visimoney
TLDR:
- Senators John Kennedy (R-La.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) are calling on regulators to withdraw the Basel III Endgame Proposal, which would raise bank capital requirements.
- In a letter to regulators, the senators expressed concerns that the proposal would negatively impact affordable housing, mortgage lending, small business lending, and consumer lending, and put U.S. companies at a disadvantage to foreign competitors.
- The senators also criticized the lack of economic analysis and data supporting the need for the proposal.
Senators John Kennedy and Tim Scott, along with other Senate Banking Republicans, are urging regulators to abandon the Basel III Endgame Proposal, which would increase bank capital requirements. In a letter to regulators, the senators raised concerns about the potential negative impacts of the proposal on affordable housing, mortgage lending, small business lending, and consumer lending. They also argued that the proposal would disadvantage U.S. companies compared to foreign competitors. The senators criticized the lack of economic analysis or evidence supporting the need for the proposal, and highlighted testimonies from CEOs of the country’s largest banks, who emphasized the potential negative effects on economic growth and lending to households and businesses.
The Basel III Endgame Proposal was issued by the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in July. It aims to revise bank capital requirements in response to changes in international capital standards issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The proposal would apply to banks with over $100 billion in assets, affecting the largest banks in the U.S. and potentially changing their lending and trading practices.
Senators Mike Crapo, Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, Bill Hagerty, Cynthia Lummis, J.D. Vance, Katie Britt, Kevin Cramer, and Steve Daines also signed the letter calling for regulators to withdraw the proposal. The senators highlighted the Federal Reserve’s acknowledgment that it had not adequately considered the impacts of the proposal, and questioned the ability of legislators and the public to make informed decisions on a proposal whose effects are not fully understood.
