Editor’s note: Morning Money is a free version of POLITICO Pro Financial Services morning newsletter, which is delivered to our subscribers each morning at 5:15 a.m. The POLITICO Pro platform combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the day’s biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro. Biden appointees at the FDIC are proposing that larger lenders pay for the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. The new proposal is dividing the banking industry but drawing bipartisan applause on Capitol Hill. My colleague Eleanor Mueller canvassed lawmakers Thursday and found broad support for the FDIC’s proposed fee, which would apply to banks that hold more than $5 billion in uninsured deposits. The FDIC is required by law to recoup the $15.8 billion hit to the deposit insurance fund that was triggered by protecting SVB and Signature’s uninsured deposits. (The overall loss from the failures is estimated to be $18.5 billion.) Rep. Andy Barr, who leads House Republican oversight of the bank regulators, told Eleanor, “it looks good to me.” Senate Banking Chair Sherrod Brown and Sen. Elizabeth Warren said they also back the move. They echoed the Independent Community Bankers of America, which succeeded in fending off fees for small banks. The group prevailed in a lobbying fight it launched mere hours after the government rescued SVB and Signature. “It’s what I have asked [FDIC Chairman Martin] Gruenberg to do,” Barr said. “To exercise his authority to reduce the exposure of smaller institutions and tailor it.” Inside the FDIC, the situation was more contentious. Two Republican board members — former Hill aides — opposed the agency’s approach to refilling its deposit insurance fund. FDIC Vice Chair Travis Hill said the five banks that combined would pay nearly half of the bill experienced deposit inflows immediately after the SVB failure — meaning they were relative safe havens during the turmoil and benefited the least from the government’s decision to backstop uninsured deposits. “Setting premiums on uninsured deposits is like charging me for insurance on my house based on the value of my neighbor’s,” said Federal Financial Analytics managing partner Karen Petrou, who also took issue with the new policy. It’s unclear to what extent larger banks will come out swinging or go along with it. The Financial Services Forum, which represents the biggest, systemically important U.S. banks, declined to comment. The Bank Policy Institute, which represents a broader group of the largest banks, didn’t issue a response, either. The American Bankers Association struck a somewhat neutral tone, saying it appreciated the community bank exclusion but was still reviewing the proposal. Happy Friday — Have a great Mother’s Day weekend. Send tips: Zach Warmbrodt, Sam Sutton.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment