{ "id": "R44035", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44035", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 457227, "date": "2016-11-23", "retrieved": "2016-12-09T19:10:55.731254", "title": "\u201cRegulatory Relief\u201d for Banking: Selected Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "The 114th Congress is considering legislation to provide \u201cregulatory relief\u201d for banks. The need for this relief, some argue, results from new regulations introduced in response to vulnerabilities that were identified during the financial crisis that began in 2007. Some have contended that the increased regulatory burden\u2014the cost associated with government regulation and its implementation\u2014is resulting in significant costs that restrain economic growth and consumers\u2019 access to credit. Others, however, believe the current regulatory structure strengthens financial stability and increases protections for consumers, and they are concerned that regulatory relief for banks could negatively affect consumers and market stability. Regulatory relief proposals, therefore, may involve a trade-off between reducing costs associated with regulatory burden and reducing benefits of regulation. \nThis report discusses regulatory relief legislation for banks in the 114th Congress that, at the time this report was published, has seen legislative action. Many, but not all, of the bills would make changes to the Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203), wide-ranging financial reform enacted in response to the financial crisis. The bills analyzed in this report would provide targeted regulatory relief in a number of different areas: \nSafety and Soundness Regulations. Safety and soundness, or prudential, regulation is designed to ensure that a bank maintains profitability and avoids failure. After many banks failed during the financial crisis, the reforms implemented in the wake of the crisis were intended to make banks less likely to fail. While some view these efforts as essential to ensuring that the banking system is safe, others view the reforms as having gone too far and imposing excessive costs on banks. Examples of legislation include changes to the Volcker Rule, capital requirements, liquidity requirements applied to municipal bonds, and enhanced regulation for large banks.\nMortgage and Consumer Protection Regulations. Several bills would modify regulations issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulator created by the Dodd-Frank Act to provide an increased regulatory emphasis on consumer protection. The Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB new authority and transferred existing authorities to it from the banking regulators. Many regulatory relief proposals could be viewed in light of a broader policy debate about whether the CFPB has struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and regulatory burden. One legislative focus has been several mortgage-related CFPB rulemakings pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.\nSupervision and Enforcement. Supervision refers to regulators\u2019 power to examine banks, instruct banks to modify their behaviors, and to impose reporting requirements on banks to ensure compliance with rules. Enforcement is the authority to take certain legal actions, such as impose fines, against an institution that fails to comply with rules and laws. Although regulators generally view their supervisory and enforcement actions as striking the appropriate balance between ensuring that institutions are well managed and minimizing the burden facing banks, others believe the regulators are overreaching and preventing banks from serving their customers. Examples of legislation include changes to call reports and bank exams, as well as legislation addressing \u201cOperation Chokepoint.\u201d\nCapital Issuance. Banks are partly funded by issuing capital to investors. Disclosure requirements and investor protections may better inform investors about the risks that they are assuming but can make it more costly for institutions to raise capital. Whereas some view these existing regulatory requirements as important safeguards that ensure investors are making educated decisions, others see them as unnecessary red tape that stymies capital formation. The capital issuance legislative proposals discussed in this report are generally geared toward making it easier for financial institutions to raise funds.\nCongress faces the question of how much discretion to give regulators in granting relief. Some bills leave it up to the regulators to determine how much relief should be granted, whereas others make relief mandatory. Some bills provide relief in areas regulators have already reduced regulatory burden. Some of the legislation is focused on providing relief for small banks, whereas other bills provide relief to the entire industry.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44035", "sha1": "022b53aa841d98ee8ef955830b70793f3aed8252", "filename": "files/20161123_R44035_022b53aa841d98ee8ef955830b70793f3aed8252.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44035", "sha1": "6713c6257455aad7db1f7738212250a42d3b9e47", "filename": "files/20161123_R44035_6713c6257455aad7db1f7738212250a42d3b9e47.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 457079, "date": "2016-11-10", "retrieved": "2016-11-21T15:08:22.686660", "title": "\u201cRegulatory Relief\u201d for Banking: Selected Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "The 114th Congress is considering legislation to provide \u201cregulatory relief\u201d for banks. The need for this relief, some argue, results from new regulations introduced in response to vulnerabilities that were identified during the financial crisis that began in 2007. Some have contended that the increased regulatory burden\u2014the cost associated with government regulation and its implementation\u2014is resulting in significant costs that restrain economic growth and consumers\u2019 access to credit. Others, however, believe the current regulatory structure strengthens financial stability and increases protections for consumers, and they are concerned that regulatory relief for banks could negatively affect consumers and market stability. Regulatory relief proposals, therefore, may involve a trade-off between reducing costs associated with regulatory burden and reducing benefits of regulation. \nThis report discusses regulatory relief legislation for banks in the 114th Congress that, at the time this report was published, has seen legislative action. Many, but not all, of the bills would make changes to the Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203), wide-ranging financial reform enacted in response to the financial crisis. The bills analyzed in this report would provide targeted regulatory relief in a number of different areas: \nSafety and Soundness Regulations. Safety and soundness, or prudential, regulation is designed to ensure that a bank maintains profitability and avoids failure. After many banks failed during the financial crisis, the reforms implemented in the wake of the crisis were intended to make banks less likely to fail. While some view these efforts as essential to ensuring that the banking system is safe, others view the reforms as having gone too far and imposing excessive costs on banks. Examples of legislation include changes to the Volcker Rule, capital requirements, liquidity requirements applied to municipal bonds, and enhanced regulation for large banks.\nMortgage and Consumer Protection Regulations. Several bills would modify regulations issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulator created by the Dodd-Frank Act to provide an increased regulatory emphasis on consumer protection. The Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB new authority and transferred existing authorities to it from the banking regulators. Many regulatory relief proposals could be viewed in light of a broader policy debate about whether the CFPB has struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and regulatory burden. One legislative focus has been several mortgage-related CFPB rulemakings pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.\nSupervision and Enforcement. Supervision refers to regulators\u2019 power to examine banks, instruct banks to modify their behaviors, and to impose reporting requirements on banks to ensure compliance with rules. Enforcement is the authority to take certain legal actions, such as impose fines, against an institution that fails to comply with rules and laws. Although regulators generally view their supervisory and enforcement actions as striking the appropriate balance between ensuring that institutions are well managed and minimizing the burden facing banks, others believe the regulators are overreaching and preventing banks from serving their customers. Examples of legislation include changes to call reports and bank exams, as well as legislation addressing \u201cOperation Chokepoint.\u201d\nCapital Issuance. Banks are partly funded by issuing capital to investors. Disclosure requirements and investor protections may better inform investors about the risks that they are assuming but can make it more costly for institutions to raise capital. Whereas some view these existing regulatory requirements as important safeguards that ensure investors are making educated decisions, others see them as unnecessary red tape that stymies capital formation. The capital issuance legislative proposals discussed in this report are generally geared toward making it easier for financial institutions to raise funds.\nCongress faces the question of how much discretion to give regulators in granting relief. Some bills leave it up to the regulators to determine how much relief should be granted, whereas others make relief mandatory. Some bills provide relief in areas regulators have already reduced regulatory burden. Some of the legislation is focused on providing relief for small banks, whereas other bills provide relief to the entire industry.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44035", "sha1": "efa38c9a452ff3ab96a8e7535255f454c785291f", "filename": "files/20161110_R44035_efa38c9a452ff3ab96a8e7535255f454c785291f.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44035", "sha1": "2a8f4713f5ed290d2ca7759db013bf57848477f6", "filename": "files/20161110_R44035_2a8f4713f5ed290d2ca7759db013bf57848477f6.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4870, "name": "Banking" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452268, "date": "2016-05-02", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:14:29.551941", "title": "\u201cRegulatory Relief\u201d for Banking: Selected Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "The 114th Congress is considering legislation to provide \u201cregulatory relief\u201d for banks. The need for this relief, some argue, results from new regulations introduced in response to vulnerabilities that were identified during the financial crisis that began in 2007. Some have contended that the increased regulatory burden\u2014the cost associated with government regulation and its implementation\u2014is resulting in significant costs that restrain economic growth and consumers\u2019 access to credit. Others, however, believe the current regulatory structure strengthens financial stability and increases protections for consumers, and they are concerned that regulatory relief for banks could negatively affect consumers and market stability. Regulatory relief proposals, therefore, may involve a trade-off between reducing costs associated with regulatory burden and reducing benefits of regulation. \nThis report discusses regulatory relief legislation for banks in the 114th Congress that, at the time this report was published, has seen floor action or has been ordered to be reported by a committee. Many, but not all, of the bills would make changes to the Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203), wide ranging financial reform enacted in response to the financial crisis. \nThe bills analyzed in this report would provide targeted regulatory relief in a number of different areas: \nSafety and Soundness Regulations. Safety and soundness, or prudential, regulation is designed to ensure that a bank maintains profitability and avoids failure. After many banks failed during the financial crisis, the reforms implemented in the wake of the crisis were intended to make banks less likely to fail. While some view these efforts as essential to ensuring that the banking system is safe, others view the reforms as having gone too far and imposing excessive costs on banks. Critics of the status quo have proposed several bills to reduce the burden associated with safety and soundness regulations.\nMortgage and Consumer Protection Regulations. Several bills would modify regulations issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulator created by the Dodd-Frank Act to provide an increased regulatory emphasis on consumer protection. The Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB new authority and transferred existing authorities to it from the banking regulators. Many regulatory relief proposals could be viewed in light of a broader policy debate about whether the CFPB has struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and regulatory burden and whether congressional action is needed to achieve a more desirable balance. One legislative focus has been several mortgage-related CFPB rulemakings pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.\nSupervision and Enforcement. Supervision refers to regulators\u2019 power to examine banks, instruct banks to modify their behaviors, and to impose reporting requirements on banks to ensure compliance with rules. Enforcement is the authority to take certain legal actions, such as impose fines, against an institution that fails to comply with rules and laws. Although regulators generally view their supervisory and enforcement actions as striking the appropriate balance between ensuring that institutions are well managed and minimizing the burden facing banks, others believe the regulators are overreaching and preventing banks from serving their customers and therefore have introduced legislation to address these concerns.\nCapital Issuance. Banks are partly funded by issuing capital to investors. Disclosure requirements and investor protections may better inform investors about the risks that they are assuming but can make it more costly for institutions to raise capital. Whereas some view these existing regulatory requirements as important safeguards that ensure investors are making educated decisions, others see them as unnecessary red tape that stymies capital formation. The capital issuance legislative proposals discussed in this report are generally geared toward making it easier for financial institutions to raise funds.\nCongress faces the question of how much discretion to give regulators in granting relief. Some bills leave it up to the regulators to determine how much relief should be granted, whereas others make relief mandatory. Some bills provide relief in areas regulators have already reduced regulatory burden. Some of the legislation is focused on providing relief for small banks, whereas other bills provide relief to the entire industry.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44035", "sha1": "1198c6368964ae35e54be24eb914f0dca173d9c5", "filename": "files/20160502_R44035_1198c6368964ae35e54be24eb914f0dca173d9c5.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44035", "sha1": "586131d175b8afa17ae39d171b452063120c1d36", "filename": "files/20160502_R44035_586131d175b8afa17ae39d171b452063120c1d36.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3451, "name": "Financial Market Regulation" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 449639, "date": "2016-02-11", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:11:39.158770", "title": "\u201cRegulatory Relief\u201d for Banking: Selected Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "The 114th Congress is considering legislation to provide \u201cregulatory relief\u201d for banks. The need for this relief, some argue, results from new regulations introduced in response to vulnerabilities that were identified during the financial crisis that began in 2007. Some have contended that the increased regulatory burden\u2014the cost associated with government regulation and its implementation\u2014is resulting in significant costs that restrain economic growth and consumers\u2019 access to credit. Others, however, believe the current regulatory structure strengthens financial stability and increases protections for consumers, and they are concerned that regulatory relief for banks could negatively affect consumers and market stability. Regulatory relief proposals, therefore, may involve a trade-off between reducing costs associated with regulatory burden and reducing benefits of regulation. \nThis report discusses regulatory relief legislation for banks in the 114th Congress that, at the time this report was published, has seen floor action or has been ordered to be reported by a committee. Many, but not all, of the bills would make changes to the Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203), wide ranging financial reform enacted in response to the financial crisis. \nThe bills analyzed in this report would provide targeted regulatory relief in a number of different areas: \nSafety and Soundness Regulations. Safety and soundness, or prudential, regulation is designed to ensure that a bank maintains profitability and avoids failure. After many banks failed during the financial crisis, the reforms implemented in the wake of the crisis were intended to make banks less likely to fail. While some view these efforts as essential to ensuring that the banking system is safe, others view the reforms as having gone too far and imposing excessive costs on banks. Critics of the status quo have proposed several bills to reduce the burden associated with safety and soundness regulations.\nMortgage and Consumer Protection Regulations. Several bills would modify regulations issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulator created by the Dodd-Frank Act to provide an increased regulatory emphasis on consumer protection. The Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB new authority and transferred existing authorities to it from the banking regulators. Many regulatory relief proposals could be viewed in light of a broader policy debate about whether the CFPB has struck the appropriate balance between consumer protection and regulatory burden and whether congressional action is needed to achieve a more desirable balance. One legislative focus has been several mortgage-related CFPB rulemakings pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.\nSupervision and Enforcement. Supervision refers to regulators\u2019 power to examine banks, instruct banks to modify their behaviors, and to impose reporting requirements on banks to ensure compliance with rules. Enforcement is the authority to take certain legal actions, such as impose fines, against an institution that fails to comply with rules and laws. Although regulators generally view their supervisory and enforcement actions as striking the appropriate balance between ensuring that institutions are well managed and minimizing the burden facing banks, others believe the regulators are overreaching and preventing banks from serving their customers and therefore have introduced legislation to address these concerns.\nCapital Issuance. Banks are partly funded by issuing capital to investors. Disclosure requirements and investor protections may better inform investors about the risks that they are assuming but can make it more costly for institutions to raise capital. Whereas some view these existing regulatory requirements as important safeguards that ensure investors are making educated decisions, others see them as unnecessary red tape that stymies capital formation. The capital issuance legislative proposals discussed in this report are generally geared toward making it easier for financial institutions to raise funds.\nCongress faces the question of how much discretion to give regulators in granting relief. Some bills leave it up to the regulators to determine how much relief should be granted, whereas others make relief mandatory. Some bills provide relief in areas regulators have already reduced regulatory burden. Some of the legislation is focused on providing relief for small banks, whereas other bills provide relief to the entire industry.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44035", "sha1": "3e73e0cb38b7049246c56c0fb3b69bdb7be914f8", "filename": "files/20160211_R44035_3e73e0cb38b7049246c56c0fb3b69bdb7be914f8.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44035", "sha1": "1405245f75b4fed98b4e7fb82db1ba95d5ae4439", "filename": "files/20160211_R44035_1405245f75b4fed98b4e7fb82db1ba95d5ae4439.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3451, "name": "Financial Market Regulation" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc824789/", "id": "R44035_2016Jan19", "date": "2016-01-19", "retrieved": "2016-04-04T14:48:17", "title": "\"Regulatory Relief\" for Banking: Selected Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "This report discusses regulatory relief legislation for banks in the 114th Congress that has seen floor action or has been ordered to be reported by a committee. Many, but not all, of the bills would make changes to the Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203), a wide-ranging financial reform enacted in response to the financial crisis.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20160119_R44035_32dab25c4643cb1b457640d48ba8f31cd9c7c235.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20160119_R44035_32dab25c4643cb1b457640d48ba8f31cd9c7c235.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Finance", "name": "Finance" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Financial deregulation", "name": "Financial deregulation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Banks and banking", "name": "Banks and banking" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Banking law", "name": "Banking law" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795919/", "id": "R44035_2015Oct15", "date": "2015-10-15", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "\"Regulatory Relief\" for Banking: Selected Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "This report discusses regulatory relief legislation for banks in the 114th Congress that, at the time this report was published, has seen floor action or has been ordered to be reported by a committee. Many, but not all, of the bills would make changes to the Dodd-Frank Act (P.L. 111-203), wide ranging financial reform enacted in response to the financial crisis.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20151015_R44035_930fe8e83805d7e9f732a130c3200f8c75faa453.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20151015_R44035_930fe8e83805d7e9f732a130c3200f8c75faa453.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Finance", "name": "Finance" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Financial deregulation", "name": "Financial deregulation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Banks and banking", "name": "Banks and banking" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Banking law", "name": "Banking law" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689180/", "id": "R44035_2015May14", "date": "2015-05-14", "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47", "title": "\"Regulatory Relief\" for Banking: Selected Legislation in the 114th Congress", "summary": "This report discusses regulatory relief legislation for banks in the 114th Congress that, at the time this report was published, has seen floor action or has been ordered to be reported by a committee.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150514_R44035_96c9baae838dae4e4d98da3c984d59bd6315ae1a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150514_R44035_96c9baae838dae4e4d98da3c984d59bd6315ae1a.html", "source": "pymupdf" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Finance", "name": "Finance" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Financial deregulation", "name": "Financial deregulation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Banks and banking", "name": "Banks and banking" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Banking law", "name": "Banking law" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }