Congress has once again expressed concerns about SIFI designation and the asset management industry, and in particular the openness and integrity of the regulatory bodies developing SIFI policy. In reaction to the Office of Financial Research's (OFR) September 2013 report analyzing the potential systemic risks of the asset management industry, 41 members of Congress penned an April 9, 2013 letter to the Financial Stability Oversight Council requesting that any further review of the asset management industry take place “in an open and transparent manner.” The bipartisan letter also harshly criticizes the OFR report substantively and requests that the FSOC revisit its process and findings to “precisely identify the systemic risks it is trying to address” and “explain in detail how any identified risks would be mitigated” by subjecting asset management firms to supervision by the Federal Reserve. In addition, the letter urges that any regulatory action ultimately implemented should “not limit access to these services or cause them to become cost-prohibitive.”

Creating a system of enhanced monitoring of systematic risk and supervision of systematically important financial institutions (SIFIs) is a key objective of global regulatory reform in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Having established criteria for determining the SIFI players in the banking and insurance sectors, the FSB and IOSCO have moved on to determining which non-banks and non-insurance companies may be considered SIFIs. In a January 8, 2014 consultative document, the FSB and IOSCO proposed a methodology for the identification of nonbank, noninsurance financial institutions (NBNI) that pose systemic risks to the global economy.  The consultation document extends the framework already established to identify bank and insurance company SIFIs to all other financial entities.