與英文對照
與英文對照
u/leisure_rules has pointed me to the OCC - something that I should have been taking a look at since the beginning of my journey into the workings of the Fed. So I decided to look deeper. OP: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ocfcfi/occ_rule_in_effect_7121_net_stable_fundi ng_ratio/ TLDR start - and this is not short, as the document is close to 10k pages, with this section of 102 pages alone; After the recent test, it looks like the Fed shat themselves. A new rule was rushed to be introduced by the self-regulating fucks for the banks and split NFSR into 4 categories of application. Despite the rule having been in plan since 2016 and kind of in play, but has a ton of mentions of ‘08 crash.

與英文對照
the Fed looking back at the '08 crash - I'll fucking do it again!
與英文對照
Only the Category II of the banks have submitted a comment that the fucks in Category II will have a fire sale with such strict requirements. Rule passed for more stringent reporting just after the Fed passed the stress test for the banks, allowing them to buy back shares ($12Bn worth, likely the $12Bn that they got from gouging their customers on overdraft fees - no joke ($11Bn in 2019)). Because it is instituted on July 1st, 2021 - allowing the banks to have 10 business days to provide a response/plan on how to deal with their shitty NFSR ratio - we are likely looking at a few weeks if the NFSR ration is rated as bad in some of the banks. But we can expect some movement in the market next week - real movement. Now these agencies are no longer going to count derivatives towards a positive ASF (Available Stable Funding) factor. Further, RSF (Required Stable Funding) factor is set to 100% for the derivatives. This is a double-banana worthy of Rick! Look at the equation (sauce to u/leisure_rules) :

與英文對照
NSFR Ratio calculation
與英文對照
What is ASF:
與英文對照
• Sum of carrying values of the banking organization’s liabilities and regulatory capital,與英文對照
each multiplied by a standardized weighting (ASF factor) ranging from 0 to 100%. Here’s the chart of proposed ASF factors: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-26546/p-363 What is RSF:
與英文對照
• Sum of the carrying values of its assets, each multiplied by a standardized weighting與英文對照
(RSF factor) ranging from 0 to 100% to reflect the relative need for funding over a 1 year horizon based on liquidity characteristics of the asset
與英文對照
• PLUS RSF amounts based on the banking organization’s committed facilities and與英文對照
derivatives exposure (CRIAND!!!) Here’s the chart of the RSF factors: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-26546/p-481 TLDR end;
與英文對照
I’d like to put together a summary of what the fuck is going on - its all in plain English, and I suggest to read it yourself to gain more wrinkles: Introduction The OCC, the Fed, and OCC (agencies) are looking into a 2016 rule to establish NSFR (net stable funding ratio) for any institution with >=$10Bn of consolidated assets. Another two proposals that were being looked into are:
與英文對照
• scope of NSFR與英文對照
• Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report (FR 2052a) - to basically get self-與英文對照
regulating information from the banks (Smells like Goldman’s F3 to anyone?) Background In the ‘08 crash, the banks had issues with risk management, specifically how the banks managed their liabilities to fund their assets. Further, there was an overreliance on short-term, less-stable funding - no shit, they were leveraged to shits. In response, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) created 2 liquidity standards: 1. Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) - for high net cash outflows in a period of stress 2. NFSR - for banks to not be taking handies behind Wendy's after using their credit cards to play the casino Part of the LCR rule was for the banks to hold a specific amount of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) that can be easily converted into cash to meet payments for a 30-day stress period. Along with the “poorly done” Dodd-Frank Act, the board (Fed) decided to adopt an “enhanced prudential standards rule, which established general risk management, liquidity risk management, and stress testing requirements for certain bank holding companies and foreign banking organizations.”
與英文對照
PROBLEM: The framework never addressed the relationship between a banking organization’s funding profile and its composition of assets and off-balance commitments. NO SHIT! ANOTHER PROBLEM: The fucking rule was passed AFTER the recent stress test!
與英文對照
Here’s where the margin debt comes in - being 2x that of ‘00 and ‘08 crashes. Coupled with u/CriandDD - means the OCC is realizing how big of a shitshow it has become, and was never dealt with until Retail started making money and exposing their shit.

與英文對照
Margin Debt w/ S&P500
與英文對照
Overview of the Proposed Rule and Proposed Scope of Application
與英文對照
• The Proposed Stable Funding Requirement與英文對照
1. In June ‘16, comments were invited on the rule 2. Rule was generally consistent with the Basel NSFR, but has some characteristics of U.S. market 3. Proposed rule: maintaining ratio of ASF equal or greater than the minimum funding needs (RSF) over a 1 year horizon to be minimum 1.0. The Final Rule
與英文對照
• The final rule assigns a zero percent RSF factor to unencumbered level 1 liquid asset與英文對照
securities and certain short-term secured lending transactions backed by level 1 liquid asset securities
與英文對照
• The final rule provides more favorable treatment for certain affiliate sweep deposits and與英文對照
non-deposit retail funding
與英文對照
• The final rule permits cash variation margin to be eligible to offset a covered company's與英文對照
current exposures under its derivatives transactions even if it does not meet all of the criteria in the agencies' supplementary leverage ratio rule (SLR rule). In addition, variation margin received in the form of rehypothecatable level 1 liquid asset securities also would be eligible to offset a covered company's current exposures
與英文對照
• The final rule reduces the amount of a covered company's gross derivatives liabilities與英文對照
that will be assigned a 100 percent RSF factor Application of the final rule. The agencies have decided to break down the application/companies into 4 categories:
與英文對照
• Category I: US global systemically important banks (GSIBs) and any of their depository與英文對照
institution subsidiaries with >=$10Bn in consolidated assets
與英文對照
• Category II: Top-tier banking organizations, other than US GSIBs, with >=$700Bn in與英文對照
consolidated assets of >=$75Bn in average cross-jurisdiction activity, and to their depository institutions with >=$10Bn in consolidated assets.
與英文對照
• Category III: Top-tier banking organizations that have >=$250Bn in consolidated與英文對照
assets, or that have >$100Bn in consolidated assets and also have >=$75Bn or more in:
與英文對照
o Average nonbank assets與英文對照
o Average weighted short-term wholesale funding與英文對照
o Average off-balance sheet exposure (not in Category I or II)與英文對照
• Category IV: Top-tier depository institutions holding companies or US intermediate與英文對照
holding companies that in each case have >=$100Bn in consolidated assets and >=$50Bn average weighted short-term wholesale funding (not in Category I, II, or III) NFSR Requirements by Category 1. Category I: 100% 2. Category II: 100% 3. Category III: 85% 4. Category IV: 70% Short Sales - I SUGGEST YOU READ THE WHOLE SECTION (IT IS GOLD) (https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-26546/p-810)