It all depends on what one means by superregulator.
There has been some benefit over the years from the dual banking system because it's acted like a kind of check and balance. Consolidation of the federal regulatory environment would be beneficial.
It is ridiculous for the various federal agencies to continue to exist and compete with each other over various jurisdictions.
Combining those agencies, whether physically or in some other fashion, would allow us to focus on our job - which is competing with one another.
No. I think the present setup works quite well. It fosters better regulation and gives two different perspectives on operations in banks. It will not release that kind of credit ($86 billion) if a superregulator is created.
I am more fearful that it could create a regulatory environment that is less responsive to the industry.
We have seen creativity from the tensions between different regulatory agencies.
In general, I think a state organization would prefer to deal with a charter authority in its home state as opposed to one mammoth agency."
No. My reasoning is that I'm happy and confident with the way things are with the FDIC and the California State Banking Department. The FDIC gives us a nationwide perspective, and the state regulator gives us the California perspective.
I think the superregulator is another government behemoth in the making. The state and FDIC are doing a good job. I'm not so sure a superregulator would free up a lot of money. The way California banking is put together, there's not a lot of conflicting regulation.
