Examinations and reporting requirements. DIs must file quarterly call reports and large
institutions must be examined annually. Examiners analyze the bank’s loan policy (credit
evaluation procedures) and internal control processes (among other things) to help ensure the
safety and soundness of the institution. Fraud and embezzlement have also always plagued
the banking industry, and regular examinations are required to prevent illegal activities.
These and other regulations impose a cost called the net regulatory burden upon DIs. The net
regulatory burden is the difference between the private benefit from being regulated, such as the
reduction in liability cost brought about by deposit insurance, less the private cost of adhering to
regulations, producing reports, etc.
The Dodd-Frank Act of July 2010 (or the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)
was designed to improve the safety and soundness of the financial system and prevent another
financial crisis. The bill’s five key objectives were:
1. Promote better supervision of financial firms by creating a new Financial Services Oversight
Council chaired by the Treasury and including the heads of the primary federal regulators.
The main purpose is to give the Treasury more oversight. The Treasury now has a new office,
the Office of National Insurance, to oversee systemic risks caused by insurance companies.
The other major change is to give the Federal Reserve more authority over nonbanks that pose
systemic risks. This is giving the Fed the authority they used during the crisis.
In 2011 the Fed decided to limit net credit exposures of the nation’s six largest banks to
10% of regulatory capital. Net exposure is generally limited to 25% of regulatory capital
at other institutions. It is possible that these strict limits will have unintended
consequences such as limiting hedging at these large institutions and perhaps reducing
liquidity by limiting interbank trading.
The Fed is now seeking additional regulatory oversight of nonbank financial service
firms (so called shadow banks). Finance companies, life insurers and others are
examples. In addition, structured investment vehicles (SIVs), special purpose vehicles
(SPVs) and issuers of asset backed commercial paper (ABCP) would be included in this
list. According to the text shadow bank assets comprised $9.2 trillion in 2013. The
Dodd-Frank bill grants potential supervisory power to the Federal Reserve of these
entities and it is likely that capital requirements and risk management standards will be
imposed.
Teaching Tip: It is not apparent to me whether additional Federal Reserve oversight of these
firms is necessary or good for the economy. The motivation for regulating depository
institutions is primarily the taxpayer’s liability associated with deposit insurance. These
‘shadow’ entities do not accept insured deposits. Imposing a higher regulatory burden on
these institutions will raise the cost of credit and impose greater inefficiencies in the credit
system. Raising the cost or limiting the availability of bank credit by regulating shadow bank
financing is likely to result in slower job growth over time since small firms are primary job
creators and rely on bank credit. Presumably the argument is that these institutions may be
too interconnected to be allowed to lend in an unregulated fashion. As always, our capitalist
system will respond, perhaps by increasing the amount of unregulated private lending from
pooled investor funds.