filings.toolsItem 1. BUSINESS
112K 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 $186.3 billion at December 31, 2021. 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, student loan refinancing, commercial mortgage servicing and special servicing, and investment banking products and services to individual, corporate, and institutional clients through two major business segments: Consumer Bank and Commercial Bank.
As of December 31, 2021, these services were provided across the country through KeyBank’s 999 full-service retail banking branches and a network of 1,317 ATMs in 15 states, as well as additional offices, online and mobile banking capabilities, including our national digital bank, Laurel Road, and a telephone banking call center. Additional information pertaining to our two business segments is included in the “Business Segment Results” section in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this report, and in Note 25 (“Business Segment Reporting”) of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements presented in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, which are incorporated herein by reference.
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, 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.
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
Our management structure and basis of presentation is divided into two business segments, Consumer Bank and Commercial Bank. Note 25 (“Business Segment Reporting”) describes the products and services offered by each of these business segments and provides more detailed financial information pertaining to the segments, including changes in basis of presentation.
The Consumer Bank serves individuals and small businesses throughout our 15-state branch footprint and through our Laurel Road digital lending business by offering a variety of deposit and investment products, personal finance and financial wellness services, lending, student loan refinancing, mortgage and home equity, credit card, treasury services, and business advisory services. In addition, wealth management and investment services are offered to assist non-profit and high-net-worth clients with their banking, trust, portfolio management, charitable giving, and related needs. During the third quarter of 2021, Key executed on the sale of our indirect auto loan portfolio coupled with the purchase of senior notes from a securitization collateralized by the sold loans. The indirect auto portfolio totaled $3.3 billion at the time of sale.
The Commercial Bank is an aggregation of our Institutional and Commercial operating segments. The Commercial operating segment is a full-service corporate 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. The Commercial operating segment is also a significant servicer of commercial mortgage loans and a significant special servicer of CMBS. The Institutional operating segment 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.
Additional Information
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 Technology Committee, Audit Committee, Compensation and Organization Committee, Executive Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and Risk Committee; our Corporate Governance Guidelines; the Code of Business Conduct and 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; our Statement of Political Activity; and our Corporate Responsibility Report. 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 & Filings” section under the “Financials” tab of the investor relations section of our website includes public disclosures concerning our historic 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, including any reports available on, 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.
Human Capital
Engaging a diverse and talented team is a top strategic priority for Key. Our human capital management strategy is focused on recruiting, developing, and retaining top talent in order to deliver strong returns to our shareholders. Two of the important ways we deliver on this strategy are to (i) reward and recognize our employees based on performance while discouraging imprudent risk-taking, and (ii) cultivate a fair and inclusive culture. As part of our focus on balancing risk and reward, we carefully design our compensation programs to align with the guidance of our regulators and regularly monitor the programs to remain within our risk tolerances. All incentives paid to our employees are subject to a robust risk adjustment process that begins before grant and extends beyond payment. In addition, we are committed to pay equity as a foundational element of our culture. As of June 2021, at KeyBank women earn on average more than 99% of what their male teammates earn, and people of color earn on average more than 99% of what their white teammates earn, after taking into account an employee’s job. Our analysis is based on total compensation (base salary and all discretionary incentives) covering all teammates eligible for a discretionary incentive, other than our Executive Leadership Team whose pay is set by our Board of Directors. More information about our commitment to pay equity is available at www.key.com/about/diversity/pay-equity-commitment.jsp.
As of December 31, 2021, our overall workforce was 58% female, 78% White, 8% Black/African American, 6% Hispanic/Latino, 6% Asian and 2% other. Our Board of Directors is 46% diverse (six of our 13 total Directors are diverse, with four women, one of whom is also a minority, and two male minorities) and our Executive Leadership Team is 29% diverse (three women and one minority out of 14 total executives).
Key had an average of 16,974 full time equivalent employees in 2021. As of December 31, 2021, a total of 17,654 employees worked in the following regions:
| Region | Employee Count | |||||||
| East | 13,126 | |||||||
| West | 2,980 | |||||||
| All Other | 1,548 |
Key supports our teammates by providing a comprehensive and competitive total rewards program, representing our investment in our teammates’ collective success and reflecting our commitment to helping them thrive. In addition to compensation programs, Key’s offerings include employee health and welfare plans, a 401(k) plan with Key-paid profit sharing and matching contributions, paid parental leave, a Discounted Stock Purchase Plan, wellness incentives and a fitness reimbursement.
Key’s purpose is to help our clients, colleagues, and communities thrive. We remain committed to attracting a talented and diverse workforce and supplier base that represents the clients and communities we serve. In 2021, we continued to focus on increasing minority representation in management and leadership roles, expanding our overall recruiting focus, developing diverse candidate slates and pipelines, increasing supplier diversity, and leveraging our existing employee resource groups to strengthen both engagement and inclusion.
Information About Our Executive Officers
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, 2021, the positions held by each at KeyCorp during the past five years, and the year each first became an executive officer of KeyCorp. Because Mark Midkiff and James Waters have been employed at KeyCorp for less than five years, information is being provided concerning their prior business experience. There are no family relationships among the directors or the executive officers, and there is no arrangement or understanding between any executive officer and any other person pursuant to which the executive officer was selected.
Victor B. Alexander (42) - Mr. Alexander has been KeyCorp’s Head of Consumer Bank and an executive officer of KeyCorp since January 2020. Prior to that time, he served as the Head of Home Lending from October 2018 to January 2020, Treasurer from July 2017 to October 2018, and Merger Integration Executive from December 2015 to June 2017.
Amy G. Brady (55) - 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. She has been a director of DuPont de Nemours, Inc., a multi-industry specialty solutions company, since 2019.
Trina M. Evans (57) - Ms. Evans has been the Director of Corporate Center for KeyCorp since August 2012. Prior to this role, Ms. Evans was the Chief Administrative Officer for Key Community Bank and the Director of Client Experience for KeyBank. She became an executive officer of KeyCorp in March 2013.
Brian L. Fishel (56) - 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.
Kenneth C. Gavrity (45) - Mr. Gavrity has been Head of Enterprise Payments since January 2019 and became an executive officer of KeyCorp in May 2021. Prior to this, Mr. Gavrity served as Head of Commercial Payments from 2016 to 2019.
Christopher M. Gorman (61) - Mr. Gorman has been Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President of KeyCorp since May 1, 2020. Mr. Gorman previously served as President and Chief Operating Officer from September 2019 to May 2020 and President of Banking and Vice Chairman from 2017 to September 2019. 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 became an executive officer of KeyCorp in 2010.
Clark H.I. Khayat (50) - 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. He became an executive officer of KeyCorp in September 2018.
Donald R. Kimble (61) - Mr. Kimble has been the Chief Financial Officer of KeyCorp since June 2013. In 2017, Mr. Kimble was also named Vice Chairman. In January 2020, Mr. Kimble was also appointed Chief Administrative Officer. Mr. Kimble became an executive officer upon joining KeyCorp in June 2013.
Angela G. Mago (56) - Ms. Mago is the Head of Commercial Bank. She previously served as Co-Head of Key Corporate Bank from 2016 to May 2019. She also serves as Head of Real Estate Capital for Key, a role she has held since 2014. She became an executive officer of KeyCorp in 2016.
Mark W. Midkiff (59) - 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, a banking and financial services firm, from May 2017 to December 2017. He served as Chief Risk Officer of GE Capital, the financial services division of General Electric, from May 2015 to January 2017.
Andrew J. Paine III (52) - Mr. Paine is the Head of Institutional Bank. He previously served as Co-Head of Key Corporate Bank from 2016 to May 2019. He also serves as President of KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., a role he has held since 2013. He became an executive officer of KeyCorp in 2016.
Kevin T. Ryan (60) - 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 (51) - Mr. Schosser has been the Chief Accounting Officer and an executive officer of KeyCorp since May 2015.
Jaime Warder (48) - Mr. Warder has been Head of Digital Banking since January 2019 and became an executive officer of KeyCorp in May 2021. Prior to this, Mr. Warder served as Head of Business Banking and Investment Services from 2017 to 2019.
James L. Waters (55) - Mr. Waters became the General Counsel and Secretary and an executive officer of KeyCorp in July 2021. From 2018 to 2021, he served as General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc., a financial holding company. Prior to 2018, he was a partner of the law firm Haynes and Boone, LLP.
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, 2021, 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 to 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 (“Regulatory Capital Rules”). As of April 1, 2020, the Regulatory Capital Rules are fully phased-in for Key. 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, such as KeyCorp and KeyBank, are required to meet the minimum capital and leverage ratios set forth in the following table. At December 31, 2021, KeyCorp’s ratios under the fully phased-in Regulatory Capital Rules are set forth in the following table.
Minimum Capital Ratios and KeyCorp Ratios Under
Regulatory Capital Rules
| Ratios (including stress capital buffer) | Regulatory Minimum Requirement | Stress Capital Buffer (b) | Regulatory Minimum With Stress Capital Buffer | KeyCorp December 31, 2021 (c) | ||||||||||
| Common Equity Tier 1 | 4.50 | % | 2.50 | % | 7.00 | % | 9.48 | % | ||||||
| Tier 1 Capital | 6.00 | 2.50 | 8.50 | 10.77 | ||||||||||
| Total Capital | 8.00 | 2.50 | 10.50 | 12.49 | ||||||||||
| Leverage (a) | 4.00 | N/A | 4.00 | 8.47 |
(a)As a standardized approach banking organization, KeyCorp is not subject to the 3% supplemental leverage ratio requirement, which became effective January 1, 2018.
(b)Stress Capital 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)Ratios reflect the five-year transition of CECL impacts on regulatory ratios.
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, 2021, 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
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.
On July 9, 2019, the federal banking agencies issued a final rule to simplify certain aspects of the Regulatory Capital Rules for standardized approach banking organizations, including Key. The final rule simplifies, for these banking organizations, the regulatory capital requirements for mortgage servicing assets, certain deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences, and investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions. The final rule replaces multiple deduction thresholds with a single 25% deduction threshold for each of these categories and requires that a 250% risk weight be applied to mortgage servicing assets and deferred tax assets that are not deducted from capital. The final rule also simplifies the calculation of the amount of capital issued by a consolidated subsidiary of a banking organization and held by third parties that is includable in regulatory capital. In addition, the final rule makes certain technical amendments to the Regulatory Capital Rules that are applicable to standardized approach banking organizations as well as advanced approaches banking organizations. The final rule provided an effective date of October 1, 2019, for the technical amendments and an effective date of April 1, 2020, for the simplification changes. On November 13, 2019, the federal banking agencies published an amendment to the final rule to provide standardized approach banking organizations with the option to implement the simplification
changes on either January 1, 2020, or April 1, 2020. We chose to implement the simplification changes on April 1, 2020.
In November 2019, the federal banking agencies adopted a final rule to amend the Regulatory Capital Rules by revising the definition of a high volatility commercial real estate (“HVCRE”) exposure. HVCRE exposures are subject to a heightened risk weight under the Regulatory Capital Rules. The final rule, which became effective on April 1, 2020, conforms the HVCRE definition to statutory changes enacted in May 2018. The final rule also clarifies the treatment under the revised HVCRE definition of credit facilities that finance one-to-four family residential properties as well as credit facilities that finance the development of land.
A final rule adopted by the federal banking agencies in February 2019 provides banking organizations with the option to phase in, over a three-year period, the adverse day-one regulatory capital effects of the adoption of the CECL accounting standard. On March 27, 2020, the federal banking agencies issued an interim final rule that gives banking organizations that are required under U.S. accounting standards to adopt CECL before the end of 2020 the option to delay for two years CECL’s adverse effects on regulatory capital (“CECL Interim Final Rule”). This is in addition to the three-year transition period already in place, resulting in an optional five-year transition. The agencies noted that this relief is being provided in order to allow banking organizations to better focus on lending to creditworthy households and businesses affected by recent strains on the U.S. economy caused by COVID-19.
The CARES Act, enacted on March 27, 2020, provides banking organizations with the option to not comply with CECL until the earlier of (i) the termination date of the national emergency concerning COVID-19 declared by the President under the National Emergencies Act; or (ii) December 31, 2020. The federal banking agencies issued a statement on March 31, 2020, indicating that banking organizations that elect to use the optional, temporary statutory relief will be able to elect the remaining period of regulatory capital relief provided under the CECL Interim Final Rule after the end of the statutory relief period. Alternatively, banking organizations may adopt CECL as planned in 2020 and use the regulatory capital relief provided under the CECL Interim Final Rule starting at the time of their adoption of CECL.
On August 26, 2020, the federal banking agencies issued a final rule that is substantially similar to the CECL Interim Final Rule. Like the CECL Interim Final Rule, the final rule gives eligible banking organizations the option to mitigate the estimated adverse effects on regulatory capital of CECL for two years, followed by a three-year transition period, which results in an optional five-year transition. The final rule expands the group of institutions eligible for this optional five-year transition to include any institution adopting CECL in 2020. The final rule also includes certain minor adjustments to clarify the calculation of the transitional amount. Key elected to adopt CECL as planned in the first quarter of 2020 and exercise the option to use a five-year transition to measure CECL’s effects on regulatory capital.
Liquidity requirements
U.S. banking organizations are 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.
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 established 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). Under the Liquidity Coverage Rules, KeyCorp was required to calculate a Modified LCR on a monthly basis and was required to satisfy a minimum Modified LCR requirement of 100%. KeyBank was not subject to the LCR or the Modified LCR under the Liquidity Coverage Rules.
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 was required to 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. KeyCorp began complying with these disclosure requirements for the calendar quarter beginning October 1, 2018.
Large BHCs, like KeyCorp, are also subject to liquidity requirements contained in regulations adopted pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act and the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (“EGRRCPA”). As enacted in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act required the Federal Reserve to impose enhanced prudential standards and early remediation requirements (collectively, “EPSs”), including enhanced liquidity standards, upon BHCs (like KeyCorp) with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets.
In March 2014, the Federal Reserve published a final rule to implement certain of the EPSs required under the Dodd-Frank Act, including liquidity requirements relating to cash flow projections, a contingency funding plan, liquidity risk limits, the monitoring of liquidity risks (with respect to collateral, legal entities, currencies, business lines, and intraday exposures), liquidity stress testing, a liquidity buffer, and liquidity risk management requirements, including requirements that apply to the board of directors, the risk committee, senior management, and the independent review function. KeyCorp was required to comply with the final rule starting on January 1, 2015.
EGRRCPA, enacted on May 24, 2018, raised the asset threshold above which the Federal Reserve is required to apply EPSs to BHCs from $50 billion to $250 billion. EGRRCPA gave the Federal Reserve the authority, following notice and comment procedures, to continue to apply EPSs to any BHCs having at least $100 billion but less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets (like 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.
In October 2019, the federal banking agencies issued two final rules related to the implementation of EGRRCPA (“Tailoring Rules”). The final rules established four risk-based categories of banking organizations with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets and applied tailored regulatory requirements to each respective category. Based on Key’s analysis of the Tailoring Rules, KeyCorp falls within the least restrictive of those categories (“Category IV Firms”). The Tailoring Rules became effective on December 31, 2019.
In one of the Tailoring Rules, the federal banking agencies amended various rules, including the rules governing standardized liquidity requirements, thereby applying tailored liquidity requirements to large banking organizations in each of the four risk-based categories of institutions described in the Tailoring Rules. Under this final rule, Category IV Firms with weighted short-term wholesale funding of less than $50 billion will not be subject to a reduced LCR. KeyCorp does not meet the $50 billion threshold and is not subject to the reduced LCR or an LCR public disclosure requirement.
In the other Tailoring Rule, the Federal Reserve amended certain of its rules governing EPSs to apply tailored regulatory standards (including liquidity standards) to large BHCs in each of the four risk-based categories of institutions described in the Tailoring Rules. Under this rule, Category IV Firms (like KeyCorp) are required to conduct internal liquidity stress tests quarterly rather than monthly as was previously the case and are subject to simplified liquidity risk management requirements, including requirements to adopt a set of liquidity risk limits that is more limited than previously required, calculate collateral positions monthly rather than weekly, and monitor fewer elements of intraday liquidity risk exposures. Category IV Firms are still 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 remain subject to monthly tailored FR 2052a liquidity reporting requirements.
On October 20, 2020, the federal banking agencies adopted a final rule to implement the Basel III NSFR for U.S. banking organizations. The NSFR final rule, which became effective on July 1, 2021, requires certain banking organizations with more than $100 billion in total assets to maintain minimum amounts of stable funding to support their assets, commitments, and derivatives exposures over a one-year time horizon. The final NSFR rule tailors the application of the NSFR requirement to large banking organizations in each of the four risk-based categories of institutions established by the Tailoring Rules. Key is a Category IV firm. Category IV firms with average weighted short-term wholesale funding of less than $50 billion will not be subject to an NSFR requirement. Key does not meet the $50 billion threshold and is not subject to an NSFR requirement.
On December 1, 2021, the Federal Reserve published revisions to the FR 2052a liquidity reporting form in order to accurately reflect the NSFR final rule and to capture other data elements necessary to monitor banking organizations’ liquidity positions and compliance with liquidity risk management standards. The revisions will be effective on May 1, 2022, for Category I firms and on October 1, 2022, for Category II, III, and IV firms (including KeyCorp).
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 $100 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 the BHC’s 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.
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.
The Federal Reserve has conducted 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 and severely adverse scenarios (and through 2018, an adverse scenario), that are determined by the Federal Reserve. 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. Summaries of the results of these company-run stress tests (through KeyCorp’s 2018 mid-cycle stress test results) have been disclosed under the “Regulatory Disclosures & Filings” section of the “Financials” tab of Key’s Investor Relations website: http://www.key.com/ir. Such summaries were not disclosed after 2018 because of the rule changes discussed below.
One of the Tailoring Rules issued by the Federal Reserve in October 2019 to implement EGRRCPA changes the stress testing requirements applicable to BHCs that are Category IV Firms (like KeyCorp). Under this rule, Category IV Firms will no longer be required to conduct and publicly disclose the results of company-run stress tests and will be subject to a supervisory stress test conducted by the Federal Reserve every other year rather than every year as has been the case. In 2020, KeyCorp was required to participate in the Federal Reserve’s CCAR process and was subject to a supervisory stress test conducted by the Federal Reserve. In 2022, KeyCorp will be required to participate in the Federal Reserve’s CCAR process and will be subject to a supervisory stress test conducted by the Federal Reserve.
A separate rule was issued by the federal banking agencies in October 2019 to implement a provision in EGRRCPA that raised the asset threshold that triggers the requirement for federally-regulated banks to conduct company-run stress tests on an annual basis from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets. Under this final rule, federally-regulated banks with total assets of less than $250 billion (like KeyBank) will no longer be required to conduct annual company-run stress tests. Also, this final rule removes the “adverse” scenario as a required scenario for all stress testing requirements applicable to BHCs and federally-regulated banks so that such stress tests will be required to include only “baseline” and “severely adverse” scenarios.
On March 4, 2020, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule integrating certain aspects of the Federal Reserve’s Regulatory Capital Rules with CCAR and the stress test rules in order to simplify the overall capital framework that is currently applicable to BHCs that have $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets (including KeyCorp). Under the final rule, the Federal Reserve amended 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 will be based on the results of an individual BHC’s supervisory stress test and cannot be less than 2.5 percent of risk-weighted assets. A firm will be subject to limitations on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments if it does not satisfy all minimum capital requirements and its stress capital buffer requirement. A firm’s stress capital buffer requirement will become effective on October 1 of each year and will remain in effect until September 30 of the following year unless the firm receives an updated stress capital buffer requirement from the Federal Reserve.
On March 20, 2020, the federal banking agencies published an interim final rule that revises the definition of eligible retained income as that term is used in the agencies’ Regulatory Capital Rules. The revised definition applies to all buffer requirements applicable to a banking organization, including the stress capital buffer requirement adopted by the Federal Reserve on March 4, 2020. The revised definition of eligible retained income will make any automatic limitations on capital distributions that could apply under the agencies’ capital rules more gradual with the objective of promoting continued lending during a period of stress, including the period of stress resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. On August 26, 2020, the federal banking agencies issued a final rule that adopts, without change, the interim final rule issued in March 2020 that revises the definition of eligible retained income as that term is used in the agencies’ Regulatory Capital Rules.
In April 2020, we submitted our 2020 capital plan to the Federal Reserve under the Federal Reserve’s CCAR process. On June 25, 2020, the Federal Reserve publicly announced the results of its CCAR process and the supervisory stress test that it conducted of 33 BHCs having more than $100 billion in total consolidated assets (including KeyCorp). The Federal Reserve indicated that it planned to use the results of this stress test to set the new stress capital buffer requirement for these firms, which would take effect in the fourth quarter of 2020. The Federal Reserve also announced the results of a sensitivity analysis it conducted to assess the resiliency of these firms under three hypothetical downside scenarios which could result from the COVID-19 disruptions.
As a result of its sensitivity analysis, the Federal Reserve decided to take certain actions to require large banking organizations to preserve capital and re-evaluate their capital plans. Specifically, the Federal Reserve stated that it was requiring each firm subject to its capital plan rule to update and resubmit its capital plan to the appropriate Reserve Bank within 45 days after the Federal Reserve provides updated scenarios. The Federal Reserve further indicated that for the third quarter of 2020, these firms were prohibited from (i) making share repurchases (other than share repurchases relating to issuances of common stock for employee stock ownership plans); and (ii) paying common stock dividends that exceed the amount paid in the second quarter of 2020 or exceed an amount equal to the average of the firm’s net income for the four preceding calendar quarters unless otherwise specified by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve said that it may extend these restrictions quarter-by-quarter depending upon the economic circumstances.
On June 30, 2020, KeyCorp announced that its preliminary stress capital requirement, provided by the Federal Reserve as part of the 2020 Federal Reserve capital stress testing exercise, is 2.5%, which represents the minimum buffer required for banking organizations the size of Key. KeyCorp also announced that its capital plans included maintaining its common stock dividend for the third quarter of 2020 at the same level as the second quarter of 2020, subject to approval by KeyCorp’s Board of Directors, which the Board subsequently approved on July 8, 2020. On August 10, 2020, the Federal Reserve confirmed KeyCorp’s stress capital requirement of 2.5%.
On September 17, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced three supervisory scenarios (baseline, severely adverse, and alternative severe) that firms subject to the Federal Reserve’s capital plan rule must use in preparing their updated 2020 capital plan resubmissions and that the Federal Reserve would use in conducting its updated stress analyses of these firms. The Federal Reserve stated that it planned to release firm-specific results from the firms’ performance under these scenarios by the end of 2020.
Due to the continued economic uncertainty caused by the pandemic, the Federal Reserve announced on September 30, 2020, that it was extending for an additional quarter certain measures to ensure that large banking organizations maintain a high level of capital resilience. Specifically, the Federal Reserve stated that banking organizations with more than $100 billion in total assets would be subject to the same prohibition on share repurchases and limitation on dividend payments for the fourth quarter of 2020 that they were subject to for the third quarter of 2020.
On December 18, 2020, the Federal Reserve announced the results of the second round of stress tests for 2020 that it conducted on large banking organizations (including KeyCorp). The Federal Reserve indicated that, in the aggregate, capital ratios for the 33 firms subject to the stress tests remained well above their required minimum levels throughout the projection horizon under both the severely adverse and alternative severe scenarios. However, the Federal Reserve stated that because of the ongoing economic uncertainty, it was extending its limits
on capital distributions by these banking organizations into the first quarter of 2021, with certain modifications. The Federal Reserve said that these firms (including KeyCorp) (1) are prohibited from increasing their common stock dividends to an amount greater than the amount paid in the second quarter of 2020 and (2) are prohibited from paying common stock dividends and making share repurchases that, in the aggregate, exceed an amount equal to the average of the firm’s net income for the four preceding calendar quarters. The Federal Reserve further indicated that it could extend these restrictions beyond the first quarter of 2021 and that it was extending the time period to notify firms whether their stress capital buffer requirements will be recalculated until March 31, 2021.
On March 25, 2021, the Federal Reserve said that it was continuing into the second quarter of 2021 the restrictions on dividends and share repurchases for BHCs with more than $100 billion in total assets that it announced on December 18, 2020, and indicated that it was extending the time period for the Federal Reserve to notify firms whether their stress capital buffer requirements will be recalculated until June 30, 2021. The Federal Reserve also announced that these temporary restrictions on BHC dividends and share repurchases would end for most firms after June 30, 2021. Firms subject to the Federal Reserve’s supervisory stress test in 2021 with capital levels above those required by the stress test will no longer be subject to the temporary additional restrictions after that date while firms with capital levels below those required by the stress test will remain subject to the restrictions. On June 24, 2021, the Federal Reserve announced that all 23 firms that participated in the Federal Reserve’s 2021 supervisory stress test had capital levels above the required minimum and are no longer subject to the temporary additional restrictions on dividends and share repurchases.
For BHCs that are on a two-year stress test cycle and were not subject to the Federal Reserve’s supervisory stress test in 2021 (including KeyCorp), the temporary additional restrictions on dividends and share repurchases ended after June 30, 2021. Beginning on July 1, 2021, these firms are allowed to make capital distributions that are consistent with the Regulatory Capital Rules, inclusive of the stress capital buffer requirement based on the firm’s June 2020 stress test. In August 2020, the Federal Reserve confirmed that KeyCorp’s required stress capital buffer, based on its June 2020 stress test, is 2.5%, which is the minimum buffer requirement for firms the size of KeyCorp. In August 2021, the Federal Reserve re-confirmed that KeyCorp’s required stress capital buffer is 2.5%.
On January 19, 2021, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule to make conforming changes to the capital planning, regulatory reporting, and stress capital buffer requirements for firms subject to Category IV standards (including KeyCorp) to make these requirements consistent with the tailored regulatory framework for large banking organizations that the Federal Reserve adopted in an October 2019 rulemaking. The final rule revises the elements of the capital plan that Category IV firms are required to submit to the Federal Reserve and makes related changes to regulatory reporting requirements. Also, the final rule updates the frequency for calculating the stress capital buffer for these firms. In addition, the final rule makes certain clarifying changes to the stress testing rules applicable to all large banking organizations.
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.
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. On July 16, 2019, the FDIC approved amendments that revise certain aspects of this rule. Among other things, the amendments to this rule (i) provide covered institutions with the option to extend the compliance date to no later than April 1, 2021, upon notification to the FDIC; (ii) clarify the certification requirement; (iii) revise the actions that must be taken for deposit accounts insured on a pass-through basis (where the bank’s account holder is holding funds on behalf of the beneficial owners of the funds); and (iv) streamline the process for submitting exception requests to the FDIC.
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 plans
BHCs with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets, like KeyCorp, have been 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, have also been required to submit a resolution plan to the FDIC. These plans have been due annually unless the requirement to submit the plans was deferred by the regulators. 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 sections of the resolution plans of KeyCorp and KeyBank are available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/supervisionreg/resolution-plans.htm and https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/reform/resplans/. KeyCorp’s last resolution plan was submitted in 2017, and KeyBank’s last resolution plan was submitted in 2018. KeyCorp is no longer required to submit a resolution plan because of the rule change discussed below while KeyBank remains subject to resolution plan requirements as discussed below.
In October 2019, the Federal Reserve and FDIC adopted a final rule to modify the resolution planning requirements applicable to large BHCs. Under this final rule, BHCs with less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets will no longer be required to submit a resolution plan unless they have $75 billion or more in certain risk-based indicators. Under this final rule, KeyCorp is no longer subject to resolution planning requirements.
On April 16, 2019, the FDIC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) requesting public comment on potential changes to its rule imposing resolution planning requirements on large insured depository institutions, including potential modifications to the rule in the following areas: (i) creation of tiered resolution planning requirements based on institution size, complexity, and other factors; (ii) revisions to the frequency and required content of plan submissions, including elimination of plan submissions for a category of smaller and less complex institutions; (iii) improvements to the process for periodic engagements between the FDIC and institutions on resolution-related matters; and (iv) revision of the $50 billion asset threshold in the current rule. The FDIC indicated
that it is considering two alternate approaches with respect to the tiering of resolution plan requirements. Under each of these approaches, institutions would be placed into three groups with the first two groups required to submit resolution plans with streamlined content requirements and the third group not required to submit a resolution plan. The FDIC would engage with institutions in all three groups on a periodic basis on a limited number of items related to resolution planning and would conduct periodic testing of the resolution planning capabilities of these institutions. Comments on this ANPR were due by June 21, 2019. Any changes to this rule will impact KeyBank. The FDIC extended the due date for the next resolution plan submission for all institutions until after the rulemaking is completed.
On January 19, 2021, the FDIC issued a statement announcing that it will resume requiring insured depository institutions with $100 billion or more in assets to submit resolution plans. The FDIC said that it intends to streamline resolution plan content requirements and emphasize periodic engagement with firms regarding resolution planning issues. The FDIC further indicated that no firm will be required to submit a plan without at least twelve months advance notice being provided to the firm.
On June 25, 2021, the FDIC issued a statement describing the modified approach that it plans to take in implementing certain aspects of its resolution plan rule with respect to IDIs with $100 billion or more in total assets (including KeyBank). In this statement, the FDIC (i) indicated that these institutions will be required to submit resolution plans on a three-year cycle; (ii) described the content requirements for these resolution plan submissions; and (iii) specified that there will be greater emphasis in the future on periodic engagement and capabilities testing by the FDIC with individual institutions. A key goal of the FDIC’s modified approach is to provide the FDIC with the information that it will need to meet the operational challenges of resolving an institution in a way that best preserves value and minimizes disruptions. The FDIC stated that resolution plans will be submitted in two groups, with the first group consisting of IDIs whose parent company is not a U.S. global systemically important bank or a Category II banking organization and the second group consisting of all other IDIs with $100 billion or more in total assets. KeyBank is in the first group.
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 AML 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.
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 investments are conformed or are expected to mature or July 21, 2022. The application for an extension was approved on February 14, 2017. As of December 31, 2021, 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 October 8, 2019, five federal agencies announced their adoption of a final rule to simplify and tailor requirements relating to the Volcker Rule. Among other things, the final rule (i) revises the definition of certain terms relevant in determining the scope of the Volcker Rule; (ii) modifies the eligibility criteria for a banking entity to be able to rely on certain exemptions and exclusions from the proprietary trading and covered fund prohibitions; (iii) adds additional proprietary trading exclusions; and (iv) tailors the rule’s compliance requirements based on the size of a firm’s trading assets and liabilities. Under the final rule, a banking entity is subject to the most stringent compliance requirements if it has “significant” trading assets and liabilities, that is, total consolidated trading assets and liabilities of at least $20 billion. A banking entity with total consolidated trading assets and liabilities between $1 billion and $20 billion is regarded as having “moderate” trading assets and liabilities and is subject to a requirement to have a simplified compliance program that must be appropriate given that banking entity’s activities, size, scope, and complexity. A presumption of compliance applies to a banking entity with “limited” trading assets and liabilities, that is, total consolidated trading assets and liabilities of less than $1 billion. The final rule rule became effective on January 1, 2020, and the compliance date was January 1, 2021. Key has “moderate” trading assets and liabilities as calculated under the final rule. The final rule did not have a material impact on Key’s operations.
On June 25, 2020, five federal agencies announced their adoption of a final rule to clarify and streamline the covered fund-related provisions of the Volcker Rule. Among other things, the final rule (i) permits certain low-risk transactions (including intraday credit, riskless principal, and payment, clearing, and settlement transactions) between a banking entity and covered funds for which the banking entity serves as the investment adviser, investment manager, or sponsor; (ii) clarifies exclusions from the covered fund definition for foreign public funds, loan securitizations, small business investment companies, and public welfare investment funds; and (iii) permits banking entities to invest in or sponsor certain types of funds that do not raise the concerns that the Volcker Rule was intended to address, such as credit funds, venture capital funds, customer facilitation funds, and family wealth management vehicles. The final rule became effective on October 1, 2020.
Enhanced prudential standards and early remediation requirements
As enacted in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act required the Federal Reserve to impose EPSs upon BHCs, like KeyCorp, with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Prudential standards were required to 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 were required to 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 would be triggered by forward-looking indicators including regulatory capital and liquidity measures.
The resolution plan requirements were implemented by a joint final rule adopted by the Federal Reserve and FDIC in 2011 and were revised by a joint final rule adopted by the Federal Reserve and FDIC in 2019. In 2011, the Federal Reserve also 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 EPSs required under the Dodd-Frank Act, including: (i) the incorporation of the Regulatory Capital Rules through the Federal Reserve’s previously finalized rules on capital planning and stress tests; (ii) liquidity requirements; (iii) 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; and (iv) 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.
EGRRCPA, which was enacted on May 24, 2018, raised, from $50 billion to $250 billion, the asset threshold above which the Federal Reserve is required to apply EPSs to BHCs. EGRRCPA gave the Federal Reserve the authority, following notice and comment procedures, to continue to apply EPSs to any BHCs having at least $100 billion but less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets (like KeyCorp). Also, this statute requires the Federal Reserve to continue to conduct periodic 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.
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 does not apply to KeyCorp. The Federal Reserve has taken no further action on the early remediation requirements proposed in 2011.
In one of the Tailoring Rules issued in October 2019 to implement EGRRCPA, the Federal Reserve amended certain of its rules governing EPSs to apply tailored regulatory standards to large BHCs in each of the four risk-based categories of institutions described in the Tailoring Rules. Based on Key’s analysis of the Tailoring Rules, KeyCorp believes that it is a Category IV Firm, the least restrictive of these categories. The Tailoring Rules are discussed further under the headings “Regulatory capital requirements - Liquidity requirements” and “Regulatory capital requirements - Capital planning and stress testing.”
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: (i) the definition of affiliate to include any investment fund having any bank or BHC-affiliated company as an investment adviser; (ii) 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 (iii) 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 assigned 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 assigned initial ratings 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 was the subject of two separate, but related proposals: (i) proposed guidance regarding supervisory expectations for boards of directors of large financial institutions; and (ii) 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 was published by the Federal Reserve on August 3, 2017. The final guidance on this subject was issued by the Federal Reserve on February 26, 2021. The final guidance describes the key attributes of effective boards of directors of large financial institutions, including BHCs with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets. This guidance adopts a principles-based approach to describe attributes of effective boards of directors and provides illustrative examples of effective practices. The Federal Reserve indicated that it intends to use the board effectiveness guidance in informing its assessment of governance and controls at all firms subject to the LFI Rating System (including KeyCorp).
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 May 20, 2020, the OCC issued a final rule (the “2020 Final Rule”) to revise the agency’s CRA regulation to strengthen and modernize the framework by which the OCC assesses a bank’s CRA performance. The OCC stated that it was doing so in order to make the CRA regulatory framework more objective, transparent, consistent in application, and reflective of changes in banking and thereby better achieve the statutory purpose of encouraging banks to serve the needs of their communities, particularly LMI neighborhoods and other communities that have been underserved. The final rule became effective on October 1, 2020. Certain provisions of the rule had compliance dates of January 1, 2023, or January 1, 2024.
On September 21, 2020, the Federal Reserve issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) requesting public comment on ways to modernize CRA regulations by strengthening, clarifying, and tailoring them to reflect the current banking landscape and better achieve the core purpose of the CRA. The ANPR seeks public feedback on ways to evaluate how banks meet the needs of LMI communities and address inequities in credit access. When it issued the ANPR, the Federal Reserve said that it hoped the ANPR would provide a foundation for
the federal banking agencies to come together on a consistent approach to CRA regulation that has broad support among all stakeholders. Comments were due by February 16, 2021. If the federal banking agencies agree on a consistent approach to revising their CRA regulations, KeyBank will be required to comply with the revised regulations.
On November 24, 2020, the OCC requested public comment on an NPR setting forth the OCC’s proposed approach for determining the benchmarks, thresholds, and minimums that would be used in assessing a bank’s performance under the general performance standards contained in the 2020 Final Rule. Comments on the NPR were due by February 2, 2021. On December 15, 2020, the OCC published a notice requesting comment on an information collection survey that the OCC would require banks subject to the CRA general performance standards to complete. Comments on this notice were due by February 16, 2021.
On May 18, 2021, the OCC announced that it will reconsider the 2020 Final Rule. The OCC said that it intends to evaluate issues and questions that have been raised concerning the 2020 Final Rule, consider additional stakeholder input, reassess relevant data, and take additional regulatory action, as appropriate. In addition, the OCC stated that it does not plan to finalize a rule that it proposed in December 2020 to provide an approach for determining the benchmarks, thresholds, and minimums that would be used to assess a bank’s performance under the 2020 Final Rule. The OCC further said that it was discontinuing the CRA information collection published in December 2020 that relates to this subject.
On July 20, 2021, the OCC announced that it had completed its review of the 2020 Final Rule and that it planned to (i) propose rescinding the 2020 Final Rule; and (ii) work with the Federal Reserve and the FDIC to develop a joint rulemaking to strengthen and modernize regulations implementing the CRA. Also, on July 20, 2021, the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC issued an interagency statement indicating that they are committed to working together to issue a joint rulemaking with respect to CRA modernization.
On December 14, 2021, the OCC issued a final rule to rescind the 2020 Final Rule and replace it with a rule based largely on the CRA rules adopted jointly by the federal banking agencies in 1995. The OCC indicated that the adoption of this final rule creates consistency for all insured depository institutions and facilitates the ongoing interagency work to modernize the CRA regulatory framework. This final rule was effective on January 1, 2022, but the compliance date for the final rule’s public file and public notice provisions is April 1, 2022.
Control standards
On January 30, 2020, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule setting forth a new, comprehensive framework for determining control under the BHCA and the Home Owners’ Loan Act. The final rule simplifies and provides greater transparency regarding the standards used by the Federal Reserve to determine whether one company has control over another company. The final rule codifies existing Federal Reserve precedents on control and makes certain targeted adjustments to these precedents. The final rule provides a tiered framework that looks at the size of an investing company’s voting and total equity investment in another company along with a variety of other factors, including board representation, officer and employee interlocks, and the existence of business relationships between the companies. By providing greater clarity regarding the standards that will be applied for control determinations, the final rule may facilitate (i) BHCs making minority investments in nonbank companies; and (ii) nonbank investors taking minority stakes in banking organizations. The final rule became effective September 30, 2020.
Regulatory developments concerning COVID-19
Federal, state, and local governments have adopted various statutes, rules, regulations, orders, and guidelines in order to address the COVID-19 pandemic and the adverse economic effects of this pandemic on individuals, families, businesses, and governments. Financial institutions, including Key, are affected by many of these measures, including measures that are broadly applicable to businesses operating in the communities where Key does business. Financial services firms, like other businesses, are required to operate in a manner that seeks to protect the health and safety of their customers and employees.
During the COVID-19 crisis, the federal banking agencies issued a number of statements encouraging financial institutions to meet the financial needs of their customers and have taken steps to provide financial institutions with additional flexibility to meet their customers’ needs. Certain of these steps are discussed above under the headings “Regulatory capital requirements — Recent regulatory capital-related developments” and “Regulatory capital
requirements — Capital planning and stress testing.” In addition, the federal banking agencies along with state bank regulators issued an interagency statement on March 22, 2020, addressing loan modifications that are made by financial institutions for borrowers affected by the COVID-19 crisis. The agencies stated that short-term loan modifications made on a good faith basis in response to COVID-19 for borrowers who were current prior to any relief do not need to be categorized as TDRs and that financial institutions are not expected to designate loans with deferrals granted due to COVID-19 as past due because of the deferral.
The CARES Act, enacted on March 27, 2020, contains a number of provisions that affect banking organizations. The CARES Act provides funding for various programs under which the federal government will lend to, guarantee loans to, or make investments in, businesses. Banking organizations are expected to play a role in some of these programs, and when they do so, they will be subject to certain requirements. One of these programs is the PPP, a program administered by the Small Business Administration (the “SBA”) to provide loans to small businesses for payroll and other basic expenses during the COVID-19 crisis. The loans can be made by SBA-certified lenders and are 100% guaranteed by the SBA. The loans are eligible to be forgiven if certain conditions are satisfied, in which event the SBA will make payment to the lender for the forgiven amounts. KeyBank has participated in the PPP as a lender.
The CARES Act also authorizes temporary changes to certain provisions applicable to banking organizations. Among other changes, the CARES Act gives financial institutions the right to elect to suspend GAAP principles and regulatory determinations for loan modifications relating to COVID-19 that would otherwise be categorized as TDRs from March 1, 2020, through the earlier of December 31, 2020, or 60 days after the COVID-19 national emergency ends. In addition, the CARES Act requires mortgage servicers to grant, on a borrower’s request, forbearance for up to 180 days (which can be extended for an additional 180 days) on a federally-backed single-family mortgage loan or forbearance for up to 30 days (which can be extended for two additional 30-day periods) on a federally-backed multi-family mortgage loan when the borrowers experience financial hardship as a result of the COVID-19 emergency.
On April 3, 2020, federal banking agencies along with state bank regulators issued a joint statement indicating that the agencies do not plan to take supervisory or enforcement action against mortgage servicers for delays in taking loss-mitigation actions or sending notices required by the mortgage servicing rules if they provide short-term forbearance on mortgage loans to borrowers facing hardships relating to the COVID-19 emergency, including forbearance provided in accordance with the CARES Act, provided that the mortgage servicers make good faith efforts to take these actions and send these notices within a reasonable time.
On April 7, 2020, the federal banking agencies, in consultation with state bank regulators, issued an interagency statement clarifying the interaction between (i) their earlier statement discussing whether loan modifications relating to COVID-19 need to be treated as TDRs; and (ii) the CARES Act provision on this subject. In this interagency statement, the agencies also said that when exercising supervisory and enforcement responsibility with respect to consumer protection requirements, they will take into account the unique circumstances impacting borrowers and institutions resulting from the COVID-19 emergency and that they do not expect to take a consumer compliance public enforcement action against an institution, provided that the circumstances were related to this emergency and the institution made good faith efforts to support borrowers and comply with the consumer protection requirements and addressed any needed corrective action.
The Federal Reserve has established several lending facilities that are intended to support the flow of credit to households, businesses, and governments. One of these facilities is the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (“PPPLF”) which was set up to allow the Federal Reserve Banks to extend credit to financial institutions that originate PPP loans, taking the loans as collateral at face value. On April 9, 2020, the federal banking agencies issued an interim final rule to allow banking organizations to neutralize the effect of PPP loans financed under the PPPLF on the leverage capital ratios of these organizations. On September 29, 2020, the federal banking agencies announced their adoption of this interim final rule as a final rule. In addition, on June 22, 2020, the FDIC issued a final rule that mitigates the impact of PPP lending on banks’ deposit insurance assessments. Also, in accordance with the CARES Act, a PPP loan will be assigned a risk weight of zero percent under the federal banking agencies’ risk-based capital rules.
On June 23, 2020, the federal banking agencies, in conjunction with state bank regulators, issued interagency examiner guidance outlining supervisory principles for assessing the safety and soundness of banks given the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The agencies stated that they will consider the unique, evolving, and potentially long-term nature of the issues that banks are confronting and will exercise appropriate flexibility in their supervisory response. The agencies said that they will continue to assess institutions in accordance with existing
agency policies and procedures and will consider whether a bank’s management has managed risk appropriately, including taking appropriate actions in response to stresses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“CAA”), enacted on December 27, 2020, contains a number of provisions that affect banking organizations. Among other things, the CAA extends the provision in the CARES Act that allows financial institutions to suspend GAAP principles and regulatory determinations for loan modifications relating to COVID-19 that would otherwise be categorized as TDRs through the earlier of January 1, 2022, or 60 days after the COVID-19 national emergency ends. The CAA also provides additional funding for SBA-guaranteed loans to small businesses under the PPP (discussed above) and makes a number of changes to this program, including the expansion of the pool of eligible borrowers and the addition of certain categories of expenses that will be eligible for forgiveness. On March 30, 2021, President Biden signed into law the PPP Extension Act, which extended the deadline for submitting loan applications under this program from March 31, 2021, to May 31, 2021. KeyBank participated in the PPP as a lender.
On March 31, 2021, the CFPB announced that it is rescinding seven policy statements issued in 2020, which provided financial institutions with temporary regulatory flexibility in complying with various consumer protection laws when they are working with customers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CFPB indicated that, with these rescissions, it intends to exercise the full scope of its supervision and enforcement authority provided by the Dodd-Frank Act.
The CFPB issued a compliance bulletin on April 1, 2021, urging mortgage servicers to take proactive measures to prevent avoidable foreclosures. The CFPB indicated that it will be closely monitoring how servicers engage with borrowers and will consider a servicer’s effectiveness in helping borrowers when it evaluates a servicer’s compliance with mortgage servicing rules.
On June 28, 2021, the CFPB issued a final rule that amends the CFPB’s mortgage servicing rules to help ensure that borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic have a meaningful opportunity to be evaluated for loss mitigation before the initiation of foreclosure proceedings. Among other things, the final rule (i) establishes a temporary COVID-19 emergency pre-foreclosure review period that, with certain exceptions, prohibits servicers from commencing a foreclosure action involving a borrower’s principal residence until after December 31, 2021; (ii) permits servicers to offer borrowers experiencing a COVID-19 related hardship certain streamlined loan modification options based on the evaluation of an incomplete application; and (iii) revises the early intervention and reasonable diligence obligations of servicers to ensure that they communicate timely and accurate information to borrowers about their loss mitigation options. The final rule became effective on August 31, 2021. Certain requirements apply only until October 1, 2022.
On November 10, 2021, the federal banking agencies along with state bank regulators issued a joint statement stating that the temporary supervisory and enforcement flexibility that they announced in a joint statement issued on April 3, 2020, with respect to the application of certain requirements under the mortgage servicing rules no longer applies. In their November 10, 2021, joint statement, the agencies indicated that they intend to apply their respective supervisory and enforcement authorities, where appropriate, to address any noncompliance or violations of the mortgage servicing rules that occur after the date of their new statement.
Previous: Cover and table of contents · Next: Item 1A. RISK FACTORS