SIFIs

WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released details Thursday of a proposal that would require large banks to submit a "recovery plan" for how they would survive a crisis.

The central bank's "total loss absorbing capacity" proposal must be reworked to ensure that costs of huge failures don't fall on society at large.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's unexpected move to require the largest banks to develop a "recovery plan" has raised questions about why the agency is moving now and how its mandate differs from regulatory requirements for institutions to develop "living wills."

The recent ineffectiveness of Federal Reserve monetary policy and macroprudential rules begs the question whether the Fed needs to revise recent bank regulations, its own mission or both.

After Wall Street has spent years trying to convincing regulators how they could collapse without disrupting the financial system, the largest U.S. banks will soon have to take the additional step of showing how they can keep from failing in the first place.

A modern version of the Depression-era law would not only make banks safer, but it would also reduce compliance costs and erase the need for certain capital mandates.

The Financial Stability Oversight Council is an enigmatic interagency body that has not provided enough rationale for designating certain insurance firms as a threat to the economy, the Republican leadership of the House Financial Services Committee said Tuesday.

The upcoming release of the evaluations for the largest banks' resolution plans won't just reflect on the institutions themselves, but the regulators as well. Here's why.

Attempts to sneak provisions into a final budget deal may be sold as helping community banks, but many of the measures really help big banks and undermine consumer protection.

It is wrong to claim the Federal Reserve's proposal requiring "total loss-absorbing capacity" will perpetuate the "too big to fail" problem. Indeed, it is just the opposite.