Dodd-Frank Consolidates More Power in the Hands of Fewer Banks

Subcommittee Examines Chilling Impact of Dodd-Frank on New Financial Institutions March 21,2017
the staff of the Ridgewood blog


WASHINGTON DC, Members of the Financial Services Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee met on Tuesday to examine the chilling impact that the Dodd-Frank Act has had on the creation of new or “de novo” financial institutions.

“Today, we took the first step at looking into why there are so few new banks and the barriers to entry for would-be community financial institutions. The historical data paints a very clear picture of what has happened since the passage of Dodd-Frank. From 2010 to 2016, there were only a handful of new bank and credit union charters granted. In comparison, more than 1,300 new banks and 75 credit unions were chartered between 2000 and 2008.” said Subcommittee Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO). “New financial institutions are a direct benefit to consumers and communities across the nation. The subcommittee will spend the next two years pursuing initiatives that promote financial choice and accessibility for all Americans.”

Key Takeaways from the Hearing:

The number of new, or “de novo,” bank and credit union charters has declined to historic lows since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Since Dodd-Frank became law, the big banks have gotten bigger while the small banks and credit unions have become fewer.

From 2010 to 2016, there were only five new bank and 16 new credit union charters granted. In comparison, between 2000 and 2008, 1,341 new banks and 75 new credit unions were chartered.

Topline Witness Quotes:

“Lack of de novos has its roots in excessive regulation…Some have argued that bank lending continues and therefore, there has been no impact of Dodd-Frank. Banks continue to lend even with the shackles that bind them. However, in the five years since Dodd-Frank was enacted, the pace of lending was half of what it was several years before the financial crisis. Some banks have stopped offering certain products altogether, such as mortgage and other consumer loans” – Ken Burgess, Chairman, First Capital Bank of Texas

“Unfortunately, new credit unions like The Finest FCU are not being created due not only to the hurdles posed by initial start-up time and costs, but also the daunting over-regulation facing the credit union once its charter is granted. Many smaller credit unions are saying ‘enough is enough’ when it comes to the overregulation of the industry. The compliance requirements in a post-Dodd-Frank environment have grown to a tipping point where it is nearly impossible for many smaller institutions to survive, much less start from scratch. Credit unions want to continue to aid in the economic recovery, but are being stymied by this overregulation. We need regulatory relief – both legislatively and from the regulators.” – Keith Stone, President and CEO of The Finest Federal Credit Union

“[T]hese added costs occasioned by Dodd Frank, Basel III and discretionary supervisory action significantly impaired existing financial institutions’ ability to provide financial services and products to consumers in the communities they serve. Many banks exited the mortgage loan business because of the complexity and uncertainty resulting from Dodd Frank, the CFPB and related rulemaking.” – Patrick Kennedy, Managing Partner, Kennedy Sutherland LLP, on behalf of the Subchapter S Bank Association

Banks to Donald Trump: Don’t Kill Dodd-Frank

pic CEO of JP Morgan Jamie Dimon

Bankers admit they love the guaranteed bailouts, lack of competition and regulated margins of Dodd-Frank
December 10, 2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Big banks have an unexpected message for President-elect Donald Trump: Don’t trash the Dodd-Frank Act.“We’re not asking for wholesale throwing out Dodd-Frank,” J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. chief James Dimon said at a financial-services conference this week where he and other big-bank executives spoke, often addressing potential regulatory changes for the first time since the election.

During his presidential campaign, Republican Donald Trump said he would "get rid of" Dodd-Frank — the sweeping legislation passed in 2010 to address problems underlying the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Dodd-Frank a 2200 page monstrosity , was passed by congress like Obamacare without anyone reading the legislation , that is except for former NJ Congressmen Scott Garrett.

Dodd-Frank turned banks into utilities and did nothing to solve the ills that caused the banking crisis in 2008 ,it basically institutionalized the bad behavior that created the problem, put the bad debt in suspended animation and put taxpayers on the hook with its "too big to fail" provisions creating "Bailout Nation".Too big to fail also implies the corollary to big to really succeed.

Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan called "too big to fail" legislation a "moral hazard" , giving bankers the excuse to engage in activities that would otherwise risk their livelihoods, feeling confident in ever larger government ie taxpayer bailouts.

Some in Washington have called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, the legislation passed in 2010 that imposed new constraints on banks and created new agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A proposal that would effectively replace Dodd-Frank, by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has gained momentum since the election.

The Trump team has talked about dismantling the law, although it has yet to state clearly whether this would involve a repeal of Dodd-Frank. Bank stocks have soared about 20% since the election, partly on the belief President-elect Donald Trump in some way will lighten banks’ regulatory load.

While banks favor a paring back of regulation, they tend to think in practical terms, rather than ideologically. And their core message seems to be: Make regulation simpler and less costly but don’t return banking to the Wild West days that preceded the financial crisis.

In many ways that is understandable. Banks have spent half a dozen years and hundreds of millions of dollars to adapt to the new landscape. This has caused them to exit businesses such as proprietary trading, rejig their corporate structures to make them safer and focus more on clients’ needs. While tearing up Dodd-Frank would seem to unshackle banks, starting with a new regulatory playbook would upend their new business models and divert management.

One of the biggest concerns for banks is that things don’t get worse. “The first thing I would ask for is nothing new, no new rules,” Citigroup Inc. finance chief John Gerspach said at the conference. “If you haven’t figured out yet how all the existing rules work together, don’t put on anything else.”

Banks acknowledge benefits to the new rules, noting they have helped improve the way firms manage risks and view their businesses. U.S. bankers have also said that having been forced to hold more capital, and build it quickly after the financial crisis, made their firms far stronger than troubled European peers.

So what would the big banks like to see changed?

Stress Tests—These annual exercises conducted by the Federal Reserve have become hugely important because they govern the amount of capital banks can return to shareholders, either through buybacks or dividends.

Banks want these to be based more on objective criteria and they want to have more of a view into the testing process and the Fed’s decision-making. And they should take less time and money to comply with, bankers say.

Bill Demchak, CEO of PNC Financial Services Group Inc., said his bank could theoretically get all the benefits of the stress-testing process with “60% of the effort.” He said that to comply with the tests, “you bring the place to a grinding halt once a year.”

The Volcker Rule— Banks say they aren’t eager to get back into the business of speculating on market moves using their own balance sheets. But they want the process around the Volcker Rule to be less burdensome and administered by fewer than five agencies.

Changes in this area could “probably make it easier to make markets” and improve liquidity, likely benefiting investors and other issuers, said Mr. Dimon.

“You have active market-marking in lumber, rebar, chicken, pork, cotton; we need it in financial instruments, it’s not different,” he said. "I do think a little more liquidity could be good.”

Mr. Gerspach said Citigroup would like less paperwork. “We don’t want to do proprietary trading,” he said. “But I also would love to work with regulators to lessen the burden of proving that we’re not engaging in proprietary trading.”

Capital and Liquidity—Banks say there are so many new rules relating to so many areas of their balance sheets that they too often run the risk of working against each other. And it isn’t clear when enough capital really is enough.

Wells Fargo chief Timothy Sloan cited differences between rules about how much capital a bank must hold and the amount of liquid assets a firm has to keep on hand. The intersections of these rules, bankers argue, hampers lending.

Bankers would also like more clarity around how much capital is enough for banks. Regulators have applied various capital surcharges to the biggest banks and these can change as regulations evolve.

“It’s getting certainty around the ability to have access to your capital return once you’ve met all the hurdles and whether those hurdles move up or down because of various people’s point of view,” said Bank of America Corp. chief Brian Moynihan.

J.P. Morgan’s Mr. Dimon said that regulators’ authority should be “cut back a little bit. It should be more prescriptive in exactly what they’re trying to accomplish.”

For all that, bankers are taking a wait-and-see stance before making any big changes to their businesses. “I think the difference going into 2017 is that we do have hope,” Citigroup’s Mr. Gerspach said. “But…we can’t build a plan on hope.”

The fact that the culprits of the Financial Crisis in 2008 are now opposing the repeal of Dodd-Frank is further evidence that things need to change dramatically . The entire financial sector of the economy has been moribund under Dodd-Franks government imposed socialism . A vital and growing financial sector is paramount to an active and growing economy .