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]
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.
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]
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.
···
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.
···
10/06/2015
Why were these regs put in place, only to change them as needed by self serving politicians!
···
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.
"It is time to break up the largest financial institutions in the country." [berniesanders.com]
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.
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.
"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]
"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]
Why were these regs put in place, only to change them as needed by self serving politicians!
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.
Removing red tape for small businesses and organizations is always a good move for the economy.
This would be better for small banks so they don't have to hire more people for compliance.
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.
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.
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.
If anything thing the croney government needs more inspections by the people not the banks.
Causes an unnecessary on banks already bothered by heavy regulations such as the DoddFrank Act
Please give businesses room to build on, including small banks.
We need to have reports and exams of banks to examine how they are doing, and have a better picture of our economy.
But at the same time increase penalties for failure and increase the frequency of big bank exams to every 6 months
We should have learned from our last bank failures that reducing regulations and oversight is dangerous.