 adaptations worked out yet for Prudential, which is being overseen by the Boston Fed. The company says it will continue to work with the regulators to develop policies and standards that are appropriate for the insurance industry.
Its first order of business was filing a resolution plan, which it did just before the July 1 deadline. AIG also had to do one, and MetLife will have to do one as well.
The Resolution Plan describes potential sales and dispositions of material assets, business lines, and legal entities, and/or the run-off of certain businesses that could occur, as necessary, during the hypothetical resolution scenario.
Pru’s resolution plan describes potential asset or business sales that could occur during this hypothetical resolution of Prudential and its material legal entities as the result of the hypothetical stress event.
Prudential says that Under the hypothetical resolution scenario, each of Prudential Financial, Prudential Asset Management Holding Co., the holding company of Prudential’s asset management business, and (Prudential Global Funding (PGF, its central derivatives conduit) would voluntarily commence a bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the applicable federal court.
Once the Chapter 11 proceeding began, PFI and PAMHC would likely sell certain businesses and reorganize around the businesses each elects to retain.
PGF, Prudential’s central derivatives conduit, would quickly liquidate what limited assets would remain and settle any other liabilities following the termination and closing out of its derivatives positions, Pru’s resolution plan states.
Under the hypothetical resolution scenario, each of the primary insurance regulators for the insurance subsidiaries would file uncontested orders to start rehabilitation proceedings against the relevant insurer material legal entities in their respective states of domicile.
MetLife, which has more extensive global businesses than Prudential, which concentrates its overseas business in Japan, would have to include these in a resolution plan.
MetLife would have 30 days to request a hearing, which then must happen in another 30 days, once it is notified of FSOC’s initial decision. Without a request, a final determination is made by FSOC within 10 days.