Category:

Change Overview and Rationale

On April 19, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) published a discussion draft of his Financial CHOICE Act (Version 2), updated from his original 2016 draft (Version 1).

A working paper published on April 3, 2017 by the US Federal Reserve attempts to quantify the costs and benefits of bank capital to arrive at an estimate of the optimal capital ratio for U.S. banks. In their paper,[1] authors Simon Firestone, Amy Lorenc, and Ben Ranish begin their analysis by estimating to what extent the probability of financial crises falls as bank capital rises and calculate the output costs of a financial crisis. Against this cost, the authors then balance the cost of equity, a more expensive source of funding for banks than debt. The authors conclude that interest rates would rise by around seven basis points if banks pass on all of the increase in the cost of capital to borrowers. Balancing the difference between costs and benefits, they estimate that the optimal level of capital is between 13% and 26%.

With the main elements of the G20’s core financial reforms underway, the Financial Stability (FSB) has proposed a framework to assess the effects of the reforms. In an April 11, 2017 consultation paper, the FSB proposes a structured framework specifying the processes and appropriate analytical approaches for the evaluation of the social benefits and cost of reform measure as well as identifying unintended adverse consequences.

In a March 15, 2017 letter, SIFMA urged Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to take a leading role in the G-20 to reassess existing regulatory reforms and strike the appropriate balance between growth and stability. While acknowledging that regulatory reforms since the financial crisis have made markets more stable, SIFMA believes that too much emphasis on stability may be unnecessarily impeding growth.