Blog

Welcome to The Vault. Every week you’ll find a sample of FedFin opinion and analysis on the most recent issues facing financial services firms. Check back frequently to see what’s new. Click here to contact us.

16 12, 2024

Karen Petrou: The Likely Banking-Agency Rewrite

2024-12-16T09:09:18-05:00December 16th, 2024|The Vault|

Will the Trump Administration and an agreeable Congress really make sense of U.S. bank regulation? I’m not sure that what they do will indeed make sense, but there’s so little sense in the current system that I’m confident they’ll have no qualms about vaunting the institutional barricades that have thwarted due-process reformers since a Senate Banking chair proposed to create a “Federal Banking Commission” in the early 1980s.  Little in the U.S. regulatory colossus is in as much need of creative disruption as banking; the tricky bit will be to ensure that tearing down the current framework doesn’t leave it in ruins.

One reason for decades of inaction is the federalist structure of U.S. bank regulation, which allows for choice among a federal, state, or hybrid (state member) charter.  Whatever is done to federal bank regulation and federal charters, there is no way Congress will even try to redesign the state-based option.  It might expand preemption, but that’s as far as even this group of radicals will go because Congress will not allow each Member’s state to lose much in the federal reform many of them otherwise want.

Congress will also tread softly on one political demand:  that from small banks for a regulator more likely to listen to their pleas.  Right now, that’s the FDIC, which owes its supervisory role over the decades to small banks despite numerous grievous FDIC mistakes along with the agency’s tunning inability to resolve banks bigger than a bread box.

New leadership may remove …

9 12, 2024

Karen Petrou: Do We Need the Financial Stability Oversight Council?

2024-12-09T09:17:27-05:00December 9th, 2024|The Vault|

On Friday, the Biden Administration’s FSOC proved yet again that it deserved Rohit Chopra’s dismissive description as a “book report club.”  As far as we can tell, all it has done for all of the last four years is issue some nice papers about digital assets and the payment system about which nothing was ever done and put forth dutiful annual reports along with two new systemic-designation standards with which it has since done absolutely nothing.  We’ll take our usual look at this year’s annual report, but it will be even less relevant than usual because FSOC is likely to do at least as little in Trump 2.0 as it did with its own recommendations during Trump 1.0.  Given this sorry record, should the Department of Government Efficiency eviscerate the Council?

Sure, why not if all FSOC plans to do is as meaningless as all is town over the past eight years.  Still, Congress wasn’t wrong when it created a Council designed to force communication across super-siloed regulators and to look hard at nonbanks outside their reach.  Indeed, as nonbanks increasingly dominate core intermediation and infrastructure functions, a forward-looking, effective FSOC would be a vital safeguard against market success derived principally from regulatory arbitrage.

Effective system-wide governance is not impossible.  Late last month, the Bank of England showed what can and should be done to address systemic risk.  Using the Bank’s authority to govern across the financial industry, it released a “System-Wide Exploratory Scenario” (SWES), essentially a financial-system wide stress …

3 12, 2024

FedFin on: Nonbank-Payment Provider Regulation

2024-12-03T16:48:27-05:00December 3rd, 2024|The Vault|

Continuing its efforts to advance controversial actions before the end of the Biden Administration, the CFPB has finalized proposed supervisory standards for large nonbank providers of general-use digital-payment-platform services.  The new standard brings these companies under CFPB supervision as well as regulation and enforcement actions, better aligning their governance with rules applicable to bank payment providers and addressing the Bureau’s deep concerns about digital marketing.  However, this new framework depends on voluntary compliance in anticipation of or as the result of rigorous CFPB supervision…

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

25 11, 2024

Karen Petrou: Why the World Needs a Financial Stability Board That Isn’t This Financial Stability Board

2024-11-25T09:04:12-05:00November 25th, 2024|The Vault|

Donald Trump often upends conventional neoliberal wisdom, but one of the seemingly most frightening things the President-Elect espouses is contempt for the global order embodied in bastions such as the Bretton Woods international financial institutions, NATO, the UN, and the World Trade and Health Organizations.  A less-known archetype of right global-order thinking is the Financial Stability Board.  It has so far been spared by Mr. Trump, likely only because it has yet to come to his attention.  Moving out ahead, two House Republicans vying for HFSC Chair are already insisting that each will, Samson-like, pull down the FSB’s banking, insurance, and securities pillars.  Will the global financial system crumble to the lowest common denominator as FSB advocates proclaim?  I doubt it.  Indeed, shaking global financial standard-setters out of their well-stocked echo chamber could actually do global finance a world of good.

Like all the other global-order monuments, the FSB was founded with the very best of intentions.  The 2008 crisis and warning tremors in the late 1990s proved at grave cost how financial earthquakes know no borders.  What better than a new body of global financial standards akin to those that keep cross-border telecommunications humming to protect global banking, insurance, securities, commodities, and payments?  And thus, the G20 brought forth the FSB in 2009.

The FSB promptly did the best it could as quickly as it could not only to ramp up subgroups such as a renewed Basel Committee, but also to tackle the absence of resolution protocols for the …

18 11, 2024

Karen Petrou: Why Banks Need More Than Just New Capital Rules

2024-11-18T09:27:52-05:00November 18th, 2024|The Vault|

Bankers complain with considerable fervor about a “tsunami of new rules.”  There has certainly been a flood of standards indirectly implemented by supervisors, simply demanded by the CFPB, proposed, and finalized.  It’s thus understandable that bankers think they’re drowning.  But, as forest fires rage in Brooklyn and much of the nation is conserving water, it’s important to recall that too little rain is also dangerous.  Which brings me to the strategic hazard banks run if deregulation, while alleviating a bit of bank burden, leaves untouched all the regulatory asymmetries that make it easy for shadow banks to dominate still more profitable activities once considered core banking services.  If shadow banks offer better products, so be it.  However, much of their market power derives only from adroit regulatory arbitrage.  That’s not just bad for banks; it’s also dangerous to financial consumers, investors, and stability.

Regulators can go only so far in easing banks’ burden because the law requires many of the rules that bind them.  Nonbanks are not governed by much federal law and there are scant state safety-and-soundness standards.  Tech-platform companies are outside the law unless federal regulators use their inter-connection and antitrust powers to rein them in.  That these nonbanks have their eyes on core intermediation and payment services is now indisputable.  That banks will end up as little more than bedraggled “partners” or ancillary-service providers to nonbanks is inevitable unless necessary bank-regulatory reform comes with long-overdue nonbank safety-and-soundness and resolution standards.

Our forecasts of financial policy under President …

15 11, 2024

FedFin Assessment: It’s Still Not Game-On for Most Bank Mergers

2024-11-15T12:58:54-05:00November 15th, 2024|The Vault|

As promised, this post-election forecast looks at bank-merger policy, providing a cautionary note in response to the go-go, game-on forecasts for new mergers often touted by investment bankers.  While community- and midsize-bank mergers will move with more certainty, more alacrity is unlikely unless the OCC and FRB join the FDIC with at least an initial deadline.  The same banking-agency staff who will work on bank mergers next year are also the same banking-agency staff working on them now.  However, we also expect new OCC and FDIC leadership to retract recent agency merger policies, saying at the same time that new ones are forthcoming.  Why is there a need for new ones?  As detailed in this report, aspects of the new policies addressed….

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.

 …

14 11, 2024

FedFin Assessment: The Complex Outlook for Consumer-Finance Regulation

2024-11-14T15:45:08-05:00November 14th, 2024|The Vault|

As with merger policy (see forthcoming FedFin report), consumer-finance regulation will be crafted in the Trump Administration by complex pull-backs of current, progressive standards and pull-forward of populist goals which often parallel progressive ones.  This is most clearly the case where powerful business lobbies such as merchants wield the greatest force (e.g., interchange fees), but will also be evident in consumer-privacy, tech-platform, credit-card, and “relationship-banking” efforts.  This report assesses these and other issues under the CFPB’s jurisdiction, looking also at the outlook for the agency itself as Republicans gain Congressional control, allowing them to press for structural change to this controversial agency…

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.

13 11, 2024

FedFin Assessment: The Fate of the Federal Reserve

2024-11-14T15:45:31-05:00November 13th, 2024|The Vault|

In a recent client brief, we provided our forecast of what might happen to Federal Reserve independence, process, powers, and personnel under either a Harris or Trump presidency.  This is of course no longer an either/or matter, with this report thus reviewing and, where needed, updating our initial assessment of what Mr. Trump could do to the central bank even where Chair Powell says he can’t.  Sherrod Brown’s defeat makes the Fed particularly vulnerable in the Senate, where Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stands a strong chance of becoming the Banking Committee’s ranking Democrat.  She and incoming chair Tim Scott (R-SC) will agree on a lot about the Fed, especially if Sen. Rick Scott – a frequent Warren ally on the Fed front – becomes Majority Leader….

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

12 11, 2024

Karen Petrou: Why Banks Should Want New Capital Rules

2024-11-12T12:02:42-05:00November 12th, 2024|The Vault|

Ever since the election, a lot of bankers have loudly hummed “Ding-dong, regs are dead, the wicked capital regs are dead.”  There is no question that the wicked witch’s demise was warranted, but I’m not so sure about the merits of a similarly-ignominious and total end for the capital rules.  As FedFin reports make clear, too much in these proposals is wrong-headed, even as they may now be revised.  Still, it’s important also to remember that leaving the current rules unchanged leaves as is many provisions that are anachronistic or demonstrably conducive to shadow banking.  There’s never been a better time than now to think about how best to modernize large-bank capital rules without unnecessarily eviscerating large-bank competitiveness.  Here are a few ideas to start things off.

As I suggested in Congressional testimony, one of the silliest sections in the August 2023 capital proposal is the double-layered set of standardized approach (SA) credit-risk capital charges.  Current rules allow big banks to use the advanced approach to credit risk-based capital (RBC), but banks that do so must hold the higher of their own advanced conclusions or the standardized weight.  The proposal gets rid of the advanced approach but still requires banks to pick the higher of two SA options set by the regulators, not advantageous models.

Why have two standardized weights if one of them, while lower than the old weight, is based on what regulators have learned about risk since the old weights were posted in 2013?  If the second …

8 11, 2024

FedFin Assessment: Are Crypto’s Wins the Banks’ Losses?

2024-11-08T14:57:19-05:00November 8th, 2024|The Vault|

One of the more striking results of the election is the enormous win crypto firms got for their $135 million of Congressional-campaign spending: victories so far in every race it entered.  Much of this is due not just to crypto’s lure; instead, it reflects choices based not only on a candidate’s crypto sentiments, but also on the opponent’s vulnerability.  As a result, at least some of crypto’s luster could fade when Congress gets back to work.  However, Donald Trump campaigned on a pro-crypto platform, endorsing legislation such as the Lummis (R-WY) bill to create a “strategic reserve” for bitcoins…

The full report is available to retainer clients. To find out how you can sign up for the service, click here and here.…

Go to Top