Regulatory reform

The political pendulum appears to be swinging toward significantly lower capital requirements, but that threatens to undo the gains banks made in the wake of the financial crisis.

Momentum is building to replace the hard-target $50 billion asset systemic risk threshold for banks with an indicator test, but it remains unclear whether it will be enough to get Congress to act.

While stress testing can provide valuable insight into the strength and resilience of our financial system, regulators are increasingly acknowledging shortcomings in the post-crisis regime.

Consolidation has led to too few community banks, which is amplified in areas where capital is needed most.

Republicans were able to use an obscure legislative process to overturn a rule that banks and credit unions feared would raise their litigation costs.

For community bankers, the current environment is more challenging than ever, with high regulatory burden and tough competition. Four bank CEOs sat down to discuss the future of the industry, and what they are hoping may change.

Top executives at nineteen regional banks sent a letter to the Senate Banking Committee endorsing a bill that would change the systemically important financial institution threshold from $50 billion in assets to an indicator test.

Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt said the agency is poised to examine alternatives to how a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assess creditworthiness of home buyers, including seeking public comment on the issue later this fall.

In a moment of rare unity, the Independent Community Bankers of America and National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions sent a joint letter to FHFA arguing to stop the GSEs' profit sweep.

Recent regulatory reform activity is a step in the right direction, but the changes envisioned in both a Treasury Department report and a suite of House bills are a mixed bag.