Dodd-Frank

MetLife and its allies are pushing back against the Financial Stability Oversight Council. But it's well worth imposing additional regulatory costs on large nonbanks if doing so helps prevent another crisis.

Twelve of the largest financial firms provided more information than they did last year in the public versions of their plans for breaking themselves up in a financial catastrophe, but whether they have done enough to reassure regulators won't be known for months.

The former FDIC chairman said during a recent conference call that banks with a traditional model — essentially community banks — have been hurt by the Fed's interest rate policy and the trickle-down tactics of regulation.

President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act five years ago this month, but the battle over the law's impact and legacy goes on. Several top lawmakers spoke to American Banker about how their views have evolved since the law's passage. Here are some highlights from those conversations.

Cyber threats or fraud may present bigger direct risks to banks, but many chief risk officers spend enormous amounts of time on the more tangible concern of keeping up with ever-growing regulatory expectations and requirements.

In the aftermath of passage of a sweeping law like Dodd-Frank, sharp divisions are common. What's unusual is the way the divide has persisted five years later, and in many ways has even hardened.

A role many people did not understand less than a decade ago has become integral to how banks navigate a new set of postcrisis hazards.

Equal-opportunity small business lending can go a long way toward helping minority groups rebuild the wealth lost during the Great Recession. The CFPB has delayed implementing reporting requirements that could close the credit gap for far too long.

One key test of banks' latest living will submissions, the first batch of which are due Wednesday, is whether the public portions of their plan are understandable to the public. If they aren't, regulators are ready to take tough action against institutions.

As the fifth anniversary of Dodd-Frank approaches, regulators in the U.S. and around the world appear to be joining the financial industry in favoring an approach to shadow banking that focuses on risky activities, rather than entities.

WASHINGTON — Certain indicators of financial risk appear to be getting worse, including term premiums for Treasury bonds and dealer inventories of fixed-income assets, according to the Office of Financial Research.

If approved, Core Commercial Bank would be just the third new bank to open in the U.S. since the financial crisis.

In their ongoing quest to undo the most burdensome provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, bankers invite lawmakers to spend a day in their branches.

A senior civil rights official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is poised to tell Congress Thursday that the agency willfully disregards the process for handling internal employee complaints of discrimination and has repeatedly retaliated against staff who spoke out.

The growing popularity of impact investing has led to a raft of new disclosure rules. The problem is that using the SEC to monitor companies' CEO pay policies and use of "conflict minerals" decouples the government agency's authority from its area of jurisdiction.

Congress should avoid becoming so focused on the problems with big banks that they overlook the community lenders suffering from a lack of regulatory relief.

The Dodd-Frank Act called on regulators to develop ways to assess diversity practices in the financial sector, but the guidelines are getting panned by critics who say they do not go far enough.

New York Community Bancorp would stay profitable and maintain capital levels well above the necessary minimum if it was hit with a sustained economic shock, its stress-test report said. It is one of the larger banks subject to the so-called DFAST review.

Determining regulatory requirements based on banks’ activities rather than their size would liberate old-school institutions from unnecessary burdens without endangering the financial system.

The insurance provider said that it is not eligible for designation as a Systemically Important Financial Institution because it is not primarily a financial company, and even if it were, FSOC wrongly used the firm's size alone to subject it to heightened regulation.