United States: Rethinking US Financial Regulation In Light Of The 2016 Election

Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump wavered between populist and business-friendly policies and expressed seemingly conflicting plans for Wall Street—on the one hand advocating for less regulation with a repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act, the wide-ranging financial statute that was born of the 2008 financial crisis, but on the other hand proposing the introduction of a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, a law that could impose a raft of new restrictions on banks and limit their affiliation with investment banks. Since the election, President-elect Trump and his advisors, as well as Congressional Republicans and others, have suggested a variety of aspects of US regulations that are viewed as particularly onerous and should be rolled back. Although clarity is not expected for several months, it is possible to identify some likely areas of change, and at least some change seems likely because the Republican Party will control both houses of Congress and the presidency. The President-elect wants to encourage increased lending by reducing regulatory burden in some manner, the Republican leaders in Congress seem intent on achieving regulatory rollback in some form, the principal financial regulatory agencies will have Republican leadership, and the designated Secretary of the Treasury has intimate knowledge of banks and financial markets and appears to be amply equipped to develop and promote a reform agenda for the Trump Administration.

Possible Scope of Legislative and Regulatory Changes

One issue raised in the campaign was the level of regulation of smaller and community banks, as well as the larger financial institutions. Stephen Moore, one of Mr. Trump's financial advisers, said while on the campaign trail, "one of the reasons we want to roll [Dodd-Frank] back is because we think it has had a very negative impact on small community banks ... the regulatory costs and the compliance costs have contributed to a big consolidation of the industry and if it is not corrected in ten years we are not going to have community banks in this country. The regulatory burden can only be absorbed by big banks."1 Even for larger institutions, investors seem to be betting on deregulation that is favorable to banks, as indicated by the rise in bank stocks since the election.

Although there is much talk of deregulation, there may be limits to the demand for rolling back the Dodd-Frank Act, since Wall Street and other large financial institutions have spent considerable resources ensuring compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act and transforming the way in which they do business. As a result, many aspects of doing business under the Dodd-Frank Act have become familiar. As such, getting rid of the law (and its implementing regulations) in its entirety could be costly and may not be feasible, especially if it is to be replaced with different regulations, which would require banks to overhaul their current compliance efforts. On top of all that, other compliance priorities, such as anti-money laundering compliance, sanctions compliance and cyber-security imperatives, are all costly undertakings that arise independently of the Dodd-Frank Act, and would not be affected by rolling back the Dodd-Frank Act.

What seems more likely is for certain core provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act to be amended, such as in the way that Representative Jeb Hensarling's Financial CHOICE Act proposes. Representative Hensarling is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. His bill is broad in scope and would provide regulatory relief and otherwise change the regulatory landscape in a number of specific ways. In light of this and other proposals, one may expect the new administration and Congress to consider some of the following types of changes, short of a full repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act:

  • CFPB. Introducing structural changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by replacing the current single director structure with a bipartisan, five-member commission, similar to the SEC and CFTC. While Representative Hensarling believes that this will promote transparency and accountability, opponents of the reform argue that the current structure is transparent and that the proposed structure will paralyze the Bureau.
  • DoL Fiduciary Rule. Blocking or limiting the implementation of the new Department of Labor (DoL) fiduciary standard rule, which requires financial advisers to provide retirement investment advice that is in their client's best interest.2 The rule is set to go into effect in April 2017. Many opponents of the DoL rule are currently challenging it in court, alleging that the rule and the prohibited transaction exemptions overstep the DoL's authority, while proponents of the rule see halting the implementation of the rule as exposing investors to increased harm.
  • Threshold for Heightened Supervision. According to some analysts, the most obvious regulatory rollback to undercut the Dodd-Frank Act would be to raise the $50 billion asset threshold at which banking organizations by law become subject to heightened prudential supervisory standards imposed by the Federal Reserve from $50 billion to $500 billion, or some other threshold above $50 billion, or to abolish it altogether, thus exposing fewer financial institutions to regulation. The House, on December 1, in fact passed a proposal to eliminate the automatic application of enhanced prudential standards on firms with over $50 billion in consolidated assets and replace it with a system of case-by-case determinations for all but the largest banks. However, initiatives such as this can be controversial. In this regard, one of the criticisms of the Dodd-Frank Act is that it has reduced the ability of banks to fund economic recovery due to these heightened standards. On the other hand, there appears to be a strong populist anger toward large banks, and relaxing regulatory standards could be seen as favoring Wall Street or inviting another financial crisis. Moreover, capital and liquidity standards are to a large extent the result of international agreements that are implemented at the national level by regulation. In this regard, while the Dodd-Frank Act mandates enhanced capital standards for larger banks, in general, actual minimum standards are the result of international regulatory agreements. Thus, regulatory discretion would likely continue to play an important role in the specifics of banking supervision.
  • Volcker Rule. Repealing the Volcker Rule, a key (but fairly self-contained) provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that limits the ability of banking firms to trade for their own proprietary accounts and invest in or sponsor hedge funds and similar investment vehicles. Proponents of repeal argue that the rule is anti-competitive, overly complex and hurts market liquidity, while opponents argue that repeal exposes customers to increased risk and promotes reckless trading and investments by banks. It is conceivable that the rule would be repealed as to all but the largest "Wall Street" banks, thus affording regulatory relief to community banks.
  • Glass-Steagall. Although implementation of a new Glass-Steagall Act was talked about during the election campaign, this is not an idea that has attracted much attention more recently, and it seems unlikely that this would be a major priority for the Trump Administration since it would not seem to ease regulatory burden or promote lending.
  • Derivatives Reform. Limiting the scope of further derivatives reform. A key feature of the Dodd-Frank Act was its attempt to comprehensively regulate the derivatives markets through dealer registration, clearing, exchange trading, margin and reporting. While many of these reforms have been implemented, and it may not be feasible or desirable to unwind them, the new administration is unlikely to expand regulation further. Proposals for regulation of high-frequency trading and security-based swaps, and proposed new position limits in particular, may be withdrawn or reconsidered.
  • FSOC. Repealing or limiting the Financial Stability Oversight Council's (FSOC) authority to designate non-bank financial companies as systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs) and subject them to heightened supervision. In his opening statement during a recent hearing on oversight of the FSOC, Representative Hensarling argued that by "empowering FSOC to designate SIFIs, the Dodd-Frank Act allows the Federal Reserve to impose bank-like standards on non-bank institutions; in other words, to move institutions from the non-bailout economy to the bailout economy."3 Opponents of repeal argue that taking away this authority allows certain financial companies or some financial activities to continue without the scrutiny that they should be given. Although the topic has been less discussed, the Dodd-Frank authority under Title VIII for the supervision of financial market infrastructures, including clearing organizations and payment systems, could also be reconsidered.
  • Resolution. Repeal of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, which established an "orderly liquidation authority" under which the FDIC would be authorized to wind-down systemically important financial institutions outside of the normal Bankruptcy Code process. While never used, this authority has been criticized as potentially putting taxpayers at risk of supporting "too-big-to-fail" institutions, although that assessment is not universally shared. A related question would be whether amendments could be made to the Bankruptcy Code to facilitate bankruptcy proceedings involving large, systemically important financial institutions.
  • Exemptions for better capitalized institutions. A key aspect of Representative Hensarling's Financial CHOICE Act proposal is allowing banking organizations that maintain a leverage ratio of 10% to be exempt from numerous other regulatory capital and liquidity requirements.
  • International cooperation and conflict. The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted against the background of the financial crisis and commitments among the G-20 countries to implement certain financial reforms. The implementation of the Act has involved a significant amount of conflict with other countries and complaints from internationally active institutions, including over suggestions that the US requirements have gone too far and have too much extraterritorial effect. The implementation has also resulted in disagreements between the US and EU in particular over equivalence of their respective regulatory regimes and cross-border recognition of registrants. Rolling back Dodd-Frank requirements may reduce some of this conflict, but may raise new questions as to whether US requirements are equivalent to those of other jurisdictions. It may also cause other countries to reconsider aspects of their own regulations.

New Leadership at Financial Regulatory Agencies

Amid the legislative and regulatory uncertainties in the months to come, there are known changes that occur as part of the transition of presidential administrations. Generally, in a presidential transition, it is typical to see the incoming president select new agency heads that are members of the new president's party and whose views are in line with those of the president. In the case of the banking agencies, the agency heads' terms generally extend on a schedule separate from the presidential administration, but the terms of many agency heads will expire reasonably soon after president-elect Trump takes office. Other financial agency heads customarily step down at the end of the current administration.

  • Treasury Secretary. The Secretary of the Treasury (and senior Treasury staff) will be replaced in the new administration. Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary designee, has a Wall Street and regional bank background and would not appear to be particularly populist in his approach to financial regulation.
  • SEC. Mary Jo White, chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has announced that she will leave the SEC at the end of the Obama administration. Michael Piwowar, the only Republican SEC Commissioner, will likely become the acting chairman until a permanent chair is named. The Commission currently has two vacancies. Traditionally, three of the five members of the Commission are from the president's party, which is the maximum number of commissioners that may belong to the same political party.
  • CFPB. Richard Cordray, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), has a term expiring in July 2018.
  • CFTC. Timothy Massad, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has a term expiring in April 2017. Christopher Giancarlo, who is the only Republican Commissioner on the CFTC, will likely serve as acting chair until the president nominates him or another candidate as the permanent chair. Traditionally, three of the five members of the Commission are from the president's party, which is the maximum number of commissioners that may belong to the same political party.
  • OCC. Thomas Curry, the Comptroller of the Currency, has a term expiring in April 2017.
  • FDIC. Martin Gruenberg, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, has a term expiring in November 2017. There is already a vacancy on the FDIC board of directors, and the other members include the Comptroller of the Currency and the CFPB director. As a result, three to five members of the Board may turn over.
  • Federal Reserve Board. Janet Yellen, Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, has a term (as Chair) expiring in February 2018.
    • Stanley Fischer, Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has a term (as Vice Chairman) expiring in June 2018.
    • There are currently two vacancies on the Federal Reserve's seven-member board, including the position of Vice Chairman for Supervision.

Agency Actions Through and Following the Inauguration

Regulatory agencies may try to finish, or rush to completion, outstanding proposed regulations in order to adopt them before the change in administration. Already, key members of Congress have urged regulators not to take such steps, particularly with respect to controversial regulations.

It is expected that the new administration (like past administrations) will impose a moratorium on adoption of new regulations for some period following the inauguration. As a result, financial regulators may not be able to finalize new regulations during the early part of the new administration, even if they would otherwise be inclined to do so.

If rules have been adopted and published before the change of administration, it would generally be necessary to undertake a new rulemaking process for the new administration to reverse them (although certain regulatory repeal actions may be available under Congressional Review provisions of law).

If, as expected, the administration imposes a freeze on hiring, it could significantly limit the number of initiatives that the agencies undertake, especially at a time when several agencies are expected to experience a wave of senior staff retirements.

Summing Up

Although uncertainty remains about what the Trump presidency will mean for the regulation of financial institutions and financial markets, we have outlined above some areas to watch and many pieces are in place for potentially significant changes. Stay tuned for further analysis as regulatory initiatives evolve.

Footnotes

1 Ian McKendry, Trump's Surprise Victory Changes the Game for Financial Services, AMERICAN BANKER, Nov. 9, 2016, available at http://www.americanbanker.com/news/law-regulation/trumps-surprise-victory-changes-the-game-for-financial-services-1092335-1.html.

2 Shearman & Sterling, LLP, What's Next for the DOL's 'Fiduciary' Rule?, Nov. 30, 2016, available at http://www.shearman.com/en/newsinsights/publications/2016/11/what-is-next-for-the-dol-fiduciary-rule.

3 Chairman Hensarling Once Again Calls on FSOC to 'Cease and Desist' Too-Big-to-Fail Designations Until Questions Are Answered, FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, available at http://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=380567.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions