filings.toolsItem 1. BUSINESS
91K characters. Original on sec.gov · Markdown
Item 1. BUSINESS
Overview
KeyCorp, organized in 1958 under the laws of the State of Ohio, is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. We are a BHC under the BHCA and one of the nation’s largest bank-based financial services companies, with consolidated total assets of approximately $139.6 billion at December 31, 2018. KeyCorp is the parent holding company for KeyBank National Association, its principal subsidiary, through which most of our banking services are provided. Through KeyBank and certain other subsidiaries, we provide a wide range of retail and commercial banking, commercial leasing, investment management, consumer finance, commercial mortgage servicing and special servicing, and investment banking products and services to individual, corporate, and institutional clients through two major business segments: Key Community Bank and Key Corporate Bank.
As of December 31, 2018, these services were provided across the country through KeyBank’s 1,159 full-service retail banking branches and a network of 1,505 ATMs in 15 states, as well as additional offices, online and mobile banking capabilities, and a telephone banking call center. Additional information pertaining to our two business segments is included in the “Line of Business Results” section in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this report, and in Note 24 (“Line of Business Results”) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements presented in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, which are incorporated herein by reference. KeyCorp and its subsidiaries had an average of 18,180 full-time equivalent employees for 2018.
In addition to the customary banking services of accepting deposits and making loans, our bank and its trust company subsidiary offer personal and institutional trust custody services, securities lending, personal financial and planning services, access to mutual funds, treasury services, and international banking services. Through our bank, trust company, and registered investment adviser subsidiaries, we provide investment management services to clients that include large corporate and public retirement plans, foundations and endowments, high-net-worth individuals, and multi-employer trust funds established for providing pension or other benefits to employees. Key Community Bank also purchases retail auto sales contracts via a network of auto dealerships. The auto dealerships finance the sale of automobiles as the initial lender and then assign the contracts to us pursuant to dealer agreements.
We provide other financial services — both within and outside of our primary banking markets — through various nonbank subsidiaries. These services include community development financing, securities underwriting, investment banking and capital markets products, and brokerage. We also provide merchant services to businesses.
KeyCorp is a legal entity separate and distinct from its banks and other subsidiaries. Accordingly, the right of KeyCorp, its security holders, and its creditors to participate in any distribution of the assets or earnings of its banks and other subsidiaries is subject to the prior claims of the creditors of such banks and other subsidiaries, except to the extent that KeyCorp’s claims in its capacity as a creditor may be recognized.
We derive the majority of our revenues within the United States from customers domiciled in the United States. Revenue from foreign countries and external customers domiciled in foreign countries was immaterial to our consolidated financial statements.
Demographics
We have two major business segments: Key Community Bank and Key Corporate Bank.
Key Community Bank serves individuals and small to mid-sized businesses by offering a variety of deposit and investment, lending, mortgage and home equity, credit card, and personalized wealth management products and business advisory services. Key Community Bank also purchases retail auto sales contracts via a network of auto dealerships. These products and services are provided through our relationship managers and specialists working in our 15-state branch network, which is organized into ten internally defined geographic regions: Washington, Oregon/Alaska, Rocky Mountains, Indiana/Northwest Ohio/Michigan, Central/Southwest Ohio, East Ohio/Western Pennsylvania, Atlantic, Western New York, Eastern New York and New England. In addition, some of these product capabilities are delivered by Key Corporate Bank to clients of Key Community Bank.
Key Corporate Bank is a full-service corporate and investment bank focused principally on serving the needs of middle market clients in seven industry sectors: consumer, energy, healthcare, industrial, public sector, real estate, and technology. Key Corporate Bank delivers a broad suite of banking and capital markets products to its clients, including syndicated finance, debt and equity capital markets, commercial payments, equipment finance, commercial mortgage banking, derivatives, foreign exchange, financial advisory, and public finance. Key Corporate Bank is also a significant servicer of commercial mortgage loans and a significant special servicer of CMBS. Key Corporate Bank delivers many of its product capabilities to clients of Key Community Bank.
Further information regarding the products and services offered by our Key Community Bank and Key Corporate Bank segments is included in this report in Note 24 (“Line of Business Results”).
Additional Information
The following financial data is included in this report in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, and is incorporated herein by reference as indicated below:
| Description of Financial Data | Page Number |
| Selected Financial Data | 36 |
| Consolidated Average Balance Sheets, Net Interest Income and Yields/Rates from Continuing Operations | 42 |
| Components of Net Interest Income Changes from Continuing Operations | 44 |
| Composition of Loans | 53 |
| Remaining Maturities and Sensitivity of Certain Loans to Changes in Interest Rates | 57 |
| Securities Available for Sale | 59 |
| Held-to-Maturity Securities | 59 |
| Maturity Distribution of Time Deposits of $100,000 or More | 60 |
| Allocation of the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses | 75 |
| Summary of Loan and Lease Loss Experience from Continuing Operations | 77 |
| Summary of Nonperforming Assets and Past Due Loans from Continuing Operations | 78 |
| Summary of Changes in Nonperforming Loans from Continuing Operations | 78 |
| Short-Term Borrowings | 159 |
Our executive offices are located at 127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1306, and our telephone number is (216) 689-3000. Our website is www.key.com, and the investor relations section of our website may be reached through www.key.com/ir. We make available free of charge, on or through the investor relations section of our website, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, and current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as proxy statements, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Also posted on our website, and available in print upon request from any shareholder to our Investor Relations Department, are the charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation and Organization Committee, Executive Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and Risk Committee; our Corporate Governance Guidelines; the Code of Ethics for our directors, officers, and employees; our Standards for Determining Independence of Directors; our policy for Review of
Transactions Between KeyCorp and Its Directors, Executive Officers and Other Related Persons; and our Statement of Political Activity. Within the time period required by the SEC and the NYSE, we will post on our website any amendment to the Code of Ethics and any waiver applicable to any senior executive officer or director. We also make available a summary of filings made with the SEC of statements of beneficial ownership of our equity securities filed by our directors and officers under Section 16 of the Exchange Act. The “Regulatory Disclosures and Filings” tab of the investor relations section of our website includes public disclosures concerning our annual and mid-year stress-testing activities under the Dodd-Frank Act and our quarterly regulatory capital disclosures under the third pillar of Basel III.
Information contained on or accessible through our website or any other website referenced in this report is not part of this report. References to websites in this report are intended to be inactive textual references only.
Shareholders may obtain a copy of any of the above-referenced corporate governance documents by writing to our Investor Relations Department at Investor Relations, KeyCorp, 127 Public Square, Mailcode OH-01-27-0737, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1306; by calling (216) 689-4221; or by sending an e-mail to investor_relations@keybank.com.
Competition
The market for banking and related financial services is highly competitive. Key competes with other providers of financial services, such as BHCs, commercial banks, savings associations, credit unions, mortgage banking companies, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, investment management firms, investment banking firms, broker-dealers, and other local, regional, national, and global institutions that offer financial services. Some of our competitors are larger and may have more financial resources, while some of our competitors enjoy fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. The financial services industry has become more competitive as technology advances have lowered barriers to entry, enabling more companies, including nonbank companies, to provide financial services. Technological advances may diminish the importance of depository institutions and other financial institutions. Mergers and acquisitions have also led to increased concentration in the banking industry, placing added competitive pressure on Key’s core banking products and services as we see competitors enter some of our markets or offer similar products. We compete by offering quality products and innovative services at competitive prices, and by maintaining our product and service offerings to keep pace with customer preferences and industry standards.
Executive Officers of KeyCorp
KeyCorp’s executive officers are principally responsible for making policy for KeyCorp, subject to the supervision and direction of the Board. All executive officers are subject to annual election at the annual organizational meeting of the Board held each May.
Set forth below are the names and ages of the executive officers of KeyCorp as of December 31, 2018, the positions held by each at KeyCorp during the past five years, and the year each first became an executive officer of KeyCorp. Because Mr. Midkiff has been employed at KeyCorp for less than five years, information is being provided concerning his prior business experience. There are no family relationships among the directors or the executive officers.
Amy G. Brady (52) - Ms. Brady is KeyCorp’s Chief Information Officer, serving in that role since May 2012. Ms. Brady has been an executive officer of KeyCorp since she joined in 2012.
Edward J. Burke (62) - Mr. Burke has been the Co-President, Commercial and Private Banking of Key Community Bank since April 2014 and an executive officer of KeyCorp since May 2014. From 2005 until his election as Co-President, Mr. Burke was an Executive Vice President and head of KeyBank Real Estate Capital and Key Community Development Lending.
Robert A. DeAngelis (57) - Mr. DeAngelis has been the Director of Quality and Productivity Management since June 2017. From March 2016 to June 2017, he served as a Transition Program Executive and was dedicated to the integration efforts related to KeyCorp’s merger with First Niagara. From November 2011 to March 2016, Mr. DeAngelis was the Director of the Enterprise Program Management Office for KeyCorp. Prior to that, he served as the Consumer Segment Executive. Mr. DeAngelis has been an executive officer of KeyCorp since June 2017 and was also previously an executive officer of KeyCorp from March 2013 to March 2016.
Dennis A. Devine (47) - Mr. Devine has been the Co-President, Consumer and Small Business of Key Community Bank since April 2014 and an executive officer of KeyCorp since May 2014. From 2012 to 2014, Mr. Devine served as Executive Vice President in various roles, including as head of the Consumer & Small Business Segment and head of Integrated Channels and Community Bank Strategy for Key Community Bank.
Trina M. Evans (54) - Ms. Evans has been the Director of Corporate Center for KeyCorp since August 2012, partnering with Key’s executive leadership team and Board to ensure alignment of strategy, objectives, priorities, and messaging across Key. Prior to this role, Ms. Evans was the Chief Administrative Officer for Key Community Bank and the Director of Client Experience for KeyBank. During her career with KeyCorp, she has served in a variety of senior management roles associated with the call center, internet banking, retail banking, distribution management and information technology. She became an executive officer of KeyCorp in March 2013.
Brian L. Fishel (53) - Mr. Fishel became the Chief Human Resources Officer and an executive officer of KeyCorp in May 2018. From 2013 to 2018, he served as the Director of Talent Management for KeyCorp.
Christopher M. Gorman (58) - In 2017, Mr. Gorman became President of Banking and Vice Chairman. From 2016 to 2017, he served as Merger Integration Executive responsible for leading the integration efforts related to KeyCorp’s merger with First Niagara. Prior to that, Mr. Gorman was the President of Key Corporate Bank from 2010 to 2016. He previously served as a KeyCorp Senior Executive Vice President and head of Key National Banking during 2010. Mr. Gorman was an Executive Vice President of KeyCorp (2002 to 2010) and served as President of KBCM (2003 to 2010). He became an executive officer of KeyCorp in 2010.
Paul N. Harris (60) - Mr. Harris has been the General Counsel and Secretary of KeyCorp since 2003 and an executive officer of KeyCorp since 2004.
Clark H.I. Khayat (47) - Mr. Khayat rejoined KeyCorp as Chief Strategy Officer in January 2018. Mr. Khayat previously served as an Executive Vice President and Head of Key’s Enterprise Commercial Payments group from April 2014 to June 2016 and an Executive Vice President in Corporate Strategy from July 2012 to April 2014. He became an executive officer of KeyCorp in September 2018.
Donald R. Kimble (58) - Mr. Kimble has been the Chief Financial Officer of KeyCorp since June 2013. In 2017, Mr. Kimble was also named Vice Chairman. Mr. Kimble became an executive officer upon joining KeyCorp in June 2013.
Angela G. Mago (53) - Ms. Mago became Co-Head of Key Corporate Bank in 2016. She also serves as Head of Real Estate Capital for Key, a role she has held since 2014. From 2011 to 2014, Ms. Mago was Head of Key’s Commercial Mortgage Group. She became an executive officer of KeyCorp in 2016.
Mark W. Midkiff (56) - Mr. Midkiff became Chief Risk Officer and an executive officer of KeyCorp in January 2018. Prior to joining KeyCorp, Mr. Midkiff served as the Deputy Chief Credit Officer of BB&T from May 2017 to December 2017. He served as Chief Risk Officer of GE Capital from May 2015 to January 2017 and Chief Risk Officer of MUFG Union Bank from 2009 to April 2015.
Beth E. Mooney (63) - Ms. Mooney has been the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of KeyCorp since 2011, and an executive officer of KeyCorp since 2006. Prior to becoming Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, she served in a variety of roles with KeyCorp, including President and Chief Operating Officer and Vice Chair and head of Key Community Bank. She has been a director of AT&T, a publicly-traded telecommunications company, since 2013.
Andrew J. Paine III (49) - Mr. Paine became Co-Head of Key Corporate Bank in 2016. He also serves as President of KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., a role he has held since 2013. From 2010 to 2013, Mr. Paine was the Co-Head of KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. He became an executive officer of KeyCorp in 2016.
Kevin T. Ryan (57) - Mr. Ryan has been the Chief Risk Review Officer and General Auditor of KeyCorp since 2007. He became an executive officer of KeyCorp in 2016.
Douglas M. Schosser (48) - Mr. Schosser has been the Chief Accounting Officer and an executive officer of KeyCorp since May 2015. Prior to becoming the Chief Accounting Officer, Mr. Schosser served as an Integration Manager at KeyCorp. From 2010 to 2014, he served as the Chief Financial Officer of Key Corporate Bank.
Supervision and Regulation
The regulatory framework applicable to BHCs and banks is intended primarily to protect consumers, the DIF, taxpayers and the banking system as a whole, rather than to protect the security holders and creditors of financial services companies. Comprehensive reform of the legislative and regulatory environment for financial services companies occurred in 2010 and remains ongoing. We cannot predict changes in applicable laws, regulations or regulatory agency policies, but any such changes may materially affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, or access to liquidity or credit.
Overview
Federal law establishes a system of regulation under which the Federal Reserve is the umbrella regulator for BHCs, while their subsidiaries are principally regulated by prudential or functional regulators: (i) the OCC for national banks and federal savings associations; (ii) the FDIC for state non-member banks and savings associations; (iii) the Federal Reserve for state member banks; (iv) the CFPB for consumer financial products or services; (v) the SEC and FINRA for securities broker/dealer activities; (vi) the SEC, CFTC, and NFA for swaps and other derivatives; and (vii) state insurance regulators for insurance activities. Certain specific activities, including traditional bank trust and fiduciary activities, may be conducted in a bank without the bank being deemed a “broker” or a “dealer” in securities for purposes of securities functional regulation.
Under the BHCA, BHCs generally may not directly or indirectly own or control more than 5% of the voting shares, or substantially all of the assets, of any bank, without prior approval from the Federal Reserve. In addition, BHCs are generally prohibited from engaging in commercial or industrial activities. However, a BHC that satisfies certain requirements regarding management, capital adequacy, and Community Reinvestment Act performance may elect to be treated as a Financial Holding Company (“FHC”) for purposes of federal law, and as a result may engage in a substantially broader scope of activities that are considered to be financial in nature or complementary to those activities. KeyCorp has elected to be treated as a FHC and, as such, is authorized to engage in securities underwriting and dealing, insurance agency and underwriting, and merchant banking activities. In addition, the Federal Reserve has permitted FHCs, like KeyCorp, to engage in the following activities, under the view that such activities are complementary to a financial activity: physical commodities trading activities, energy management services, and energy tolling, among others.
Under federal law, a BHC also must serve as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary depository institution(s) by providing financial assistance in the event of financial distress. This support may be required when the BHC does not have the resources to, or would prefer not to, provide it. Certain loans by a BHC to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits in, and certain other indebtedness of, the subsidiary bank. In addition, federal law provides that in the bankruptcy of a BHC, any commitment by the BHC to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.
The Dodd-Frank Act created the FSOC to overlay the U.S. supervisory framework for BHCs, insured depository institutions, and other financial service providers, by serving as a systemic risk oversight body. Specifically, the FSOC is authorized to: (i) identify risks to U.S. financial stability that could arise from the material financial distress or failure, or ongoing activities, of large, interconnected SIFIs, or that could arise outside the financial services marketplace; (ii) promote market discipline by eliminating expectations that the U.S. government will shield shareholders, creditors, and counterparties from losses in the event of failure; and (iii) respond to emerging threats to the stability of the U.S. financial system. The FSOC is responsible for facilitating regulatory coordination; information collection and sharing; designating nonbank financial companies for consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve; designating systemic financial market utilities and systemic payment, clearing, and settlement activities requiring prescribed risk management standards and heightened federal regulatory oversight; recommending stricter standards for SIFIs; and, together with the Federal Reserve, determining whether action should be taken to break up firms that pose a grave threat to U.S. financial stability.
As a FHC, KeyCorp is subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the Federal Reserve under the BHCA. Our national bank subsidiaries and their subsidiaries are subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the OCC. At December 31, 2018, we operated one full-service, FDIC-insured national bank subsidiary, KeyBank, and one national bank subsidiary that is limited to fiduciary activities. The FDIC also has certain, more limited regulatory, supervisory, and examination authority over KeyBank and KeyCorp under the FDIA and the Dodd-Frank Act.
We have other financial services subsidiaries that are subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the Federal Reserve, as well as other state and federal regulatory agencies and self-regulatory organizations. Because KeyBank engages in derivative transactions, in 2013 it provisionally registered as a swap dealer with the CFTC and became a member of the NFA, the self-regulatory organization for participants in the U.S. derivatives industry. Our securities brokerage and asset management subsidiaries are subject to supervision and regulation by the SEC, FINRA, and state securities regulators, and our insurance subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the insurance regulatory authorities of the states in which they operate. Our other nonbank subsidiaries are subject to laws and regulations of both the federal government and the various states in which they are authorized to do business.
Regulatory capital requirements
Background
KeyCorp and KeyBank are subject to regulatory capital requirements that are based largely on the work of an international group of supervisors known as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“Basel Committee”). The Basel Committee is responsible for establishing international bank supervisory standards for implementation in member jurisdictions, to enhance and align bank regulation on a global scale and promote financial stability.
The regulatory capital framework developed by the Basel Committee and implemented in the United States is a predominately risk-based capital framework that establishes minimum capital requirements based on the amount of regulatory capital a banking organization maintains relative to the amount of its total assets, adjusted to reflect credit risk (“risk-weighted assets”). Each banking organization subject to this regulatory capital framework is required to satisfy certain minimum risk-based capital measures (e.g., a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio requirement of tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets), and in the United States, a minimum leverage ratio requirement of tier 1 capital to average total on-balance sheet assets, which serves as a backstop to the risk-based measures.
A capital instrument is assigned to one of two tiers based on the relative strength and ability of that instrument to absorb credit losses on a going concern basis. Capital instruments with relatively robust loss-absorption capacity are assigned to tier 1, while other capital instruments with relatively less loss-absorption capacity are assigned to tier 2. A banking organization’s total capital equals the sum of its tier 1 and tier 2 capital.
The Basel Committee also developed a market risk capital framework (that also has been implemented in the United States) to address the substantial exposure to market risk faced by banking organizations with significant trading activity and augment the credit risk-based capital requirements described above. For example, the minimum total risk-based capital ratio requirement for a banking organization subject to the market risk capital rule equals the ratio of the banking organization’s total capital to the sum of its credit risk-weighted assets and market risk-weighted assets. Only KeyCorp is subject to the market risk capital rule, as KeyBank does not engage in substantial trading activity.
Basel III
To address deficiencies in the international regulatory capital standards identified during the 2007-2009 global financial crisis, in 2010 the Basel Committee released comprehensive revisions to the international regulatory capital framework, commonly referred to as “Basel III.” The Basel III revisions are designed to strengthen the quality and quantity of regulatory capital, in part through the introduction of a Common Equity Tier 1 capital requirement; provide more comprehensive and robust risk coverage, particularly for securitization exposures, equities, and off-balance sheet positions; and address pro-cyclicality concerns through the implementation of capital buffers. The Basel Committee also released a series of revisions to the market risk capital framework to address deficiencies identified during its initial implementation (e.g., arbitrage opportunities between the credit risk-based and market risk capital rules) and in connection with the global financial crisis.
In July 2013, the U.S. banking agencies adopted a final rule to implement Basel III with an effective date of January 1, 2015, and a multi-year transition period ending on December 31, 2018 (“Regulatory Capital Rules”). Consistent with the international framework, the Regulatory Capital Rules further restrict the type of instruments that may be recognized in tier 1 and tier 2 capital (including the phase out of trust preferred securities from tier 1 capital for BHCs above a certain asset threshold, like KeyCorp); establish a minimum Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio requirement of 4.5% and capital buffers to absorb losses during periods of financial stress while allowing an institution to provide credit intermediation as it would during a normal economic environment; and refine several of the methodologies used for determining risk-weighted assets. The Regulatory Capital Rules provide additional requirements for large banking organizations with over $250 billion in total consolidated assets or $10 billion in foreign exposure, but those additional requirements do not apply to KeyCorp or KeyBank. Accordingly, for
purposes of the Regulatory Capital Rules, KeyCorp and KeyBank are treated as “standardized approach” banking organizations.
Under the Regulatory Capital Rules, standardized approach banking organizations are required to meet the minimum capital and leverage ratios set forth in the following table. At December 31, 2018, Key had an estimated Common Equity Tier 1 Capital Ratio of 9.84% under the fully phased-in Regulatory Capital Rules. Also at December 31, 2018, based on the fully phased-in Regulatory Capital Rules, Key estimates that its capital and leverage ratios, after adjustment for market risk, would be as set forth in the following table.
Estimated Ratios vs. Minimum Capital Ratios Calculated Under the Fully Phased-In
Regulatory Capital Rules
| Ratios (including Capital conservation buffer) | Key December 31, 2018 Pro Forma | Minimum January 1, 2015 | Phase-in Period | Minimum January 1, 2019 | |||
| Common Equity Tier 1 (a) | 9.84 | % | 4.5 | % | None | 4.5 | % |
| Capital conservation buffer (b) | — | 1/1/16 - 1/1/19 | 2.5 | ||||
| Common Equity Tier 1 + Capital conservation buffer | 4.5 | 1/1/16 - 1/1/19 | 7.0 | ||||
| Tier 1 Capital | 10.98 | 6.0 | None | 6.0 | |||
| Tier 1 Capital + Capital conservation buffer | 6.0 | 1/1/16 - 1/1/19 | 8.5 | ||||
| Total Capital | 12.78 | 8.0 | None | 8.0 | |||
| Total Capital + Capital conservation buffer | 8.0 | 1/1/16 - 1/1/19 | 10.5 | ||||
| Leverage (c) | 9.89 | 4.0 | None | 4.0 |
| (a) | See the section entitled “GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations,” which presents the computation of Common Equity Tier 1 under the fully-phased in regulatory capital rules. |
| (b) | Capital conservation buffer must consist of Common Equity Tier 1 capital. As a standardized approach banking organization, KeyCorp is not subject to the countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5% imposed upon an advanced approaches banking organization under the Regulatory Capital Rules. |
| (c) | As a standardized approach banking organization, KeyCorp is not subject to the 3% supplemental leverage ratio requirement, which became effective January 1, 2018. |
Revised prompt corrective action framework
The federal prompt corrective action framework established under the FDIA groups FDIC-insured depository institutions into one of five prompt corrective action capital categories: “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” In addition to implementing the Basel III capital framework in the U.S., the Regulatory Capital Rules also revised the prompt corrective action capital category threshold ratios applicable to FDIC-insured depository institutions such as KeyBank, with an effective date of January 1, 2015. The Revised Prompt Corrective Action Framework table below identifies the capital category threshold ratios for a “well capitalized” and an “adequately capitalized” institution under the Prompt Corrective Action Framework.
“Well Capitalized” and “Adequately Capitalized” Capital Category Ratios under
Revised Prompt Corrective Action Framework
| Prompt Corrective Action | Capital Category | |||||
| Ratio | Well Capitalized (a) | Adequately Capitalized | ||||
| Common Equity Tier 1 Risk-Based | 6.5 | % | 4.5 | % | ||
| Tier 1 Risk-Based | 8.0 | 6.0 | ||||
| Total Risk-Based | 10.0 | 8.0 | ||||
| Tier 1 Leverage (b) | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| (a) | A “well capitalized” institution also must not be subject to any written agreement, order or directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. |
| (b) | As a standardized approach banking organization, KeyBank is not subject to the 3% supplemental leverage ratio requirement, which became effective January 1, 2018. |
We believe that, as of December 31, 2018, KeyBank (consolidated) satisfied the risk-based and leverage capital requirements necessary to be considered “well capitalized” for purposes of the revised prompt corrective action framework. However, investors should not regard this determination as a representation of the overall financial condition or prospects of KeyBank because the prompt corrective action framework is intended to serve a limited supervisory function. Moreover, it is important to note that the prompt corrective action framework does not apply to BHCs, like KeyCorp.
Recent regulatory capital-related developments
On September 27, 2017, the federal banking agencies issued a joint proposal to simplify certain aspects of the Regulatory Capital Rules for standardized approach banking organizations (the “Simplification Proposal”), including Key. In anticipation of the Simplification Proposal, on August 22, 2017, the agencies issued a proposal to extend the
current capital treatment for certain items that are part of the Simplification Proposal and also subject to the multi-year transition period for the Regulatory Capital Rules, which ended on December 31, 2018 (the “Transitions Proposal”). The Transitions Proposal was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on November 21, 2017, and is expected to alleviate the burden that would have resulted from the continued phase-in of those capital requirements as the agencies seek public comment on and work to finalize the Simplification Proposal.
The Simplification Proposal would amend the Regulatory Capital Rules by: (1) replacing the definition for “high volatility commercial real estate” exposures with a simpler definition called, “high volatility acquisition, development, or construction” (“HVADC”) exposures, and requiring a banking organization to assign a 130 percent risk weight to HVADC exposures; (2) simplifying the thresholds deductions for mortgage servicing assets, temporary difference deferred tax assets that are not realizable through carryback, and investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions, together with revisions to the risk-weight treatment for investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions; and (3) simplifying the limitations on the amount of a third-party minority interest in a consolidated subsidiary that is includable in regulatory capital. These revisions would apply only to standardized approach banking organizations.
The Simplification Proposal also sets forth clarifying revisions to miscellaneous sections of the Regulatory Capital Rules. If the Simplification Proposal is adopted in its current form as final, it would likely have a neutral-to-low impact on Key’s capital requirements, but it would meaningfully alleviate the compliance burden associated with the Regulatory Capital Rules. Comments on the Simplification Proposal were due December 26, 2017.
In December 2017, the Basel Committee released its final revisions to Basel III. The revisions seek to restore credibility in the calculation of risk-weighted assets (“RWAs”) and improve the comparability of regulatory capital ratios across banking organizations by: (1) enhancing the robustness and risk-sensitivity of the standardized approach for credit risk, credit valuation adjustment, and operational risk; (2) constraining the use of internal models by placing limits on certain inputs used to calculate capital requirements under the internal ratings-based approach for credit risk (used by advanced approaches banking organizations) and removing the ability to use an internal model for purposes of determining the capital charge for credit valuation adjustment (“CVA”) risk and operational risk; (3) introducing a leverage ratio buffer to further limit the leverage of global systemically-important banks; and (4) replacing the existing Basel II output floor with a more robust, risk-sensitive floor based on the Basel III standardized approach.
The U.S. federal banking agencies released a statement announcing their support for the Basel Committee’s efforts, but cautioned that they will consider how to appropriately incorporate these revisions into the Regulatory Capital Rules, and that any proposed changes based on the Basel Committee revisions would be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. In view of the prohibition under the Dodd-Frank Act on the use of credit ratings in federal regulation, there is some uncertainty as to whether or how the agencies would implement the ratings-based aspects of the Basel Committee revisions to Basel III, as well as any other aspect of the Basel Committee revisions that permit the U.S. agencies to exercise home-country discretion, for example, due to differences in accounting or market practices, and legal requirements.
Subsequently, in December 2018, the Basel Committee released an update to its Pillar 3 disclosure framework, to more appropriately align it to the changes adopted under the Basel Committee’s final revisions to Basel III. Before any action is taken by the federal banking agencies with respect to the revised Pillar 3 disclosure framework, the federal agencies must determine whether and to what extent they will implement the final revisions to Basel III released by the Basel Committee in December 2017.
In December 2018, the federal banking agencies published a final rule to amend their Regulatory Capital Rules to address the regulatory capital effects of forthcoming changes to GAAP set forth in the issuance by the FASB of ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses, Topic 326, Measurement of Credit Loses on Financial Instruments (ASU 2016-13), which introduces the current expected credit loss methodology to replace the incurred loss methodology for financial assets. The final rule identifies which credit loss allowances under the new accounting standard are eligible for inclusion in a banking organization’s regulatory capital and provides banking organizations with the option to phase in, over a three-year period, the adverse day-one regulatory capital effects of adoption of the new accounting standard on retained earnings, deferred tax assets, credit loss allowances, and average total consolidated assets. For SEC reporting companies, such as KeyCorp, the new accounting standard will become effective for the first fiscal year starting after December 15, 2019.
Additional recent regulatory capital-related developments are discussed below under the heading “Other Regulatory Developments - Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.”
Liquidity requirements
KeyCorp is subject to regulatory liquidity requirements based on international liquidity standards established by the Basel Committee in 2010, and subsequently revised between 2013 and 2014 (as revised, the “Basel III liquidity framework”). The Basel III liquidity framework establishes quantitative standards designed to ensure that a banking organization is appropriately positioned, from a balance sheet perspective, to satisfy its short- and long-term funding needs.
To address short-term liquidity risk, the Basel III liquidity framework established a liquidity coverage ratio (“Basel III LCR”), calculated as the ratio of a banking organization’s high-quality liquid assets to its total net cash outflows over 30 consecutive calendar days. In addition, to address long-term liquidity risk, the Basel III liquidity framework established a net stable funding ratio (“Basel III NSFR”), calculated as the ratio of the amount of stable funding available to a banking organization to its required amount of stable funding. Banking organizations must satisfy minimum Basel III LCR and NSFR requirements of at least 100%.
In October 2014, the federal banking agencies published a final rule to implement the Basel III LCR for U.S. banking organizations (the “Liquidity Coverage Rules”). Consistent with the Basel III LCR, the U.S. Liquidity Coverage Rules establish a minimum LCR for certain internationally active bank and nonbank financial companies (excluding KeyCorp), and a modified version of the LCR (“Modified LCR”) for BHCs and other depository institution holding companies with over $50 billion in consolidated assets that are not internationally active (including KeyCorp). KeyBank will not be subject to the LCR or the Modified LCR under the Liquidity Coverage Rules unless the OCC affirmatively determines that application to KeyBank is appropriate in light of KeyBank’s asset size, level of complexity, risk profile, scope of operations, affiliation with foreign or domestic covered entities, or risk to the financial system.
Under the Liquidity Coverage Rules, KeyCorp must calculate a Modified LCR on a monthly basis and is required to satisfy a minimum Modified LCR requirement of 100%. At December 31, 2018, KeyCorp’s Modified LCR was above 100%. In the future, KeyCorp may change the composition of our investment portfolio, increase the size of the overall investment portfolio, and modify product offerings to enhance or optimize our liquidity position.
In December 2016, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule to implement public disclosure requirements for the LCR and Modified LCR. Under the final rule, each calendar quarter KeyCorp must publicly disclose certain quantitative information regarding its Modified LCR calculation, together with a discussion of the factors that have a significant effect on its Modified LCR. That discussion may include the main drivers of the Modified LCR; changes in the Modified LCR over time and the cause(s) of such changes; the composition of eligible high-quality liquid assets; concentration of funding sources; derivative exposures and potential capital calls; any currency mismatch; and the centralized liquidity management function of the organization and its interaction with other functional areas. KeyCorp began complying with these disclosure requirements for the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2018.
The federal banking agencies commenced implementation of the Basel III NSFR in the United States in April and May 2016, with the release of a proposed rule to implement a minimum net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”) requirement for certain internationally active banking organizations (excluding KeyCorp) and a modified version of the minimum NSFR requirement (“Modified NSFR”) for BHCs and other depository institution holding companies with over $50 billion in consolidated assets that are not internationally active (including KeyCorp), together with quarterly public disclosure requirements. The proposed rule would require banking organizations to satisfy a minimum NSFR requirement of 1.0 on an ongoing basis. However, banking organizations that would be subject to the Modified NSFR (like KeyCorp) would be required to maintain a lower minimum amount of available stable funding, equal to 70% of the required stable funding under the NSFR. The comment period for the NPR expired on August 5, 2016.
Recent developments regarding liquidity requirements are discussed below under the heading “Other Regulatory Developments - Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.”
Capital planning and stress testing
The Federal Reserve’s capital plan rule requires each U.S.-domiciled, top-tier BHC with total consolidated assets of at least $50 billion (like KeyCorp) to develop and maintain a written capital plan supported by a robust internal capital adequacy process. The capital plan must be submitted to the Federal Reserve for supervisory review in connection with its CCAR (described below). The supervisory review includes an assessment of many factors, including KeyCorp’s ability to maintain capital above each minimum regulatory capital ratio on a pro forma basis under expected and stressful conditions throughout the planning horizon. KeyCorp is also subject to the Federal Reserve’s supervisory expectations for capital planning and capital positions as a large, noncomplex BHC, as set forth in a Federal Reserve guidance document issued on December 18, 2015 (“SR Letter 15-19”). Under SR Letter 15-19, the Federal Reserve identifies its core capital planning expectations regarding governance; risk management; internal controls; capital policy; capital positions; incorporating stressful conditions and events; and estimating impact on capital positions for large and noncomplex firms building upon the capital planning requirements under its capital plan and stress test rules. SR Letter 15-19 also provides detailed supervisory expectations on such a firm’s capital planning processes.
The Federal Reserve’s CCAR is an intensive assessment of the capital adequacy of large U.S. BHCs and of the practices these BHCs use to assess their capital needs. The Federal Reserve expects BHCs subject to CCAR to have and maintain regulatory capital in an amount that is sufficient to withstand a severely adverse operating environment and, at the same time, be able to continue operations, maintain ready access to funding, meet obligations to creditors and counterparties, and provide credit intermediation.
As part of the CCAR, the Federal Reserve conducts a supervisory stress test on KeyCorp, pursuant to which the Federal Reserve projects revenue, expenses, losses, and resulting post-stress capital levels and regulatory capital ratios under conditions that affect the U.S. economy or the financial condition of KeyCorp, including supervisory baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios, that are determined by the Federal Reserve. KeyCorp filed its 2018 CCAR capital plan on April 5, 2018. The 2018 CCAR results, which included the supervisory stress test methodology and certain firm-specific results for the participating covered companies (including KeyCorp), were publicly released by the Federal Reserve on June 28, 2018. That same day, the Federal Reserve announced that it did not object to our 2018 capital plan.
KeyCorp and KeyBank have also been required to conduct their own company-run stress tests to assess the impact of stress scenarios (including supervisor-provided baseline, adverse, and severely adverse scenarios and, for KeyCorp, one KeyCorp-defined baseline scenario and at least one KeyCorp-defined stress scenario) on their consolidated earnings, losses, and capital over a nine-quarter planning horizon, taking into account their current condition, risks, exposures, strategies, and activities. While KeyBank has only had to conduct an annual stress test, KeyCorp has had to conduct both an annual and a mid-cycle stress test. KeyCorp and KeyBank have been required to report the results of their annual stress tests to the Federal Reserve and the OCC. KeyCorp has been required to report the results of its mid-cycle stress test to the Federal Reserve. KeyCorp and KeyBank published the results of their company-run annual stress test on June 21, 2018. KeyCorp published the results of its company-run mid-cycle stress test on October 10, 2018. Summaries of the results of these company-run stress tests have been disclosed each year under the “Regulatory Disclosures and Filings” tab of Key’s Investor Relations website: http://www.key.com/ir.
On February 5, 2019, the Federal Reserve announced that for 2019 certain less-complex BHCs with total consolidated assets between $100 billion and $250 billion (including KeyCorp) will not be subject to supervisory stress testing or company-run stress testing and will not be required to participate in CCAR or submit a capital plan to the Federal Reserve. However, the Federal Reserve indicated that each of these firms (including KeyCorp) remains subject to the requirement to develop and maintain a capital plan which will have to be reviewed and approved by the firm’s board of directors (or committee thereof) at least annually. KeyBank, like KeyCorp, will not have to conduct a company-run stress test in 2019 since the OCC informed OCC-regulated institutions with total consolidated assets from $100 billion to less than $250 billion that they will not be required to comply with any stress testing requirements in 2019.
Recent developments in capital planning and stress testing
On February 5, 2019, the Federal Reserve finalized a set of changes that will increase the transparency of its stress test program while maintaining the Federal Reserve’s ability to test the resilience of the nation’s largest, most
complex banks. These changes were made to respond to public and industry calls for more transparency around the CCAR program.
One of these changes establishes a process for the release of more information regarding the models used by the Federal Reserve to estimate hypothetical losses in supervisory stress tests. Under this process, the following information will be made available to the public by the Federal Reserve in the first quarter of each calendar year: (1) a range of loss rates, estimated using Federal Reserve models, for loans held by CCAR firms; (2) portfolios of hypothetical loans with loss rates estimated by Federal Reserve models; and (3) more detailed descriptions of the Federal Reserve’s models, such as certain equations and key variables that influence the results of those models.
On February 5, 2019, the Federal Reserve also adopted a Stress Testing Policy Statement. The Policy Statement describes the principles, policies, and procedures that guide the development, implementation, and validation of the Federal Reserve’s supervisory stress test models and complements the Federal Reserve’s Policy Statement on Scenario Design (discussed below).
Finally, on February 5, 2019, the Federal Reserve amended its Policy Statement on the Scenario Design Framework for Stress Testing. The amendments (1) clarify when the Federal Reserve may adopt a change in the unemployment rate in the severely adverse scenario of less than four percentage points; and (2) institute a guide that limits procyclicality in the stress test to the change in the house price index in the severely adverse scenario.
In a separate release, published April 10, 2018, the Federal Reserve invited comment on a proposal to integrate certain aspects of the Federal Reserve’s Regulatory Capital Rules with the CCAR and stress test rules, in order to simplify the overall capital framework that is currently applicable to banking organizations subject to the capital plan rule (including KeyCorp). Under the proposal, the Federal Reserve would (1) amend the capital conservation buffer requirement under the Regulatory Capital Rules by replacing the static risk-weighted assets component of the buffer with a new measure, the stress capital buffer, which would be based on the results of an individual banking organization’s supervisory stress test; (2) introduce a stress leverage buffer requirement that would replace the existing Tier 1 leverage requirement under CCAR; (3) modify certain assumptions under the supervisory stress test; (4) remove the 30% dividend payout ratio limitation as a criterion for heightened supervisory scrutiny of an organization’s capital plan; and (5) eliminate the CCAR quantitative objection.
Under the proposed rule, a banking organization would not be subject to any limitations on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments if it satisfies all minimum capital requirements and its capital conservation requirement (as amended to incorporate the stress capital buffer), stress leverage buffer requirement, and, if applicable, the advanced approaches capital conservation buffer requirement and supplementary leverage ratio standard (the latter two of which do not apply to KeyCorp). The comment period for this proposal ended on June 25, 2018. Key expects that the proposal would have a marginally favorable impact on its capital requirements.
Additional recent developments in capital planning and stress testing are discussed below under the heading “Other Regulatory Developments - Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.”
Dividend restrictions
Federal law and regulation impose limitations on the payment of dividends by our national bank subsidiaries, like KeyBank. Historically, dividends paid by KeyBank have been an important source of cash flow for KeyCorp to pay dividends on its equity securities and interest on its debt. Dividends by our national bank subsidiaries are limited to the lesser of the amounts calculated under an earnings retention test and an undivided profits test. Under the earnings retention test, without the prior approval of the OCC, a dividend may not be paid if the total of all dividends declared by a bank in any calendar year is in excess of the current year’s net income combined with the retained net income of the two preceding years. Under the undivided profits test, a dividend may not be paid in excess of a bank’s undivided profits. Moreover, under the FDIA, an insured depository institution may not pay a dividend if the payment would cause it to be less than “adequately capitalized” under the prompt corrective action framework or if the institution is in default in the payment of an assessment due to the FDIC. Similarly, under the Regulatory Capital Rules, a banking organization that fails to satisfy the minimum capital conservation buffer requirement will be subject to certain limitations, which include restrictions on capital distributions. For more information about the payment of dividends by KeyBank to KeyCorp, please see Note 3 (“Restrictions on Cash, Dividends, and Lending Activities”) in this report.
FDIA, Resolution Authority and Financial Stability
Deposit insurance and assessments
The DIF provides insurance coverage for domestic deposits funded through assessments on insured depository institutions like KeyBank. The amount of deposit insurance coverage for each depositor’s deposits is $250,000 per depository.
The FDIC must assess the premium based on an insured depository institution’s assessment base, calculated as its average consolidated total assets minus its average tangible equity. KeyBank’s current annualized premium assessments can range from $.025 to $.45 for each $100 of its assessment base. The rate charged depends on KeyBank’s performance on the FDIC’s “large and highly complex institution” risk-assessment scorecard, which includes factors such as KeyBank’s regulatory rating, its ability to withstand asset and funding-related stress, and the relative magnitude of potential losses to the FDIC in the event of KeyBank’s failure.
As required under the Dodd-Frank Act, in March 2015, the FDIC approved a final rule to impose a surcharge on the quarterly deposit insurance assessments of insured depository institutions having total consolidated assets of at least $10 billion (like KeyBank). The surcharge was 4.5 cents per $100 of the institution’s assessment base (after making certain adjustments). Beginning July 1, 2016, KeyBank was required to pay a surcharge to assist in bringing the reserve ratio to the statutory minimum of 1.35%. On November 28, 2018, the FDIC announced that the DIF reserve ratio reached 1.36% on September 30, 2018, exceeding the statutory minimum of 1.35%. The last quarterly surcharge was included in the December 2018 assessments for insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more (like KeyBank), and no shortfall assessment will be imposed.
In December 2016, the FDIC issued a final rule that imposes recordkeeping requirements on insured depository institutions with two million or more deposit accounts (including KeyBank), to facilitate rapid payment of insured deposits to customers if such an institution were to fail. The rule requires those insured depository institutions to: (i) maintain complete and accurate data on each depositor’s ownership interest by right and capacity for all of the institution’s deposit accounts; and (ii) develop the capability to calculate the insured and uninsured amounts for each deposit owner within 24 hours of failure. The FDIC will conduct periodic testing of compliance with these requirements, and institutions subject to the rule must submit to the FDIC a certification of compliance, signed by the bank’s CEO, and deposit insurance coverage summary report on or before the mandatory compliance date and annually thereafter. The final rule became effective on April 1, 2017, with a mandatory compliance date of April 1, 2020. The FDIC has been releasing Frequently Asked Questions for Part 370 on a rolling basis, and has committed to continue this practice as institutions subject to the rule present issues associated with its implementation that require FDIC consultation.
Conservatorship and receivership of insured depository institutions
Upon the insolvency of an insured depository institution, the FDIC will be appointed as receiver or, in rare circumstances, conservator for the insolvent institution under the FDIA. In an insolvency, the FDIC may repudiate or disaffirm any contract to which the institution is a party if the FDIC determines that performance of the contract would be burdensome and that disaffirming or repudiating the contract would promote orderly administration of the institution’s affairs. If the contractual counterparty made a claim against the receivership (or conservatorship) for breach of contract, the amount paid to the counterparty would depend upon, among other factors, the receivership (or conservatorship) assets available to pay the claim and the priority of the claim relative to others. In addition, the FDIC may enforce most contracts entered into by the insolvent institution, notwithstanding any provision that would terminate, cause a default, accelerate or give other rights under the contract solely because of the insolvency, the appointment of the receiver (or conservator), or the exercise of rights or powers by the receiver (or conservator). The FDIC may also transfer any asset or liability of the insolvent institution without obtaining approval or consent from the institution’s shareholders or creditors. These provisions would apply to obligations and liabilities of KeyCorp’s insured depository institution subsidiaries, such as KeyBank, including obligations under senior or subordinated debt issued to public investors.
Receivership of certain SIFIs
The Dodd-Frank Act created a new resolution regime, as an alternative to bankruptcy, known as the “orderly liquidation authority” (“OLA”) for certain SIFIs, including BHCs and their affiliates. Under the OLA, the FDIC would generally be appointed as receiver to liquidate and wind down a failing SIFI. The determination that a SIFI should be placed into OLA receivership is made by the U.S. Treasury Secretary, who must conclude that the SIFI is in default or in danger of default and that the SIFI’s failure poses a risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system. This determination must come after supermajority recommendations by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, and consultation between the U.S. Treasury Secretary and the President.
If the FDIC is appointed as receiver under the OLA, its powers and the rights and obligations of creditors and other relevant parties would be determined exclusively under the OLA. The powers of a receiver under the OLA are generally based on the FDIC’s powers as receiver for insured depository institutions under the FDIA. Certain provisions of the OLA were modified to reduce disparate treatment of creditors’ claims between the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the OLA. However, substantial differences between the two regimes remain, including the FDIC’s right to disregard claim priority in some circumstances, the use of an administrative claims procedure under OLA to determine creditors’ claims (rather than a judicial procedure in bankruptcy), the FDIC’s right to transfer claims to a bridge entity, and limitations on the ability of creditors to enforce contractual cross-defaults against potentially viable affiliates of the entity in receivership. OLA liquidity would be provided through credit support from the U.S. Treasury and assessments made, first, on claimants against the receivership that received more in the OLA resolution than they would have received in ordinary liquidation (to the full extent of the excess), and second, if necessary, on SIFIs like KeyCorp utilizing a risk-based methodology.
In December 2013, the FDIC published a notice for comment regarding its “single point of entry” resolution strategy under the OLA. This strategy involves the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for the SIFI’s top-level U.S. holding company only, while permitting the operating subsidiaries of the failed holding company to continue operations uninterrupted. As receiver, the FDIC would establish a bridge financial company for the failed holding company and would transfer the assets and a very limited set of liabilities of the receivership estate. The claims of unsecured creditors and other claimants in the receivership would be satisfied by the exchange of their claims for the securities of one or more new holding companies emerging from the bridge company. The FDIC has not taken any subsequent regulatory action relating to this resolution strategy under OLA since the comment period ended in March 2014.
Depositor preference
The FDIA provides that, in the event of the liquidation or other resolution of an insured depository institution, the claims of its depositors (including claims of its depositors that have subrogated to the FDIC) and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as receiver have priority over other general unsecured claims. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors, along with the FDIC, will be placed ahead of unsecured, nondeposit creditors, including the institution’s parent BHC and subordinated creditors, in order of priority of payment.
Resolution and recovery plans
BHCs with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets, like KeyCorp, are required to periodically submit to the Federal Reserve and FDIC a plan discussing how the company could be rapidly and orderly resolved if the company failed or experienced material financial distress. Insured depository institutions with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets, like KeyBank, are also required to submit a resolution plan to the FDIC. These plans are due annually unless the requirement to submit the plans is deferred by the regulators. On December 1, 2017, KeyCorp submitted its resolution plan to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. KeyBank submitted its resolution plan to the FDIC on June 20, 2018. KeyCorp was not required to submit a resolution plan in 2018 because the FDIC and Federal Reserve deferred such requirement (for 14 firms, including KeyCorp) until December 2019. KeyBank will not be required to submit a resolution plan in 2019 because the FDIC extended the next filing due date for all depository institution resolution plan submissions until no sooner than July 1, 2020. The Federal Reserve and FDIC make available on their websites the public sections of resolution plans for the companies, including KeyCorp and KeyBank, that submitted plans. The public section of the resolution plans of KeyCorp and KeyBank is available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/resolution-plans.htm and https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/reform/resplans/.
On September 28, 2016, the OCC released final guidelines that establish standards for recovery planning by certain large OCC-regulated institutions, including KeyBank. The guidelines require such institutions to establish a comprehensive framework for evaluating the financial effects of severe stress events, and recovery actions an institution may pursue to remain a viable, going concern during a period of severe financial stress. Because KeyBank had average total consolidated assets of greater than $100 billion but less than $750 billion as reported on KeyBank’s Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income for the four most recent consecutive quarters as of January 1, 2017, it was required to be in compliance with the guidelines no later than January 1, 2018. We believe that KeyBank is in compliance with the guidelines. On December 27, 2018, however, the OCC amended its recovery planning guidelines to increase, from $50 billion to $250 billion, the asset threshold for applying the guidelines to large OCC-regulated institutions. KeyBank is, therefore, no longer subject to the guidelines.
Other Regulatory Developments
The Bank Secrecy Act
The BSA requires all financial institutions (including banks and securities broker-dealers) to, among other things, maintain a risk-based system of internal controls reasonably designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. It includes a variety of recordkeeping and reporting requirements (such as cash and suspicious activity reporting) as well as due diligence and know-your-customer documentation requirements. Key has established and maintains an anti-money laundering program to comply with the BSA’s requirements.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act created the CFPB, a consumer financial services regulator with supervisory authority over banks and their affiliates with assets of more than $10 billion, like Key, to carry out federal consumer protection laws. The CFPB also regulates financial products and services sold to consumers and has rulemaking authority with respect to federal consumer financial laws. Any new regulatory requirements promulgated by the CFPB or modifications in the interpretations of existing regulations could require changes to Key’s consumer-facing businesses. The Dodd-Frank Act also gives the CFPB broad data collecting powers for fair lending for both small business and mortgage loans, as well as extensive authority to prevent unfair, deceptive and abusive practices.
Volcker Rule
The Volcker Rule implements Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits “banking entities,” such as KeyCorp, KeyBank and their affiliates and subsidiaries, from owning, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with hedge funds and private equity funds (referred to as “covered funds”) and engaging in short-term proprietary trading of financial instruments, including securities, derivatives, commodity futures and options on these instruments.
The Volcker Rule excepts certain transactions from the general prohibition against proprietary trading, including transactions in government securities (e.g., U.S. Treasuries or any instruments issued by the GNMA, FNMA, FHLMC, a Federal Home Loan Bank, or any state or a political division of any state, among others); transactions in connection with underwriting or market-making activities; and transactions as a fiduciary on behalf of customers. A banking entity may also engage in risk-mitigating hedging activity if it can demonstrate that the hedge reduces or mitigates a specific, identifiable risk or aggregate risk position of the entity. The banking entity is required to conduct an analysis supporting its hedging strategy and the effectiveness of the hedges must be monitored and, if necessary, adjusted on an ongoing basis. Banking entities with more than $50 billion in total consolidated assets and liabilities, like Key, that engage in permitted trading transactions are required to implement enhanced compliance programs, to regularly report data on trading activities to the regulators, and to provide a CEO attestation that the entity’s compliance program is reasonably designed to comply with the Volcker Rule.
Although the Volcker Rule became effective on April 1, 2014, the Federal Reserve exercised its unilateral authority to extend the compliance deadline until July 21, 2017, with respect to covered funds. In addition, on December 12, 2016, the Federal Reserve released additional guidelines regarding how banking entities may seek an extension of the conformance period for certain legacy covered fund investments. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve is authorized to provide a banking entity up to an additional five years to conform legacy investments (i.e., contractual commitments of a banking organization on or before May 1, 2010, to make an investment) in “illiquid” covered funds.
Key does not anticipate that the proprietary trading restrictions in the Volcker Rule will have a material impact on its business, but it may be required to divest certain fund investments as discussed in more detail in Note 6 (“Fair Value Measurements”) in Item 8 of this report. On January 13, 2017, Key filed for an additional extension for illiquid funds, to retain certain indirect investments until the earlier of the date on which the investment is conformed or is expected to mature or July 21, 2022. The application for an extension was approved on February 14, 2017. As of December 31, 2018, we have not committed to a plan to sell these investments. Therefore, these investments continue to be valued using the net asset value per share methodology.
On June 5, 2018, five federal agencies requested public comment on a proposal that would amend the Volcker Rule. The stated objective of the new proposal is to simplify and tailor compliance requirements relating to the Volcker Rule. Among other things, the new proposal would (1) tailor the rule’s compliance requirements based on the size of a firm’s trading assets and liabilities; (2) revise the term “trading account” by replacing the short-term intent-based prong with a new accounting-based prong; (3) modify the eligibility criteria for a banking entity to be able to rely on certain exemptions from the proprietary trading and covered fund prohibitions; and (4) simplify the trading activity information that a banking entity is required to provide to the agencies. In addition to requesting comment on the proposed changes, the five agencies requested comment on a large number of specific questions on various issues concerning implementation of the Volcker Rule. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2018, with a 60-day comment period. The comment period was later extended and expired on October 17, 2018.
Enhanced prudential standards and early remediation requirements
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve must impose enhanced prudential standards and early remediation requirements upon BHCs, like KeyCorp, with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Prudential standards must include enhanced risk-based capital requirements and leverage limits, liquidity requirements, risk-management and risk committee requirements, resolution plan requirements, credit exposure report requirements, single counterparty credit limits (“SCCL”), supervisory and company-run stress test requirements and, for certain financial companies, a debt-to-equity limit. Early remediation requirements must include limits on capital distributions, acquisitions, and asset growth in early stages of financial decline and capital restoration plans, capital raising requirements, limits on transactions with affiliates, management changes, and asset sales in later stages of financial decline, which are to be triggered by forward-looking indicators including regulatory capital and liquidity measures.
The resolution plan requirements applicable to KeyCorp were implemented by a joint final rule adopted by the Federal Reserve and FDIC in 2011. That same year, the Federal Reserve issued a proposal to implement the stress test, early remediation, and SCCL requirements. However, when that proposal was adopted as a final rule in 2012, it included only the stress test requirements and not the SCCL or early remediation requirements.
In March 2014, the Federal Reserve published a final rule to implement certain of the enhanced prudential standards required under the Dodd-Frank Act, including: (1) the incorporation of the Regulatory Capital Rules through the Federal Reserve’s previously finalized rules on capital planning and stress tests; (2) liquidity requirements relating to cash flow projections, a contingency funding plan, liquidity risk limits, monitoring liquidity risks (with respect to collateral, legal entities, currencies, business lines, and intraday exposures), liquidity stress testing, and a liquidity buffer; (3) the risk management framework, the risk committee, and the chief risk officer as well as the corporate governance requirements as they relate to liquidity risk management, including the requirements that apply to the board of directors, the risk committee, senior management, and the independent review function; and (4) a 15-to-1 debt-to-equity limit for companies that the FSOC determines pose a “grave threat” to U.S. financial stability. KeyCorp was required to comply with the final rule starting on January 1, 2015.
On June 14, 2018, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule establishing SCCL requirements for BHCs with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets. The final rule limits the aggregate net credit exposure of such a BHC to a single counterparty to 25% of the BHC’s tier 1 capital and limits the aggregate net credit exposure of a global systemically important bank (“GSIB”) to another GSIB to 15% of the GSIB’s tier 1 capital. The final rule does not apply to KeyCorp. The Federal Reserve has taken no further action on the early remediation requirements proposed in 2011.
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (“EGRRCPA”) was enacted. EGRRCPA made certain amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act and other federal banking laws. Among other things, EGRRCPA raised, from $50 billion to $250 billion, the asset threshold above which the Federal Reserve is required to apply enhanced prudential standards and early remediation requirements (collectively, “EPSs”) to BHCs.
EGRRCPA raised the asset threshold for applying EPSs to BHCs in two stages. BHCs having total consolidated assets less than $100 billion were no longer subject to such EPSs immediately upon enactment of this statute. BHCs having at least $100 billion but less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets (like KeyCorp) will be no longer subject to these requirements as of 18 months after the date of enactment. However, under this statute, the Federal Reserve is required, after the end of this 18-month period, to conduct periodic supervisory stress tests of BHCs with assets between $100 billion and $250 billion (like KeyCorp), and the requirement for a publicly traded BHC to have a risk committee continues to apply if a BHC has assets of at least $50 billion. In addition, EGRRCPA gives the Federal Reserve the authority, following certain notice and comment procedures, to continue to apply other EPSs to any such firm or firms (including KeyCorp) if it determines that the application of the EPS is appropriate to prevent or mitigate risks to financial stability or to promote the safety and soundness of the BHC or BHCs, taking into consideration the BHC’s or BHCs’ capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and other relevant factors. The Federal Reserve is also authorized to exempt any BHC with assets between $100 billion and $250 billion from any EPS prior to the end of the 18-month period following enactment of EGRRCPA.
On October 31, 2018, the federal banking agencies issued two NPRs related to the implementation of EGRRCPA (“Tailoring NPRs”). The proposed rules would establish four risk-based categories of banking organizations with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets and apply tailored capital and liquidity requirements to each respective category. Based on Key’s analysis of the proposal, KeyCorp would fall into the least restrictive of those categories (“Category IV Firms”). We are assessing the full extent of the impact to Key.
In one of the Tailoring NPRs, the Federal Reserve proposed to amend certain of the EPSs to apply tailored capital and liquidity standards to large BHCs in each of the four risk-based categories of institutions described in the Tailoring NPRs. Under this proposal, Category IV Firms (like KeyCorp) would be required to conduct internal liquidity stress tests quarterly rather than monthly and would be subject to simplified liquidity risk management requirements, including requirements to adopt a set of liquidity risk limits that is more limited than currently required, calculate collateral positions monthly rather than weekly, and monitor fewer elements of intraday liquidity risk exposures. Category IV Firms would still be required to maintain a liquidity buffer that is sufficient to meet the projected net stressed cash-flow need over a 30-day planning horizon under the firm’s internal liquidity stress test and would remain subject to monthly tailored FR 2052a liquidity reporting requirements. Also, under this proposal, Category IV Firms (like KeyCorp) would no longer be required to conduct and publicly disclose the results of company-run capital stress tests and would be subject to a supervisory capital stress test conducted by the Federal Reserve every other year rather than every year, as has been the case. The Federal Reserve indicated that it intends to issue a proposal in the future that would align the capital plan requirements applicable to Category IV Firms to the changes in capital stress testing requirements being proposed, and in that future proposal, the Federal Reserve plans to provide these firms with greater flexibility to develop their annual capital plans. The Federal Reserve further indicated that it plans to propose that the stress capital buffer that would be applicable to Category IV Firms would be calculated in a manner that would align with the proposed two-year supervisory stress testing cycle.
In the other Tailoring NPR, the federal banking agencies proposed to amend certain elements of their Regulatory Capital Rules and standardized liquidity requirements to apply tailored capital and liquidity requirements to large banking organizations in each of the four risk-based categories of institutions described in the Tailoring NPRs. Under this proposal, Category IV Firms (like KeyCorp) would not be subject to the LCR or the proposed NSFR standardized liquidity requirements. Therefore, if the proposal is adopted, KeyCorp would no longer be subject to the Modified LCR or the proposed Modified NSFR. The federal banking agencies also proposed that Category IV Firms would not be subject to the countercyclical capital buffer or the supplementary leverage ratio and would be allowed to opt out of including most elements of AOCI in regulatory capital. Under the current Regulatory Capital Rules, KeyCorp is not subject to the countercyclical capital buffer or the supplementary leverage ratio and is allowed to opt out of including AOCI elements in regulatory capital so that part of the proposal would not impact KeyCorp. Comments on the Tailoring NPRs were due by January 22, 2019.
In addition to raising the asset threshold for the application of EPSs to BHCs, EGRRCPA raised the asset threshold that triggers the requirement in Section 165(i)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act for federally-regulated banks (like KeyBank) to conduct company-run stress tests on an annual basis from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets. This provision is effective 18 months after the date of enactment of EGRRCPA. In December 2018 and January 2019, the federal banking agencies issued a proposal to implement this statutory change. Under this proposal, federally-regulated banks with total assets of less than $250 billion (like KeyBank) would no longer be required to conduct annual company-run stress tests while banks above this threshold would be required to conduct company-run stress tests every other year or in some cases, every year. Also, this proposal would remove the “adverse” scenario as a required scenario for all company-run and supervisory stress testing requirements applicable to BHCs and federally-regulated banks so that such stress tests would be required to include only “baseline” and “severely adverse” scenarios. The comment period for this proposal was scheduled to end on February 19, 2019, but was extended until March 14, 2019, by the OCC and until March 21, 2019, by the Federal Reserve.
EGRRCPA also amended the capital requirements for certain acquisition, development, and construction (“ADC”) loans. This statute allows the federal banking agencies to require depository institutions to assign a heightened risk weight to a high volatility commercial real estate (“HVCRE”) exposure under the Regulatory Capital Rules only if such exposure comes within the definition of an HVCRE ADC Loan as defined in EGRRCPA. The effect of this provision is to narrow the scope of exposures subject to a heightened risk weight. On July 6, 2018, the federal banking agencies issued a statement providing depository institutions (including KeyBank) and BHCs (including KeyCorp) with interim guidance concerning the application of this provision. On September 18, 2018, the federal banking agencies released a proposal to amend their Regulatory Capital Rules to revise the definition of an HVCRE exposure to conform to the statutory definition of an HVCRE ADC Loan and indicated that they would not take any further action on the HVADC aspect of the Simplification Proposal (issued by the agencies in September 2017) in light of the changes made by EGRRCPA. The agencies requested comment on various interpretive issues relating to this proposal. This proposal was published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2018, and comments were due by November 27, 2018.
Bank transactions with affiliates
Federal banking law and regulation imposes qualitative standards and quantitative limitations upon certain transactions by a bank with its affiliates, including the bank’s parent BHC and certain companies the parent BHC may be deemed to control for these purposes. Transactions covered by these provisions must be on arm’s-length terms, and cannot exceed certain amounts that are determined with reference to the bank’s regulatory capital. Moreover, if the transaction is a loan or other extension of credit, it must be secured by collateral in an amount and quality expressly prescribed by statute, and if the affiliate is unable to pledge sufficient collateral, the BHC may be required to provide it. These provisions significantly restrict the ability of KeyBank to fund its affiliates, including KeyCorp, KBCM, and KeyCorp’s nonbanking subsidiaries engaged in making merchant banking investments (and certain companies in which these subsidiaries have invested).
Provisions added by the Dodd-Frank Act expanded the scope of: (1) the definition of affiliate to include any investment fund having any bank or BHC-affiliated company as an investment adviser; (2) credit exposures subject to the prohibition on the acceptance of low-quality assets or securities issued by an affiliate as collateral, the quantitative limits, and the collateralization requirements to now include credit exposures arising out of derivative, repurchase agreement, and securities lending/borrowing transactions; and (3) transactions subject to quantitative limits to now also include credit collateralized by affiliate-issued debt obligations that are not securities. In addition, these provisions require that a credit extension to an affiliate remain secured in accordance with the collateral requirements at all times that it is outstanding, rather than the previous requirement of only at the inception or upon material modification of the transaction. These provisions also raise significantly the procedural and substantive hurdles required to obtain a regulatory exemption from the affiliate transaction requirements. While these provisions became effective on July 21, 2012, the Federal Reserve has not yet issued a proposed rule to implement them.
Supervision and governance
On November 2, 2018, the Federal Reserve announced that it is adopting a new supervisory rating system for large financial institutions, including BHCs with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more (like KeyCorp) (“LFI Rating System”), in order to align the Federal Reserve’s rating system with the post-crisis supervisory programs for these firms. The LFI Rating System will provide a supervisory evaluation of whether an institution possesses sufficient operational strength and resilience to maintain safe and sound operations through a range of conditions and will assess an institution’s capital planning and positions, liquidity risk management and positions, and
governance and controls. Institutions subject to the LFI Rating System will be rated using the following scale: Broadly Meets Expectations, Conditionally Meets Expectations, Deficient-1, and Deficient-2, with the Conditionally Meets Expectations rating intended to be used as a transitory rating to allow an institution time to remediate a concern identified during the supervisory evaluation. The Federal Reserve intends to assign initial ratings under the LFI Rating System in 2019 to institutions that are subject to the Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee framework (excluding KeyCorp) and in 2020 for all other large financial institutions subject to this rating system (including KeyCorp).
The governance and controls component of the LFI Rating System is the subject of two separate, but related proposals: (1) proposed guidance regarding supervisory expectations for boards of directors of large financial institutions; and (2) proposed guidance regarding core principles for effective senior management, business management, and independent risk management and controls for large financial institutions. The proposed guidance regarding supervisory expectations for boards of directors (published by the Federal Reserve on August 3, 2017) identifies the attributes of effective boards of directors that would be used by an examiner to evaluate an institution’s governance and controls. The proposal also clarifies that for all institutions supervised by the Federal Reserve, most supervisory findings should be communicated to the organization’s senior management for corrective action and not its board of directors. In addition, the proposal identifies existing supervisory expectations for boards of directors set forth in Federal Reserve Supervision and Regulation Letters that could be eliminated or revised. The Federal Reserve extended the comment period for the proposed guidance regarding supervisory expectations for boards of directors until February 15, 2018.
On January 4, 2018, the Federal Reserve released the final proposal related to the LFI Rating System - the proposed guidance regarding core principles for effective senior management, business management, and independent risk management and controls for large financial institutions. This guidance would support the supervisory evaluation under the governance and controls component of the LFI Rating System, together with the above-mentioned guidance regarding the effectiveness of a firm’s board of directors. In general, the guidance proposes core principles for effective senior management, business line management, and the independent risk management and control function. The guidance encourages firms to establish a governance structure with appropriate levels of independence and stature, by appointing a Chief Risk Officer and a Chief Audit Officer. Finally, the guidance emphasizes the importance of independent risk management, internal controls, and internal audit, and establishes principles that firms should use to establish or augment those management and control frameworks. Comments on this proposal were due by March 15, 2018.
Community Reinvestment Act
The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) was enacted in 1977 to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities that they serve, including low- and moderate-income (“LMI”) neighborhoods, consistent with the institutions’ safe and sound operations. The CRA requires the federal banking agencies to assess the record of each institution that they supervise in meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including LMI neighborhoods.
On September 5, 2018, the OCC published in the Federal Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) requesting public input on ways to revise the agency’s CRA regulations to update the framework by which the OCC assesses a bank’s CRA performance. The OCC stated that the purpose of updating the agency’s CRA
regulations is to encourage more community and economic development in areas that need it most, bring greater clarity, consistency and certainty to the CRA evaluation process, and provide flexibility to accommodate banks with different business strategies. The OCC invited comments on a number of questions, including ones that concern the use of a metrics-based framework, the redefinition of assessment areas, and the expansion of CRA-qualifying activities. Comments on the ANPR were due by November 19, 2018. Any revision to the OCC’s CRA regulations would apply to national banks, including KeyBank.
Previous: Cover and table of contents · Next: Item 1A. RISK FACTORS