{
  "id": "R43999",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R43999",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 441049,
      "date": "2015-04-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:11:25.042286",
      "title": "An Analysis of the Regulatory Burden on Small Banks",
      "summary": "Since the financial crisis, policymakers have focused on addressing the failures that led to turmoil and ensuring that the financial system and the economy are better positioned to withstand future market disruptions. Some believe that the actions taken to realize these goals have been beneficial; others argue that the pendulum of regulation has swung too far and that the additional regulation has stymied economic growth and reduced consumers\u2019 access to credit. Much of the debate has centered on how new regulation has affected small banks. \nA central question about the regulation of small banks is whether an appropriate tradeoff has been struck between the benefits and costs of regulation. The benefits of financial regulation include protecting consumers from fraud, discrimination, and abuse; ensuring that banks are less likely to fail; and promoting stability in the financial system. The costs associated with government regulation and its implementation is referred to as regulatory burden. The concept of regulatory burden can be contrasted with the phrase unduly burdensome, which refers to the relationship between benefits and costs. Some would consider a regulation to be unduly burdensome if costs exceed benefits or if the same benefits could be achieved at lower costs. The presence of regulatory burden does not mean that a regulation is unduly burdensome. Critics who believe that regulation is unduly burdensome point to the significant decline in the number of small banks over time. There could be other factors driving consolidation, however. For example, mergers are the largest cause of consolidation, and could occur when banks are financially strong or weak.\nOf the 14 \u201cmajor\u201d rules issued by banking regulators pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203), 13 either include an exemption for small banks or are tailored to reduce the cost for small banks to comply. In addition, during the rulemaking process, financial regulators are required to consider the effect of rules on small banks. Supervision and enforcement are also structured to pose less of a burden on small banks than larger banks, such as by requiring less frequent bank examinations for certain small banks. This report provides several examples that could be offered to counter views that there is a \u201cone-size-fits-all\u201d approach to bank regulation and that new regulation has increased regulatory burden relative to large banks. If small banks are facing unduly burdensome regulation, it is either in absolute terms or because small banks have less capacity for regulatory compliance than large banks do.\nQuantifying the magnitude of regulatory burden has been a challenge for researchers because, among other reasons, federal statute does not require regulators to make quantitative estimates for all rules that they issue and because banks do not track the compliance costs spread throughout their operations. The difficulty in accurately assessing regulatory burden and in determining whether the burden rises to being unduly burdensome can make it challenging for policymakers to make informed judgments about the merits of proposals to provide regulatory relief.\nThe status quo is best characterized as applying ad hoc exemptions to certain regulations for banks based on their size and volume of activity, and most legislative proposals would adjust those exemption levels. Alternatives to the status quo range from regulating all banks in the same way, regardless of size, to implementing a separate regulatory regime for small and large banks, with various approaches in between. A focus on taxpayer protection and avoiding regulatory arbitrage would argue in favor of regulating all banks consistently. Rationales for regulating small banks differently from large banks include the systemic risk posed by large banks, economies of scale to regulatory compliance, a lack of critical mass of small banks to which some regulations would be relevant, and a desire by some policymakers to promote small banks.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43999",
          "sha1": "5efad5199524f87d7870d2a0570508d8b1c9d63d",
          "filename": "files/20150422_R43999_5efad5199524f87d7870d2a0570508d8b1c9d63d.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43999",
          "sha1": "639c438e36d17e21572b8c06354388f895629484",
          "filename": "files/20150422_R43999_639c438e36d17e21572b8c06354388f895629484.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3451,
          "name": "Financial Market Regulation"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4640,
          "name": "Depository Banks and Credit Unions"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}