From our President
Ruling Signals Strategy to Combat Regulatory Overreach
We are all too aware of the current regulatory environment. Te Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in particular seems set on maintaining an aggressive and adversarial relationship with the industry, announcing on almost a weekly basis some inflammatory opinion, rule interpretation or examination policy that paints banks as bad actors. Unfortunately, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seems to be following closely in the CFPB’s footsteps. If you’ve been following our updates on the issue of representment nonsufficient fund fees, you know that the FDIC is handling this issue largely through opaque examination and enforcement efforts rather than open rule making.
Tere is no question that banks and regulatory
agencies both do best when there is a collaborative dynamic between government and industry. When agencies attempt to unilaterally extend their authority without input or oversight, the entire system is thrown out of balance. Trust is eroded, and banks become uncertain about the kinds of innovation they can and cannot bring to market. Te impact of all of this falls onto consumers whose regulated banking options become more limited — begging them to leave the banking system for more risky financial options.
Recently, there have been developments that may ultimately curtail the ability of agencies like the CFPB to implement sweeping regulatory changes at a whim. Te U.S. Supreme Court, in West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency, ruled that the
EPA had overstepped the authority granted by the Clean Air Act to control carbon emissions from power plants. Te court found that major questions with political and economic significance should be legislated by Congress as they are the representatives of the people. Te EPA’s efforts to drive energy transformation through its own interpretation of the Clean Air Act circumvented the legislative process on a major question.
For many, this ruling signified a new successful strategy for combatting regulatory overreach. In our own industry, state and national trade associations began discussing what this could mean in the context of our ongoing efforts to rein in the unilateral actions of regulators. Tere are still many uncertainties we must address even as we see
Jackson Hataway, President Missouri Bankers Association
reasons for optimism for the first time in several years. What constitutes a “major question”? How will the EPA and other agencies begin to revise their approaches to fit within, or even circumvent, the Supreme Court’s ruling?
Time will tell how much benefit is brought to our industry by this ruling, but there is no question it is a positive step. We must use it to bring pressure on CFPB Director Rohit Chopra and FDIC Acting Chairman Martin Gruenberg in an effort to bring regulators back into a collaborative dialogue with banks that keeps our industry vibrant and strong for all Americans.
THE MISSOURI BANKER 5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32
