May 24, 2012

Reform Reading: Fed Wants to Expand Stress Testing to 35 Big U.S. banks

A daily round-up of news, commentary and analysis about the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

Stress tests – Top U.S. banking regulators on Friday said they will require more banks to hold annual stress tests beginning in 2012 to measure if they are strong enough to raise dividends to shareholders.

The Fed proposal would apply to banks with at least $50 billion in assets -- or about 35 companies -- up from the current 19 banks that are required to do stress testing. Stress tests are computer models run by banks to assess their loans, securities portfolios, and funding operations based on various economic scenarios, including factors such as higher unemployment. 

Senate Republicans take aim at law  - Republican senators have introduced three amendments to a U.S. Senate bill in an attempt to rework Dodd-Frank, including one from Jim DeMint of South Carolina that would repeal the entire Dodd-Frank law, reports the Wall Street Journal.

In addition to DeMint's amendment, Jerry Moran of Kansas offered language that would replace the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a six-person board, while David Vitter of Louisiana proposed blocking the Federal Reserve from bailing out failing companies. Vitter’s amendment would also strip a council of regulators, known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, of its authority to decide if a bank is “too big to fail.”

However, the amendments are likely to fail based on the Wednesday vote in the Senate, in which lawmakers rejected an attempt to delay a Dodd-Frank provision capping bank fees on debit card processing.

CFTC funding – A Republican push to starve the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of funding would put the American public at risk of another recession, said Gary Gensler, chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

As the agency scrambles to meet its Dodd-Frank deadlines to police over-the-counter derivatives trading, the Republican-controlled House approved a $172 million budget for the CFTC -- a $30 million cut from the current year, Reuters reports. A cut in funding for the CFTC in fiscal 2012 would “hamper our ability to seek out fraud, manipulation and other abuses at a time when commodity prices are rising and volatile," Gensler said.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Shirley Gao writes for iWatch News. 

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.