Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1553

Reducing the Frequency of Regulatory Exams for Healthy Small Banks

Argument in favor

This bill would help healthy small banks by reducing the frequency of their on-site regulatory examinations to 18 months. Regulators would keep the ability to impose conduct frequent exams on an institution that needs it.

···
11/03/2015
"It is time to break up the largest financial institutions in the country." [berniesanders.com]
Like (36)
Follow
Share
EricRevell's Opinion
···
10/06/2015
Going through 2 continuous regulatory exams over a 3-year period is better for small banks than 3 in a 3-year period. Small banks need to be regulated differently than massive, systemically important banks.
Like (16)
Follow
Share
···
11/03/2015
"If as you claim community banks were particularly hard hit by Dodd-Frank's new rules, why are they making more money since the rules went into effect and doing better than big banks?" [thehill.com]
Like (10)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

All small banks need stringent federal examinations of their operations every 12 months. If that level of scrutiny impacts their business, they should hire more compliance workers to deal with the paperwork.

Leon's Opinion
···
10/05/2015
I'm not sure. The title is misleading. This doesn't change the frequency of checks on small banks. Rather, it changes the definition of 'small banks' to be twice as large. So this bill reduces regulation on bigger banks.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Dexter's Opinion
···
10/06/2015
Why were these regs put in place, only to change them as needed by self serving politicians!
Like (3)
Follow
Share
Curtis's Opinion
···
10/06/2015
The Housing Bubble which was the result of government rules created the problem, not the market as some have tried to represent. We need to return to market based models with less intrusive regulatory requirements, and the market will pick the winners instead of the government who is made up of people who can be influenced.
Like (2)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 1553?

This bill would increase the number of small banks that are eligible for 18-month on-site examinations by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) by raising the asset size of eligible small banks from $500 million to $1 billion. As a result these banks would undergo two continuous exams over a three-year period, rather than three exams. These changes would only apply to banks that are considered well capitalized and not at risk of instability.


A small bank would also qualify for the 18-month review cycle if they they have less than $200 million in assets, as that limit would be raised from $100 million and the bank’s most recent examination found its composite condition to be good rather than outstanding.


Federal banking agencies would be given the authority to increase these asset ceilings beyond the $200 million to $1 billion range in the future if they find that greater asset size is consistent with the principles of safety and soundness.

Impact

Banks that would qualify for the new on-site exams, the FDIC, and a federal banking agency.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1553

$0.00
The CBo estimates that this legislation may affect direct spending, but that any budgetary effects would be insignificant.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO) cited concerns about the impact of regulatory exams occurring every 12 months on the ability of small banks to serve their customers as a reason for introducing his bill: “The most widespread concern that I’ve heard from small banks I’ve met with throughout Colorado, is that increased regulatory compliance burdens have taken vital resources away from running their business operations and providing services to consumers.”


In a letter of support for this bill, the Independent Community Bankers of America noted that offsite supervision of banks could continue, and that making on-site exams less frequent for the healthiest banks: “would actually increase safety and soundness by allowing examiners to focus their limited resources on the true sources of risk.”


The House FInancial Services Committee passed this legislation unanimously on a vote of 59-0.


Of Note: According to the Federal Reserve, the 550 largest banking corporations in the U.S. have an assets of $1 billion or larger, while there are about 1,230 banks ranging in size between $999 million and $300 million.

The FDIC reports that of the 5,472 banking firms in the U.S., there are 4,898 that have less than $1 billion in assets, which amounts to 89.5 percent.

Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user Tony Webster)

AKA

Small Bank Exam Cycle Reform Act of 2015

Official Title

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to specify which smaller institutions may qualify for an 18-month examination cycle.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • The house Passed October 6th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 411 Yea / 0 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Financial Services
      Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions
    IntroducedMarch 23rd, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    "It is time to break up the largest financial institutions in the country." [berniesanders.com]
    Like (36)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm not sure. The title is misleading. This doesn't change the frequency of checks on small banks. Rather, it changes the definition of 'small banks' to be twice as large. So this bill reduces regulation on bigger banks.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Going through 2 continuous regulatory exams over a 3-year period is better for small banks than 3 in a 3-year period. Small banks need to be regulated differently than massive, systemically important banks.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    "If as you claim community banks were particularly hard hit by Dodd-Frank's new rules, why are they making more money since the rules went into effect and doing better than big banks?" [thehill.com]
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    "Despite the 2008 meltdown on Wall Street, just five banks still control half the industry's $15 trillion in assets, and not a single executive was ever convicted of a crime. We must reinstate Glass-Steagall, empower regulators to hold law-breakers accountable, and break up big banks before they break us. We need stronger protections for American families, not billion-dollar banks.' [martinomalley.com]
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Why were these regs put in place, only to change them as needed by self serving politicians!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    To use Government paperwork as the rationale for voting "Nay" tells me how out of touch Congress is with the impact of regulations on business in general and not just small banks.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Removing red tape for small businesses and organizations is always a good move for the economy.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    This would be better for small banks so they don't have to hire more people for compliance.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    The Housing Bubble which was the result of government rules created the problem, not the market as some have tried to represent. We need to return to market based models with less intrusive regulatory requirements, and the market will pick the winners instead of the government who is made up of people who can be influenced.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    It's absurd to place the same demands on small business as large businesses; bank or not. They don't have the resources to comb through thousands of pages of regulations, which is ridiculous to have in the first place.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, as long as it is restricted to those small banks who fit the criteria. By the way, considering the number of small banks involved, why is the budgetary effects insignificant, especially considering that the number of reviews are reduced and the number of small banks will potentially increase? There should be significant saves here.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    The small, local banks ain't the problem
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    If anything thing the croney government needs more inspections by the people not the banks.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Causes an unnecessary on banks already bothered by heavy regulations such as the DoddFrank Act
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Please give businesses room to build on, including small banks.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to have reports and exams of banks to examine how they are doing, and have a better picture of our economy.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    All banks should have the same frequency of audits.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    But at the same time increase penalties for failure and increase the frequency of big bank exams to every 6 months
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    We should have learned from our last bank failures that reducing regulations and oversight is dangerous.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    MORE