Home / Supervision & Enforcement/ Testimonies

Guidance, Supervisory Expectations, and the Rule of Law: How do the Banking Agencies Regulate and Supervise Institutions?

Print
Guidance, Supervisory Expectations, and the Rule of Law: How do the Banking Agencies Regulate and Supervise Institutions?

On April 30, BPI President & CEO Greg Baer appeared before the Senate Banking Committee to provide testimony on examination and enforcement actions taken by the banking agencies as part of their supervisory role. He stated that regulators have effectively turned examination reports into enforcement action and made four key recommendations:

  1. The banking agencies should grant petition for rulemaking regarding supervisory practices consistent with the September 2018 interagency statement issue clarifying that guidance is nonbinding and only violations of law will form the basis of an MRA.
  2. Agencies should seek public comment on whether an MRA is an unenforceable suggestion, or a de facto order issued only when there is a violation of the law, and the outcome of such determination should be consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act-prescribed process.
  3. The agencies should adopt a zero-based review application process that emphasizes transparency and accountability including regular reporting to the Governors of the Federal Reserve, Comptroller of the Currency, and Directors of the FDIC.
  4. The CAMELS rating system should be replaced with standards that are objective, transparent, and consistent as opposed to subjective, opaque, and ad hoc and assessment of management should focus on financial management.

Following the hearing, Mr. Baer sat down with Jeremy Newell, BPI’s Executive VP, General Counsel and COO to discuss the testimony and the importance of this issue.

YouTube video

 

A link to Mr. Baer’s submitted written and oral testimony can be found below.

 

You Might Also Be Interested In...
Silicon Valley Bank BPI’s Jeremy Newell Testifies on SVB Supervision Before House Oversight Committee
Bank Liquidity IntraFi: Was the 2018 Reg Relief Law Responsible for Recent Bank Failures?
Silicon Valley Bank fed reserve cover image showing federal reserve building A Failure of (Self-) Examination:  A Thorough Review of SVB’s Exam Reports Yields Conclusions Very Different From Those in the Fed’s Self Assessment
Silicon Valley Bank Something Missing: Omissions and Surprises in the Federal Reserve’s SVB Report
Silicon Valley Bank svb cover image showing bank building How Did Regulatory Tailoring Affect SVB’s Capital Requirements?
Silicon Valley Bank Did S.2155 Allow SVB’s Failure?
Silicon Valley Bank BPI Statement on SVB Reports
Silicon Valley Bank Silicon Valley Bank image Improving The Government’s Lender of Last Resort Function: Lessons From SVB and Signature Bank
More Posts by This Author
Silicon Valley Bank BPI’s Jeremy Newell Testifies on SVB Supervision Before House Oversight Committee
Cybersecurity BPI Calls on SEC to Better Balance Investor Transparency and Cybersecurity Risks
Bank Capital and Stress Testing Why is the FRTB Expected Shortfall Calculation Designed as It Is?
Newsletters BPInsights: May 20, 2023
Custody Services SEC’s New Custody Rule Threatens to Increase Investment Costs, Reduce Returns
Bank Liquidity IntraFi: Was the 2018 Reg Relief Law Responsible for Recent Bank Failures?
Bank Activities and Structure fig-2-regional-banks-small-business-originations-by-county The Importance of Regional Banks for Small Business Lending and Economic Growth
Newsletters BPInsights: May 13, 2023