It’s been more than three weeks since Michael Barr, the Fed’s top regulatory official, unveiled what seemed like a deal among regulators to scale back a major proposal to raise capital requirements on the nation’s largest banks. The major revisions to the Basel III endgame proposal, Barr said in remarks on Sept. 10, had been crafted “jointly” between the Fed and fellow regulators at the FDIC and OCC. The new proposal—which cut roughly in half the capital requirements for the biggest banks— was aimed at addressing industry and lawmaker concerns that the initial plan had gone too far. But what was supposed to jumpstart an already dragging rulemaking process has instead led only to more stalemate. Regulators penciled in votes on the revised proposal only to scrap them a few days later after it became plain that the changes Barr outlined didn’t have enough support to clear the five-person FDIC board. In the weeks since Barr’s address, the Fed and FDIC have not engaged in any active or substantive negotiations over finding a path forward on the revisions, two officials familiar with the matter told MM. The hold-up comes down to vote-counting on the FDIC board. Democratic Chair Martin Gruenberg and Acting OCC chief Michael Hsu, who negotiated the deal with Barr, need to win over a third vote on their board to advance the revised plan. Fellow Democrat and CFPB Director Rohit Chopra has internally opposed the softened capital proposal, which Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other progressives blasted as a Wall Street giveaway. One path would be to try to win over Chopra’s vote. But any changes to toughen the proposal could jeopardize the broad support that Barr and Fed Chair Jerome Powell are seeking from their own board. Powell has said he supports the revisions and wants the agencies to reach a deal. Another option would be for Gruenberg to turn to Republican votes. Director Jonathan McKernan has said he’s a definitive “no” on the revised plan, saying it doesn’t go far enough in fixing the problems he had with the original. Vice Chair Travis Hill has publicly criticized the revised plan, though he hasn’t definitely said he would vote against any re-proposal, leaving a potential opening. But it’s not clear if Gruenberg would be willing to put up a proposal that could win Hill’s vote but Chopra would reject. The logjam at the banking agencies shows no sign of easing up any time soon, much less before the presidential election next month, which could potentially scramble the balance of power among regulators. The FDIC and Fed declined to comment. IT’S THURSDAY — Got tips? Send them to ssutton@politico.com or to your MM host, mstratford@politico.com.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment