{ "id": "R44855", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44855", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 578973, "date": "2018-03-07", "retrieved": "2018-05-10T11:11:16.444076", "title": "Banking Policy Issues in the 115th Congress", "summary": "The financial crisis and the ensuing legislative and regulatory responses greatly affected the banking industry. Many new regulations\u2014mandated or authorized by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) or promulgated under the authority of bank regulators\u2014have been implemented in recent years. In addition, economic and technological trends continue to affect banks. As a result, Congress is faced with many issues related to the bank industry, including issues concerning prudential regulation, consumer protection, \u201ctoo big to fail\u201d (TBTF) banks, community banks, regulatory agency design and independence, and market and economic trends. For example, the Financial CHOICE Act (H.R. 10) and the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) propose wide-ranging changes to the financial regulatory system, and include provisions related to many of these banking issues.\nPrudential Regulation. This type of regulation is designed to ensure banks are safely profitable and unlikely to fail. Regulatory ratio requirements agreed to in the international agreement known as the Basel III Accords and the Volcker Rule are examples. Ratio requirements require banks to hold a certain amount of capital on their balance sheets to better enable them to avoid failure. The Volcker Rule prohibits certain trading activities and affiliations at banks. Proponents argue the rules appropriately balance the need for safety and soundness with regulatory burden. Opponents argue that current rules are overly complex, unduly burdensome, and difficult to enforce.\nConsumer Protection. Certain laws and regulations protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices. Regulations promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and certain mortgage lending rules are contentious issues in this area. Observers disagree over whether CFPB authorities, structure, regulations, and enforcement actions appropriately balance the benefit of protecting consumers and the potential costs of unnecessarily burdening banks and restricting credit availability. A similar debate is about whether mortgage rules appropriately protect consumers and effectively align certain market incentives or unnecessarily reduce the availability of mortgages.\n\u201cToo Big To Fail\u201d Banks. Regulators also regulate for systemic risks, such as those associated with TBTF financial institutions that may contribute to systemic instability. Dodd-Frank Act provisions include enhanced prudential regulation for TBTF banks and changes to resolution processes in the event one failed. Proponents of these changes assert they will eliminate or reduce excessive risk-taking at, and bailouts for, these large banks. Opponents assert that market forces and bankruptcy law are more effective and less distortionary than the new regulations and resolution authorities.\nCommunity Banks. The number of relatively small banks has declined substantially in recent decades. Some analysts assert market forces and removal of regulatory barriers to interstate branching and banking are having a large effect, given that small banks are exempt from many recent regulations and have been consolidating for decades. Others assert small institutions have limited resources and are being unnecessarily burdened by regulation, especially because such banks are unlikely to contribute to systemic risk.\nRegulatory Agency Design and Independence. How regulatory agencies are structured and promulgate rules are also issues. Some assert that financial agencies\u2019 relatively high degree of independence from the President and Congress results in too little accountability in rulemaking; thus, their leadership structures, funding, and rulemaking procedures should be altered. Opponents of such measures maintain that financial regulator independence should be maintained because it allows regulations to be promulgated by technical experts with some insulation from political considerations.\nRecent Market and Economic Trends. Changing economic forces may also pose issues to the banking industry. Increases in regulation could drive certain financial activities into a relatively lightly regulated \u201cshadow banking\u201d sector. Innovative financial technology may alter the way certain financial services are delivered. Interest rates are likely to begin rising soon after a long period of low rates, which could present risks to banks. Competition and regulatory differences between banks and nonbanks with different charter types is an ongoing issue.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44855", "sha1": "3487f799fa3e631c9aaeb0f1b0f10ac2f1f3e13a", "filename": "files/20180307_R44855_3487f799fa3e631c9aaeb0f1b0f10ac2f1f3e13a.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44855", "sha1": "83f74392cb405efbe9c7f665a893019a56b731bc", "filename": "files/20180307_R44855_83f74392cb405efbe9c7f665a893019a56b731bc.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461534, "date": "2017-05-26", "retrieved": "2017-08-22T14:37:25.108975", "title": "Banking Policy Issues in the 115th Congress", "summary": "The financial crisis and the ensuing legislative and regulatory responses greatly affected the banking industry. Many new regulations\u2014mandated or authorized by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) or promulgated under the authority of bank regulators\u2014have been implemented in recent years. In addition, economic and technological trends continue to affect banks. As a result, Congress is faced with many issues related to the bank industry, including issues concerning prudential regulation, consumer protection, \u201ctoo big to fail\u201d (TBTF) banks, community banks, regulatory agency design and independence, and market and economic trends. For example, the Financial CHOICE Act (H.R. 10) proposes comprehensive reform to the financial regulatory system, and includes provisions related to many of these banking issues.\nPrudential Regulation. This type of regulation is designed to ensure banks are safely profitable and unlikely to fail. Regulatory ratio requirements agreed to in the international agreement known as the Basel III Accords and the Volcker Rule are examples. Ratio requirements require banks to hold a certain amount of capital on their balance sheets to better enable them to avoid failure. The Volcker Rule prohibits certain trading activities and affiliations at banks. Proponents argue the rules appropriately balance the need for safety and soundness with regulatory burden. Opponents argue that current rules are overly complex, unduly burdensome, and difficult to enforce.\nConsumer Protection. Certain laws and regulations protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices. Regulations promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Durbin Amendment\u2014which directs regulators to restrict interchange fees charged to merchants\u2014are contentious issues in this area. Observers disagree over whether CFPB regulations appropriately balance the benefit of protecting consumers and the potential costs of unnecessarily burdening banks and restricting credit availability. Observers also disagree over whether the Durbin Amendment corrects monopolistic pricing by issuing banks and network providers, or instead creates market distortions by interfering with market pricing.\n\u201cToo Big To Fail\u201d Banks. Regulators also regulate for systemic risks, such as those associated with TBTF financial institutions that may contribute to systemic instability. Dodd-Frank Act provisions include enhanced prudential regulation for TBTF banks and changes to resolution processes in the event one failed. Proponents of these changes assert they will eliminate or reduce excessive risk-taking at, and bailouts for, these large banks. Opponents assert that market forces and bankruptcy law are more effective and less distortionary than the new regulations and resolution authorities.\nCommunity Banks. The number of relatively small and simple banks has declined substantially in recent decades. Some analysts assert market forces and removal of regulatory barriers to interstate branching and banking are having a large effect, given that small banks are exempt from many recent regulations and have been consolidating for decades. Others assert small institutions have limited resources and are being unnecessarily burdened by regulation, especially because such banks are unlikely to contribute to systemic risk.\nRegulatory Agency Design and Independence. How regulatory agencies are structured and promulgate rules are also issues. Some assert that financial agencies\u2019 relatively high degree of independence from the President and Congress results in too little accountability in rulemaking; thus, their leadership structures, funding, and rulemaking procedures should be altered. Opponents of such measures maintain that financial regulator independence should be maintained because it allows regulations to be promulgated by technical experts with some insulation from political considerations.\nRecent Market and Economic Trends. Changing economic forces may also pose issues to the banking industry. Increases in regulation could drive certain financial activities into a relatively lightly regulated \u201cshadow banking\u201d sector. Innovative financial technology may alter the way certain financial services are delivered. Interest rates are likely to begin rising soon after a long period of low rates, which could present risks to banks. Competition and regulatory differences between banks and nonbanks with different charter types is an ongoing issue.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44855", "sha1": "04b8e8c0e40bc72fb37e5aa5005f96a29de7ccf2", "filename": "files/20170526_R44855_04b8e8c0e40bc72fb37e5aa5005f96a29de7ccf2.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44855", "sha1": "624d5ee53cc68e654788c182de0b14c3f7d982ba", "filename": "files/20170526_R44855_624d5ee53cc68e654788c182de0b14c3f7d982ba.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy" ] }