Mark W. Olson

While President-elect Trump’s influence on the financial industry may ultimately be substantial, any change is going to be slow to develop — sometimes agonizingly so.

What makes a true leader is particularly relevant to the banking industry, in which the leading institutions and key individuals are not always defined by asset size.

Having banks hold fortress balance sheets and be limited to traditional intermediation would require giving them monopoly status over certain products.

The old concept of real interest rate return is virtually nonexistent. Banks face temptation to reach for extra yield by taking more risk.

Directors and officers liability coverage is an unpopular topic of conversation at board meetings. But directors who shirk their responsibilities in this area may one day find their claims denied.

I was reminded recently that the origin of the term vigilante stemmed from the vigilance committees formed in our nation's early days on the frontier where official law enforcement was either weak or nonexistent. They were established for the purpose of providing an environment where law abiding folks could be protected from the law breakers. Vigilance committees were noble and well-intentioned, but often quickly deteriorated into mobs and were characterized by outbreaks of mob rule.

President Obama assured that 2012 would get off to a rousing start when he made a recess appointment of Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Predictably, the appointment generated both praise and outrage.

After several years of bank merger activity trending down, there are signs that the activity level may revive. As this subject may not have been a front burner topic for bankers in recent years, it is useful to consider how changes in the last few years have altered certain strategic priorities for considering mergers.

This is the time of year when bank boards of directors and management begin the strategic planning process for the following year. There will be few years in the careers of any of us that will provide as many seemingly one-time events as will this coming year, 2012.

When banks attempt to mark up the transaction involving a dollar, the fee for the service is stark. It stands out in a manner that makes it both obvious and occasionally controversial.

It is now close to three weeks since Standard & Poor's lowered its rating on U.S. debt from AAA to AA+ and we now have had sufficient time to evaluate both the downgrade and the aftermath.

A little over one year ago Congress overwhelmingly passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, more commonly known as Dodd-Frank. Though many parts of the bill are controversial, none has sparked more debate than Title X, which created and authorized the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In recent weeks we have been treated to several regulatory observations and preliminary decisions about the appropriate level of bank capital. A few comments have come from U. S. bank regulators. A major recent pronouncement came from the Bank for International Settlements, more commonly known by the name of the Swiss city where the bank is located — Basel.

To question whether we should raise the debt ceiling to meet obligations is as irresponsible as a person’s deciding not to pay a credit card bill when it arrives.

It is difficult to disguise or bury the markup on a dollar. Fees added to most financial transactions are obvious and provide an opportunity for customer disgruntlement.