large_HS-2 copy.png

medium_HS-2 copy.png

small_HS-2 copy.png

thumbnail_HS-2 copy.png

HS-2 copy.png

thumbnail_small_fromer.jpg

small_fromer.jpg

Kevin Fromer

President and Chief Executive Officer

This op-ed was featured in <a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/basel-myths-are-all-too-real-for-the-financial-services-industry">American Banker</a>.&nbsp;To the editor,In a recent BankThink ("<a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/debunking-the-myths-about-the-basel-iii-endgame-regulation">Debunking the myths about the Basel III endgame regulation</a>," Jan. 18, 2024), the author is absolutely correct that the conversation about the possible increase in capital requirements must be based on facts. But from the very first sentence, the piece is filled with inaccuracies.First, just a<a href="https://www.bis.org/bcbs/implementation/rcap_reports.htm"> handful</a> of countries have implemented the agreement struck in Basel, Switzerland, in 2017. Like the United States, most of the jurisdictions around the world are at various stages of creating their rules. Thus far, the United States is proposing to increase capital to a<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/media/key-takeaways-b3e-comments.pdf"> much larger degree</a> for its global systemically important banks (GSIBs) than other jurisdictions. The U.K. is proposing a 3.2% increase for its GSIBs versus a 5.6% increase for the EU and an estimated 30% for U.S. GSIBs. The U.S. proposal's many inconsistencies with the international Basel agreement and Basel III endgame proposals in other jurisdictions would worsen, rather than improve, already substantial international discrepancies in capital requirements. Such divergences would harm the American economy and the ability of U.S. companies to compete internationally. So much for the stated goal of harmonizing international capital rules.Second, the implementation of the Basel III endgame for the largest U.S. banks has absolutely nothing to do with the regional banking turmoil last year. To the contrary, because of their strong capital positions, the largest U.S. banks were called upon by the government to step in and support the financial sector in March, putting billions of dollars of unsecured deposits into First Republic Bank to squelch contagion and give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. time to wind down the ailing institution.Federal Reserve Chair Powell has<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=627kC040sPU"> said</a> repeatedly that the nation's largest banks are "very strong" and a "source of strength." The largest U.S. banks have supported small and large businesses, households and communities, and helped to ensure smooth functioning financial markets during significant economic headwinds, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In the past 15 years, U.S. GSIBs have more than tripled their common equity tier 1 capital to more than $900 billion. The largest U.S. banks also are subject to annual supervisory stress testing and have maintained capital<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20230628a.htm"> well in excess</a> of hypothetical losses estimated by those stress tests. These tests assume no emergency government support during an economic downturn.Finally, contrary to the author's statements, the largest U.S. banks and their more than 735,000 employees are<a href="https://fsforum.com/our-impact/essential-to-the-u-s-economy"> essential</a> to the strength and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, supporting countless American households, businesses and governments every day, including those in historically underserved communities. In just one example, Forum members have invested more than $9.2 billion in Community Development Financial Institutions and committed more than $525 million to minority depository institutions since the beginning of 2020.The<a href="https://www.fdic.gov/resources/regulations/federal-register-publications/2023/2023-regulatory-capital-rule-large-banking-organizations-3064-af29.html"> comment letters</a> in response to the proposal are still coming in, but organizations across the country — including the NAACP, small businesses, manufacturers, local lawmakers and others — have raised concerns with the Basel endgame proposal, including its potential impact on people in historically underserved communities.The financial crisis was 15 years ago. The nation's largest banks are strong and they are essential to our economy. Higher capital requirements would do more harm than good. And that's a fact.&nbsp;Kevin Fromer is the President and CEO of the Financial Services Forum. &nbsp;

Opinion

large_Basel III Endgame.jpg

medium_Basel III Endgame.jpg

small_Basel III Endgame.jpg

thumbnail_Basel III Endgame.jpg

Basel III Endgame.jpg

Despite the demonstrated strength of the largest U.S. banks, the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, on split votes, issued a proposal in July 2023 to increase capital requirements. The proposal offers no reason or justification for material increases in capital requirements and would harm American households, businesses, and the broader economy. 

Given the complexity of the proposal, its many and significant negative impacts, and the lack of evidence in support of its changes, the agencies should repropose the rule and include the motivations, data and analysis that demonstrate the need for proposed changes.

Basel 3 Endgame 

Letter to the editor: Basel 'myths' are all too real for the financial services industry

This article originally appeared on <a href="https://fortune.com/2023/12/06/us-economy-could-face-perfect-storm-basel-iii-endgame-goes-into-effect-finance-banks-kevin-fromer/">Fortune</a>.&nbsp;The past three years of economic volatility have exacted a profound toll on many Americans, testing the resilience of households and businesses alike. During this period, the largest banks, fundamentally strengthened by a series of changes, have served as a source of support by extending enormous amounts of credit, helping customers navigate uncertainty, and stabilizing the broader banking sector at a critical moment. Now, as the CEOs of these banks gather on Capitol Hill, Congress must ask itself if proposed regulations on capital jeopardize the essential work of these institutions.The capital regulation plan known as Basel III Endgame will increase capital requirements by 20% or more for the eight largest U.S. banks. This is an excessive move, considering the <a href="https://fsforum.com/a/media/capital-and-the-nation%E2%80%99s-largest-banks.pdf">tripling</a> of high-quality capital for these banks over the past 15 years. Higher capital requirements, <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/powell-statement-20230727.htm">as noted by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell</a>, raise the cost of–and reduce access to–credit.The plan will certainly compound the burden of higher post-pandemic interest rates,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/Bank%20Capital%20Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking.pdf?utm_source=newsletter&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosmarkets&amp;stream=business">particularly for those with lower incomes</a>. Americans will have a harder time getting a loan, securing a mortgage, or saving for their retirement or a child’s college education.The impact isn’t limited to individual consumers. Small businesses&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/news/capital-insights-new-bank-capital-rules-will-handicap-small-businesses">relying</a>&nbsp;on credit and farmers&nbsp;<a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/basel-endgame-will-drive-up-costs-for-american-farmers-and-consumers">needing</a>&nbsp;funds for operations and equipment will face difficulty securing much-needed capital.A chorus of voices from the left and the right have come out against this proposed rule. Bipartisan consensus is rare these days, so the growing coalition of policymakers, advocacy groups, and community leaders warning against the negative impacts of stricter capital requirements is not something to take lightly. Senator&nbsp;<a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2023/09/14/the-calls-are-coming-from-inside-the-house-dems-rap-biden-bank-cops-00115837">Mark Warner (D-Va.)</a>&nbsp;has emphasized the potential compounding effect of tougher capital standards, high interest rates, and disruptions in the commercial real estate market as a “perfect storm.” Senator&nbsp;<a href="https://financialservices.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=409027">John Tester (D-Mont.)</a>&nbsp;stated that he is worried about how this will impact working Americans, explaining he has “some concerns about the proposed changes, and what its impact will be on workers and households, small businesses, access to credit, and the overall vibrancy of our capital markets.”&nbsp;In a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/basel_iii_banking_gop_letter.pdf">letter</a>&nbsp;to regulators, 39 Senate Republicans, led by Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), highlighted the resilience of the well-capitalized U.S. banking system and argued the proposal would negatively impact the economy while making credit costlier and more difficult to obtain for millions of Americans.Given these concerns, it is fair to ask why capital increases of this size are necessary. But no one seems equipped to provide an answer. On the contrary, the predominant official assessment of the banking sector, and the largest banks in particular, has been laudatory. As a matter of fact, every hypothesized loss the proposal aims to address has been experienced under real-life stress tests such as the pandemic, and the largest U.S. banks have continued to support the economy despite those losses under current capital requirements.Reflecting on the years of reform under the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, Chair Powell&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=627kC040sPU">highlighted</a>&nbsp;improvements in the banking system’s resilience, stating, “The large banks in the United States are very strong, well-capitalized, a lot of liquidity and they’ve been a source of strength, I think, through the last couple of events.”The future path of the U.S. economy is far from certain and hardworking Americans will pay a price if regulators demand new, unjustified capital requirements. Policymakers must demand extensive changes to the Basel III Endgame proposal so the banking sector can continue its essential role in the U.S. economy–and to avoid taxing consumers and businesses for no appreciable benefit to financial stability.Kevin Fromer is the president and CEO of Financial Services Forum.

Op-ed: The U.S. economy could face ‘a perfect storm’ if Basel III Endgame goes into effect. Here’s why

This op-ed was featured in the <a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/dont-delay-public-input-on-feds-review-of-capital-requirements">American Banker's BankThink.&nbsp;</a>&nbsp;<blockquote>Last month, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr outlined the Federal Reserve's agenda to make the financial system safer and fairer by improving banks' safety and soundness. Barr <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/barr20220907a.htm">called for a holistic review</a> of the bank capital framework, including a review of leverage and capital requirements for large banks. We welcome the Fed's review. And we urge the Fed to be more transparent about it.</blockquote>Mr. Barr is right. Currently, the U.S. capital framework is comprised of a dizzying array of moving parts: risk-weighted assets, stress capital buffers, surcharges on global systemically important banks, countercyclical buffers and leverage buffers, just to name a few. All these requirements are implemented separately, sometimes with several years between rules. No singular element of the capital regime determines overall capital requirements — rather, the various constraints knit together in complex and unpredictable ways to determine the overall amount of capital required of large banks. Given that capital requirements strongly influence the cost and amount of lending by banks in our economy, getting the mix of requirements right is critical, as is transparency around this process.&nbsp; Right now, all we know is that the Fed expects to complete its review this fall, and will only seek public input on proposed capital rules that are informed by the findings of the review after it is complete. We don't know much about how the review is being conducted, but we do know it is happening quickly — and without public input. But waiting for public input until so late in the game — once the direction of travel is set — is too late and risks consequential errors based on a lack of full information. The Federal Reserve should commit to seeking public feedback on its holistic review of the capital framework before the review is finalized and before any subsequent capital rules are proposed. Public feedback is crucial for several reasons.&nbsp; First, regulators' analysis can be improved by taking input from a variety of stakeholders, including academics and practitioners with significant expertise in bank capital.&nbsp; Second, public input will help ensure an evenhanded approach in reviewing the capital framework. A review solely conducted by regulators runs the risk of tipping the scales in a direction confirming existing policy preferences, even if there may be data supporting other perspectives.&nbsp; For example, studies have found that central bank-sponsored research on quantitative easing's effectiveness is more positive than other research on the topic. A full, open review of the capital framework soliciting input from a wide array of stakeholders will help ensure a thorough, unbiased and informed assessment.&nbsp; Most important, any study of the capital framework either implicitly or explicitly embeds a value judgment about the appropriate trade-off between economic growth and financial stability. Regulators are charged with maintaining financial stability, but they are not solely in charge of determining how society balances safety versus growth. Finding the right balance between growth and stability requires weighing the costs and benefits of additional financial stability measures against the impact on job creation and living standards. That debate must be informed by the views of all relevant stakeholders. The Federal Reserve and other agencies reviewing regulations routinely do so with public input. At least every 10 years, the bank regulatory agencies are <a href="https://egrpra.ffiec.gov/">required</a> by federal law to gather public input and review existing regulations. During the last cycle, regulators traveled the country for in-person meetings and collected written feedback. At one of these meetings, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jay Powell <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20150204a.htm">explained that</a> creating balanced, effective and thoughtfully calibrated regulations to avoid undue burden requires input from stakeholders. Researchers' review of the capital framework should also adhere to existing transparency standards for published academic research — and all of the data and analysis should be made public. The economics literature is replete with examples of studies that came to drastically incorrect conclusions because of simple data errors that were later uncovered by other researchers. Most academic journals now require that the data and programs used to conduct any analysis be made public before the results are published.&nbsp; The stakes are too high to accept even a small probability of an errant mistake. A comprehensive review of the capital framework and soliciting public input are necessary to ensure a safe and sound banking system in balance with the promotion of economic growth. Doing one without the other will be counterproductive — and risks reaching an outcome that does not reflect the needs of our economy.&nbsp;

BankThink Op-ed: Don't Delay Public Input on Fed's Review of Capital Requirements

This op-ed was featured in <a href="https://morningconsult.com/opinions/strength-of-large-u-s-banks-means-its-time-to-rely-on-rigorous-capital-distribution-process/">Morning Consult</a>.&nbsp;<blockquote>Later this week, the Federal Reserve will issue results of its latest round of stress tests, offering an update on the health and safety of the largest banks in the country. This assessment marks the third round of stress tests the government has conducted in a year to measure the capital adequacy of large U.S. banks.</blockquote>These results will herald the full return to the government’s normal capital distribution oversight <a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20210325a.htm">process</a>, which was halted in 2020 due to the uncertain economic effects of the pandemic. Given the strength of the nation’s largest banks and the rapid improvement in the economy, it is clearly time to rely on the established and rigorous regulatory process, which allows banks to return excess capital to investors across the country. This return to regular order will support the economy as we build a strong, inclusive recovery.Capital distributions are expected by investors in any large corporation. Companies in a variety of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-are-flush-with-cashand-ready-to-pad-shareholder-pockets-11621157406">industries</a>&nbsp;routinely distribute portions of their earnings to investors — it is how American companies attract investment so that they can grow, create jobs, expand services and better support the economy.Despite what critics would have you believe, the capital distribution process is not a zero-sum game. Share distributions&nbsp;<a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-cuts-fuel-stock-buyback-spike-130545937.html?acid=twitter_yfsocialtw_l1gbd0noiom&amp;ncid=twitter_yfsocialtw_l1gbd0noiom&amp;guccounter=1">complement</a> — not replace — the investments that banks make in their communities, workers, operations and businesses. Only safe and highly capitalized banking institutions can even consider buybacks or dividends.What’s more, unlike every other industry, large financial institutions face higher regulatory scrutiny and approval to buy back shares or to issue dividends.This year, large banks must pass a strenuous stress test to demonstrate they maintain a strong capital position and can support the economy, even during a significant downturn. They must further satisfy several different regulatory capital&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200304a2.pdf">requirements</a>&nbsp;each quarter to continue making planned buybacks and dividends. Then, and only then, are banks able to distribute capital.In the most recent test, which the Federal Reserve completed in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2020-dec-stress-test-results-20201218.pdf">December</a>, the average post-stress capital ratio for the U.S. Global Systemically Important Banks was 9.7 percent, significantly larger than that of other U.S. banks subject to the stress tests and more than twice the minimum requirement of 4.5 percent.The largest U.S. banks entered the global pandemic in a strong position and they acted quickly to&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/our-impact/covid-19-response">support</a>&nbsp;customers, small businesses, employees and the communities in which they operate. They also&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/news/financial-services-forum-statement-on-share-buybacks">suspended</a>&nbsp;their share buybacks — which account for the majority of their capital distributions — and aggressively reserved for potential losses. Importantly, large banks’ strength and scale allowed them to significantly support the economy.In 2020, the nation’s largest banks increased their provision of&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/Credit_ad3853a06e/Credit_ad3853a06e.pdf">credit</a>&nbsp;by 10 percent, helping families, small businesses, large employers and the government. They accepted a massive surge in deposits and facilitated loans to nearly 850,000&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/COVID_19_Response_b55baf7fc3/COVID_19_Response_b55baf7fc3.pdf">small businesses</a>&nbsp;through the Paycheck Protection Program. They also committed significant resources to communities across the country, creating or preserving more than 158,000 affordable&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/Committed_to_Affordable_Housing_2021_4c59c48264/Committed_to_Affordable_Housing_2021_4c59c48264.pdf">housing</a>&nbsp;units, and supported their nearly 758,000 employees by giving them extra time off, paying for child and elder care and providing economic incentives.The largest banks have also been strong&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/our-impact/supporting-underserved-communities">supporters</a>&nbsp;of historically underserved communities. In addition to the work they are doing to promote lending in minority neighborhoods, they are investing in mission-driven financial institutions so that they can succeed and serve diverse and low- and moderate-income communities. From 2015 to 2020, the largest banks&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/cdfifactsheetfinal2021_861e28ce56/cdfifactsheetfinal2021_861e28ce56.jpeg">invested</a>&nbsp;$9 billion in Community Development Financial Institutions, and they have also&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/MDI_One_Pager_6a4a12345f/MDI_One_Pager_6a4a12345f.pdf">committed</a>&nbsp;more than $500 million to Minority Depository Institutions, in some cases investing directly in the MDIs to support their long-term wellbeing.The largest banks are committed to supporting their employees and the communities they serve. These institutions can and will continue to provide this support while distributing&nbsp;capital.It’s important to remember that the benefits of buybacks and dividends to the economy go far beyond the shareholders. More than half of all U.S. households own stocks, either directly&nbsp;or indirectly, according to the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm">Federal Reserve</a>. Moreover, stock holdings are most concentrated among households headed by a retiree and dependent on dividends to meet their financial needs. Therefore, money returned to shareholders recirculates throughout the economy.&nbsp;It is our banks’ responsibility to those teachers, first responders, veterans and small businesses who invest in them to always use capital in the highest and most efficient way possible.As Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell&nbsp;<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-115shrg32517/pdf/CHRG-115shrg32517.pdf">said</a>: “When a company buys back its shares or pays higher dividends, the resources do not disappear. Rather, they are redistributed to other uses in the economy. For instance, shareholders may decide to invest the windfall in another company, which may in turn make productivity-enhancing investments. Or they may decide to spend the windfall on goods and services that are produced by other companies, who may in turn hire new workers. In these ways, stock repurchases would also be likely to boost economic growth.”The nation’s largest banks are committed to serving our country and to building an economic recovery that supports everyone. They have been through a real-life stress test during the past year and have shown that they are safe, strong, and are a key source of support for the economy. Government oversight of share distributions by the largest U.S. banks is rigorous, and ensures the continued strength of the financial system. The fact that banks have such excess capital to reinvest in the form of buybacks and dividends is a promising sign for the economy. It is now time to rely upon a normal process of assessing our institutions, and ensuring that they may support a durable, inclusive recovery.&nbsp;Kevin Fromer is president and CEO of the Financial Services Forum, which represents the eight largest, most diversified U.S. banking institutions, and previously served as&nbsp;the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Legislative Affairs from 2005 to 2009.&nbsp;

large_Issue_Capital, Other Topics.jpg

medium_Issue_Capital, Other Topics.jpg

small_Issue_Capital, Other Topics.jpg

thumbnail_Issue_Capital, Other Topics.jpg

Issue_Capital, Other Topics.jpg

Increases in capital requirements would harm American households, businesses, and the broader economy. Regulators must carefully consider the economic impact of higher capital requirements, because they affect the whole economy, not just banks.

Capital, other topics

Op-ed: Strength of Large U.S. Banks Means It’s Time to Rely on Rigorous Capital Distribution Process

medium_sean_campbell_lobby__1528289102_74.109.38.142 (1).jpg

small_sean_campbell_lobby__1528289102_74.109.38.142 (1).jpg

thumbnail_sean_campbell_lobby__1528289102_74.109.38.142 (1).jpg

sean_campbell_lobby__1528289102_74.109.38.142 (1).jpg

small_sean_campbell.jpg

thumbnail_sean_campbell.jpg

sean_campbell.jpg

Sean Campbell

Chief Economist, Head of Policy Research

This op-ed was featured in <a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/capital-relief-is-good-for-big-banks-and-the-economy">American Banker's BankThink</a>.&nbsp;<blockquote>The nation’s largest banks have been instrumental in supporting the economy through the coronavirus pandemic, providing vital assistance to consumers and businesses and facilitating critical financing from government programs.To ensure the banking industry can be a key source of support during the crisis, regulators rightly made temporary and targeted adjustments to certain regulations.</blockquote>Yet, some critics including in a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/dont-weaken-the-g-sib-surcharge">BankThink</a>&nbsp;op-ed, have shown a clear misunderstanding of big bank capital levels and the objective of the Federal Reserve in navigating one of the most serious economic crises to ever hit the U.S. and global economy.The author argues that regulators “gutted” large bank capital by temporarily excluding deposits at the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasuries from the supplementary leverage ratio’s (SLR) risk-insensitive measure of total exposure, which determines the amount of capital required by the SLR. A few points should be noted in response.First, regulators have long held that risk-insensitive leverage capital requirements are intended to be a backstop to risk-based capital requirements. Prior to the crisis, the minimum capital requirement for a risk-based capital measure, called Tier 1, was 4% of risk-weighted assets. Today, that minimum stands at 6%, a 50% increase.What’s more, over the past decade banks have significantly improved both the quality and quantity of capital maintained. Financial Services Forum members, for instance, have grown their capital base by&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/forum_value_and_resiliency_2020q1_1_f835ef3ee5/forum_value_and_resiliency_2020q1_1_f835ef3ee5.pdf">$260 billion</a>&nbsp;and substantially raised capital levels as a proportion of the risk-weighted asset base.Regulators rightly made a temporary change to the SLR standard in the pandemic to help ensure that risk-insensitive leverage requirements do not move to the fore and become the binding capital constraint. This would further distress capital markets and the ability of banks to provide credit to businesses and households during an unprecedented economic disruption.Second, large banks are currently bound by the Federal Reserve’s new capital policy announced in late June with this year’s stress test results. All large banks are prohibited from making any share repurchases through the third quarter and dividend payouts are frozen at previous levels.Accordingly, it is hard to understand how large bank capital will decline significantly as the Federal Reserve has actively taken steps requiring banks to conserve capital. These measures outweigh any potential impact that the temporary change to the SLR could have.Some critics also maintain that the finalization earlier this year of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fed-finalizes-new-capital-buffer-ahead-of-2020-stress-tests#:~:text=The%20final%20SCB%20%E2%80%94%20which%20the,severely%20adverse%E2%80%9D%20stress%20test%20scenario.">stress capital buffer (SCB) rule</a>&nbsp;— which was first introduced during the Obama administration and ties large bank capital requirements to stress testing — somehow represents a big bank giveaway.Yet the Federal Reserve’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200304a1.pdf">analysis</a>&nbsp;showed that the SCB will have the effect of raising capital for global-systemically important banks (G-SIBs) by roughly $46 billion on average, while at the same time lowering capital requirements for smaller banks. Given that the analysis shows the SCB final rule raises capital for G-SIBs, it is difficult to understand how one would assert that the SCB represents a weakening of the large bank capital regime.Also, this year the Fed opted not to set bank capital distribution policy with regard to the SCB. Rather, the Fed is using a new “sensitivity analysis” to determine bank capital distributions.This year’s sensitivity analysis found that 75% of all large banks subject to the stress tests — a universe that goes well beyond the G-SIBs — would maintain capital levels above the minimum requirement.In the parlance of the previous stress testing regime, most banks actually passed the stress tests, but are still being required to conserve capital per the Fed’s new capital distribution policy. Accordingly, the suggestion that somehow large banks are either not well-capitalized or are shedding capital simply does not add up.All of the capital modifications announced by the Fed are temporary and explicitly designed to deal with the coronavirus crisis to help ensure that banks of all sizes can continue to support the economy in this time of great need.<blockquote>Data and existing research convincingly show that large banks have been&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsforum.com/types/press/unprecedented-increase-in-large-bank-lending-to-help-businesses-through-the-recovery/">playing an outsized role</a>&nbsp;in supporting the U.S. economy. Indeed,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w27256">research</a>&nbsp;from Boston College and Federal Reserve staff further documents that the bulk of corporate lending during the pandemic has come from large banks, showing these institutions have risen to the occasion during such trying times.</blockquote>The Federal Reserve and other regulators are wisely and judiciously making temporary adjustments to certain capital rules to ensure that formulaic and risk-blind capital requirements do not unnecessarily cinch the flow of credit, which is so crucial to managing through this crisis. The Fed’s modification of the SLR in these exigent times is a shining example of what a good regulator should do in a crisis.It is not a “rollback” or “weakening” of anything. Rather, it illustrates the central bank’s resolve in putting the economy and people ahead of inflexible rules.As the economic and public health data clearly show, the nation is not out of this pandemic yet. Regulators should continue to prudently modify regulations that risk unnecessarily crimping private credit expansion, which would present even more challenges to an already unstable economic recovery.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/author/sean-campbell">Sean Campbell</a>Sean Campbell is chief economist and head of policy research at the Financial Services Forum.

BankNotes Blog

BankThink Op-ed: Forum Head of Research Explains Why Targeted Capital Relief Makes Sense for Large Banks & an Economy in Crisis

This op-ed was featured in <a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/stop-shaming-the-big-banks">American Banker's BankThink</a>.&nbsp;<blockquote>After a decade of significant progress, there’s a litany of evidence showing that the nation’s banks — both big and small — are strong, resilient and resolvable.</blockquote>In particular, the largest banks maintain extremely robust capital and liquidity positions, undergo vigorous oversight and employ extensive risk-management processes. Advances in the past 10 years have led to a welcome and demonstrated decline in expectations that a large bank would require government assistance in times of major economic turmoil.Current and former <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/09/10/larger-financial-institutions-substantially-safer-than-10-years-ago-says-former-fed-governor.html">regulators</a> have pointed to the tremendous progress made to address “too big to fail.”A recent <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3497897">study</a> from economists at Stanford and Australian National universities points to “a major decline of ‘too big to fail’” based on investor behavior. Annual stress tests have provided clear and public evidence of bank resilience.And yet, there are <a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/too-big-to-fail-is-alive-and-wells">some</a> who choose to ignore the mountain of evidence and continue to push their false narrative. They also ignore the essential role that large, diversified banks play every day in supporting businesses and households in the $20 trillion American economy.Large institutions offer benefits to their customers and the economy that smaller institutions simply cannot. The scale of larger institutions serves companies in the U.S. and globally, at reduced costs, ultimately benefitting consumers, small businesses and individual savers.Additionally, large banks are a critical source of support to smaller institutions. They are a primary <a href="https://www.fsforum.com/types/press/blog/the-large-and-small-bank-nexus/">provider</a> of security market-making and underwriting services that make it possible for smaller banks to efficiently buy and sell these securities. This allows smaller banks to in turn lend to customers and meet their investment needs, helping to promote the success of these smaller institutions.<blockquote>The U.S. banking industry is incredibly diverse with over 5,000 banks contributing to the U.S. economy. Banks of all sizes are part of a cohesive economic system, contributing to the prosperity of Americans and a growing economy.</blockquote>The banking industry and governments around the globe have made enormous strides during the past decade to ensure that banks are safe and sound and that no institution is too big to fail.It’s important that we neither ignore the progress that has been made nor the essential role large financial institutions play in the economy.Kevin Fromer is the President and CEO of the Financial Services Forum.

large_iStock-1409304410.jpg

medium_iStock-1409304410.jpg

small_iStock-1409304410.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-1409304410.jpg

iStock-1409304410.jpg

The Forum advocates for appropriate policy and regulation that promotes a strong, diverse financial system and supports the needs of our economy and American competitiveness.

Regulatory, other topics 

BankThink Op-ed: Stop shaming the big banks

This op-ed was featured in <a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/easing-derivatives-trading-rule-would-help-the-system-not-hurt-it?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_content=socialflow&amp;utm_campaign=bankthink-tw&amp;utm_medium=social">American Banker's BankThink</a>.&nbsp;<h3>By Kevin Fromer and Kenneth E. Bentsen</h3>&nbsp;<blockquote>Recent attempts by policymakers to eliminate an initial margin requirement for certain trading swaps between affiliates of the same financial institution would reduce costs for consumers and businesses.Such an action would also remove a competitive disadvantage for U.S. banks while promoting safety and soundness in the financial system. This is counter to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/the-40-billion-gift-that-wall-street-doesnt-deserve">recent BankThink</a>&nbsp;in the July 16 issue of American Banker that made a number of incorrect assertions around both the need for continuing the margins requirement, and the rationale for ending it.</blockquote>However, it is important to first address the hyperbolic characterization of swaps, or derivatives. Swaps are an important and heavily regulated tool that banks and other institutions use to help manage their exposure, and that of American businesses and consumers, to risk and market fluctuations.The requirement that banks post an initial margin based on swaps between their own affiliates is one that should be revisited and ultimately removed. And there is good reason why.First, it yields no benefit. There are two regulatory margin requirements: initial margin and variation margin.Initial margin is exchanged at the time a swap transaction is established — and adjusted during the life of the transaction as needed — to minimize losses if a counterparty defaults on its obligations.This is sound policy for third-party contracts. But in the case of two affiliates or legal entities under the same corporate holding company, the exchange of interaffiliate initial margin serves no purpose in ensuring contract performance.Variation margin, however, does properly mitigate risk between affiliates. That’s because variation margin requires the exchange of collateral between affiliates based on the current value of the swaps, and accounts for changes in market value. The amount being collected through variation margin is also quite sizable.In 2018, the top 20 firms collected&nbsp;<a href="https://www.isda.org/2019/04/09/top-20-firms-collected-nearly-160-billion-in-initial-margin-at-year-end-2018-survey-finds/">more than $850 billion</a>&nbsp;in variation margin, or more than 20 times the amount of initial margin for interaffiliate swaps.&nbsp;In addition, banks also post initial margin on all trades with covered true third parties, amounting to approximately $158 billion.The technical fix policymakers are considering would only apply to the initial margin between affiliates. It would not change the variation margin requirement between affiliates, nor the initial and variation margin requirements for external counterparties.Second, if the initial margin requirement for interaffiliate swaps is maintained, the cost will ultimately be borne by customers and hurt American competitiveness.Indeed, swaps are an important tool utilized by pension funds for teachers, firefighters, manufacturers and many other kinds of businesses — big and small — to help manage risk. The collection of initial margin on transactions between affiliates increases costs for swaps for these end-users and subsequent customers.Given that U.S. bank regulators are the only major G-20 authorities to impose these requirements, the nation’s banks are left on an uneven playing field when competing both against foreign banks and other U.S. nonbanks. European and Japanese regulators, as well as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission, do not require initial margin collection between affiliates.Further, the assertion of lax regulation outside the U.S. is a red herring. It does not support the fact that all major jurisdictions have implemented substantial and similar rules regarding swaps and margin requirements, as per the G-20 Pittsburgh accords then led by the Obama administration.The current initial margin requirement also puts the safety and soundness of banks at risk. Initial margin requirements on interaffiliate swaps perversely act as a disincentive to better, centralized risk management of an institution.The associated costs discourage interaffiliate swaps in favor of hedging with third parties. Removing the requirement would help broaden a bank’s view of its overall risk exposure, and enhance the safety and soundness of the financial system.Finally, the recent BankThink piece oddly mentioned a proposal to revise the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio — a wholly unrelated issue — and repeated an inaccurate assertion that the change would lead to a large decrease in the amount of required capital at banks.Margin is not the same as capital. And importantly, the Federal Reserve’s own analysis showed that the proposal would not result in a material change in capital at the eight U.S.-based global systemically important banks.The eight global systemically important banks have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsforum.com/research/">increased their capital</a>&nbsp;to roughly $925 billion, or more than 40% during the past 10 years.Regulators worldwide and institutions have taken other important steps to greatly enhance the safety and resiliency of the global financial system. CFTC leadership of both political parties have supported the revision.<blockquote>After a decade of rapid regulatory change, we agree with the domestic and foreign regulators who have said it is imperative to review the rules to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency.Elimination of the interaffiliate initial margin requirement has bipartisan support because it would enhance the ability of banks to serve the economy without sacrificing regulatory improvements made in the past decade. Such a move is smart policy that would benefit consumers and businesses alike.</blockquote>Kevin Fromer Kevin Fromer is president and CEO of the Financial Services Forum, which represents the eight largest, most diversified U.S. banking institutions.Kenneth E. Bentsen Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., is president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

large_iStock-1248673982.jpg

medium_iStock-1248673982.jpg

small_iStock-1248673982.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-1248673982.jpg

iStock-1248673982.jpg

Maintaining the international competitiveness of U.S. companies is vital to the success and vibrancy of the U.S. economy. The nation’s largest banks provide crucial support for American companies competing overseas. The Forum supports policies that enable large U.S. banks to continue their vital support of the American economy on the global stage. 

International Competitiveness

BankThink Op-ed: Easing derivatives trading rule would help the system, not hurt it

Originally featured in the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/big-banks-help-america-do-big-things">Washington Examiner</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This week, the chief executive officers from the largest and most diversified banks in the nation will testify before Congress on the state of the American banking industry.&nbsp;Members of Congress who want to know what these banks do for our country will ask what value they bring to Americans.&nbsp;As their CEOs will demonstrate, these institutions are critical to our economy and play an essential role in the success of American firms doing business at home and abroad.&nbsp;<blockquote>To have a large economy that is competitive with countries around the world, you need large banks. And, without big banks, America cannot do big things.</blockquote>Each day, the Financial Services Forum’s member institutions, the eight largest and most diversified banks in the country, work with millions of consumers, businesses, investors, and communities to help advance their goals.&nbsp;Our country has a diverse financial system, including over 5,000 banks of various size. The members of the Forum actually provide&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsforum.com/types/research/deck-value-safety-soundness/">three-quarters</a>&nbsp;of the bank funding needs of other financial institutions.&nbsp;This means local community banks and insurance companies, among others, are having their borrowing needs met, in part, by large banks. In other words, the largest institutions help smaller ones serve their customers.&nbsp;In addition, our institutions are a stable and strong source of credit through direct lending and financing.&nbsp;They provide nearly&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/forum_consumer_lending_5704eed9d3/forum_consumer_lending_5704eed9d3.jpg">half of all consumer loans</a>. The American public can rely on them to help meet a variety of needs and hopes, whether it’s a car, a new home, or saving wisely for the future.&nbsp;They also underwrite nearly&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/forum_underwriting_activity_0fccab9ca6/forum_underwriting_activity_0fccab9ca6.jpg">three-quarters of all domestic</a>&nbsp;debt and equity transactions, including initial public offerings. With American ingenuity at the forefront, we’re seeing more start-ups successfully develop and prepare to go public. Forum institutions have the scale and expertise to help these companies issue stock and finance their expansion, providing another key contribution to economic growth.&nbsp;They are a strategic adviser and reliable lender to large and small businesses, helping to drive job creation across the country. In fact, Forum members account for&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/ci_lending_1e5c4c784d/ci_lending_1e5c4c784d.jpg">40 percent of total commercial and industrial</a>&nbsp;lending provided by banks and&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/smallbiz_less_than_1m_51045de175/smallbiz_less_than_1m_51045de175.jpg">one-quarter</a>&nbsp;of all loans to small businesses on Main Street,&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/less_than_100k_f8b668d8aa/less_than_100k_f8b668d8aa.jpg">including one-third</a>&nbsp;that are less than $100,000.&nbsp;And if you have ever appreciated an upgraded road on your commute to work, or a remodeled hospital that improved care, or a new school that provides our children with a safe and modern learning environment, large financial institutions are likely behind those projects. Forum institutions have about&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsforum.com/types/research/deck-value-safety-soundness/">$150 billion</a>&nbsp;in municipal security holdings, or government bonds, to help state and local governments fund infrastructure projects.&nbsp;To ensure they can serve America’s $20 trillion economy, the largest institutions have made significant changes since the financial crisis to become far stronger financially and to strengthen their management of risk. In fact, they have surpassed the regulatory requirements for funding cushions, more than&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/forum_hqla_c0aa02bb99/forum_hqla_c0aa02bb99.jpg">doubling&nbsp;</a>liquid assets like cash and government bonds, and&nbsp;<a href="https://fsforum.com/a/forum_capital_0d2435d877/forum_capital_0d2435d877.jpg">increasing</a>&nbsp;their capital by 40 percent.&nbsp;They have also proven to regulators and the public that they have the resources needed to continue lending into the economy during a downturn far worse than the financial crisis itself.&nbsp;These changes, which are rightly being recognized, should give customers, investors, and taxpayers heightened confidence in America’s largest banks.&nbsp;The independent Federal Reserve recently&nbsp;<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-04-25/pdf/2018-08006.pdf">noted</a>&nbsp;the vast improvements to the U.S. financial system and observed that large U.S. banks are “among the strongest in the world.”&nbsp;<blockquote>It’s clear&nbsp;that the post-crisis rules bolstered the nation’s banks. The members of the Forum want to preserve and build on that progress, for the good of consumers, businesses, and society as a whole. We remain committed to a financial system that is efficient, effective, and designed to help move our nation forward.</blockquote>Kevin Fromer is the CEO &amp; President of the Financial Services Forum, an economic policy and advocacy organization whose members are the chief executive officers of the eight largest and most diversified financial institutions headquartered in the United States. &nbsp;<hr><h3>LEARN MORE: The Value and Strength of America’s Largest Financial Institutions</h3>Our institutions support economic growth and a number of steps have led to a more resilient financial sector. Learn more in our <a href="https://www.fsforum.com/research/deck-value-safety-soundness/">briefing slide deck</a>.

Op-Ed: Big banks help America do big things

impact-art-covid-19.svg

impact-art-covid-19-faded.svg

medium_Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.00.08 PM.png

small_Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.00.08 PM.png

thumbnail_Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.00.08 PM.png

Screen Shot 2021-05-13 at 2.00.08 PM.png

Supporting Communities During the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented challenge for the world and the global economy and the largest U.S. banks are committed to supporting customers, clients, and the nation.

PPP loans from JPMorgan have supported 3 million workers at small businesses, including those working at Community Wellness Ventures, a mental health services company that serves children and families in Washington, D.C. The PPP loan has helped Dr. Charlayne Hayling-Williams and her husband, Dr. Rod Williams, continue to pay their counselors, social workers, psychologists and housing specialists so that they can continue to serve their community.The majority of Citibank’s PPP loans went to small businesses in the service sector. A PPP loan from Citi helped the Maryland Youth Ballet in Silver Spring retain teaching staff and find a way to teach students safely and retain employees. The students range in age from 2 to 19 years old. “If we hadn’t been able to receive this PPP loan, we wouldn’t be able to keep dancing,” Principal Deidre Byrne says. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMzepw_oAtQ&amp;feature=youtu.be">Learn more</a>.State Street is a lead sponsor of <a href="https://www.smallbstrong.com/">Small Business Strong</a>, a non-profit organization helping women and minority owned small businesses navigate the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Small Business Strong provides expedited, pro-bono resources to small businesses ranging from access to capital to consulting, business restructuring, business growth, digital marketing and customer engagement plans.Another way Forum banks have worked to assist small businesses is by supporting financial institutions with particularly strong connections to certain local communities. Forum banks have increased their support for Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) during the pandemic. CDFIs are private financial institutions that are dedicated to providing responsible, affordable lending to help low-income and typically underserved communities. From 2015 to 2020, <a href="https://www.fsforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/cdfifactsheetfinal2021.jpg">Forum banks have invested nearly $9 billion in CDFIs.</a> Through such assistance, Forum member banks are working to ensure that small businesses in these communities get the help they need.Goldman Sachs last year committed $1 billion to support lending through CDFIs and other mission-driven lenders. More than 15,000 small businesses with 87,000 employees were supported just partway through the commitments. Nearly half of the initial funds went to businesses in minority communities; one-third went to those in low-income communities. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/maneetahuja/2020/12/15/goldman-sachs-ceo-david-solomon-announces-additional-250-million-investment-in-small-businesses-bringing-total-2020-commitment-to-1-billion/?sh=3739ddc91000">Read more</a>.

large_AdobeStock_390550889.jpeg

medium_AdobeStock_390550889.jpeg

small_AdobeStock_390550889.jpeg

thumbnail_AdobeStock_390550889.jpeg

AdobeStock_390550889.jpeg

Supporting Small Businesses

Members of the Financial Services Forum have supported small businesses across the country throughout the pandemic, helping provide important resources during a challenging time for many business owners and their employees.

Throughout the pandemic, Forum members facilitated $94 billion in loans to nearly 1.25 million small businesses through the government Paycheck Protection Program. More than a quarter of these loans were made in low- and moderate-income communities and 91 percent of the PPP loans made by Forum members went to businesses with 20 or fewer employees.

At the beginning of 2020, Morgan Stanley launched the <a href="https://www.morganstanley.com/articles/alliance-for-childrens-mental-health-covid-19">Morgan Stanley Alliance for Children’s Mental Health</a> to help address children’s mental health, specifically the far-reaching challenges of stress, anxiety and depression. After the COVID-19 pandemic began, Morgan Stanley made an additional grant to the Child Mind Institute to provide digital mental health resources for children, adolescents and young adults, with a focus on vulnerable communities that traditionally lack access to these resources.Among other areas of focus, the Alliance is promoting public awareness of how the COVID-19 pandemic affects children’s mental health—both now and in the long term.In addition to providing relief to millions of customers, Wells Fargo has redirected millions of dollars from its philanthropic budget to COVID‑19 community relief efforts for the most impacted Americans. The company has worked to streamline grant making and offer highly flexible funding to nearly 1,000 nonprofits reaching more than 800 communities across the country.The program is making a difference in helping those who need it most access small business resources, stay in their homes and obtain financial health resources. In Alabama, a $100,000 grant to the Birmingham Strong Fund is providing emergency loans to small businesses to help stabilize employment, stimulate economic vitality, and offset losses related to COVID‑19. A $100,000 grant to United Way of Greater Los Angeles has helped the group create the Pandemic Relief Fund to support vulnerable populations who are at the greatest risk of health and economic impacts in this crisis. A $160,000 grant to the Institute of Community Alliances is providing rental assistance to shelter residents across the state of Iowa.Bank of America in 2020 announced a $1 billion, four-year commitment of additional support to help local communities address economic and racial inequality accelerated by the global pandemic. The programs are focused on assisting people and communities of color that have experienced a greater impact from the health crisis in areas that include:<ul><li>Virus testing, telemedicine, flu vaccination clinics, and other health services, with a special focus on communities of color.</li><li>Partnerships with historically black colleges and universities and Hispanic-serving institutions in the United States for hiring, research programs, and other areas of mutual opportunity.</li><li>Support to minority-owned small businesses, including clients and vendors.</li><li>Career reskilling/upskilling through partnerships with high schools and community colleges.</li><li>Operating support and investment for affordable housing/neighborhood revitalization, leveraging the company’s nearly $5 billion in Community Development Banking.</li><li>Further recruitment and retention of teammates in low- to moderate-income and disadvantaged communities to build on work the company has already done to serve clients locally.</li></ul>

large_AdobeStock_373999755.jpeg

medium_AdobeStock_373999755.jpeg

small_AdobeStock_373999755.jpeg

thumbnail_AdobeStock_373999755.jpeg

AdobeStock_373999755.jpeg

Supporting Communities

Forum members have collectively committed billions of dollars to communities in need. This aid is helping organizations and governments increase medical response capacity, address food insecurity, increase access to education in the face of school closures, protect impacted small businesses and provide support to the vulnerable populations.

Financial support is being dispersed to a number of organizations and programs such as the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Solidarity Fund, the CDC Foundation, No Kid Hungry, Feeding America, National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Emergency Relief Fund, the International Medical Corps and many other community-specific groups.

large_AdobeStock_377413483.jpeg

medium_AdobeStock_377413483.jpeg

small_AdobeStock_377413483.jpeg

thumbnail_AdobeStock_377413483.jpeg

AdobeStock_377413483.jpeg

Supporting Individuals

Forum members have been supporting their customers in a variety of ways, including by providing fee waivers, payment deferrals, and other assistance to help customers in need, with no negative credit bureau reporting for up-to-date clients.

Another key way in which large banks are serving households is the provision of safe, secure deposit accounts. 

People use deposit accounts as a safe store of value during uncertain times. With general economic uncertainty and an increase in market volatility, people are relying more on safe, liquid, bank deposits as they manage a variety of near-term risks. 

As people demand a safe store of value for their hard-earned money, Forum members have provided this critical service. Forum members provide depositors with a range of online services to access their deposits remotely, which are all the more valuable as people practice social distancing. 

Since the start of the crisis, <a href="https://www.bnymellon.com/us/en/insights/content-series/covid-19.html">Bank of New York Mellon</a> has worked to support its employees and their families with a number of actions and programs. The bank has provided paid leave benefits and an Employee Assistance Program for all employees and their direct family members, including a 24/7 COVID-19 support line. It is providing enhanced U.S. healthcare coverage so that COVID-19 testing and related outpatient services are provided without any employee out-of-pocket expense. The firm has also provided a 2-for-1 match for employee donations.

Father and child at a medical appointment 

large_iStock-1287925289.jpg

medium_iStock-1287925289.jpg

small_iStock-1287925289.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-1287925289.jpg

iStock-1287925289.jpg

Supporting Our Employees

Forum members are actively helping ensure the health and well-being of their more than 720,000 employees. 

From special compensation awards, to additional time off, to counseling services, the nation’s largest banks have been taking significant steps to support their workforces.

In 2020, Forum member institutions:<ul><li>Increased credit to businesses and households by $785 billion to nearly $8.3 trillion.</li><li>Helped raise $2.2 trillion in corporate bonds and $339 billion in equity through the third quarter for U.S. companies, allowing them to continue to pay their workers, operate their businesses and meet their funding needs. This capital raising by large banks fulfills a critical need in the economy to connect savers, such as pension funds and endowments, with companies like Pfizer and 3M that need to borrow capital for everyday business needs. <a href="https://www.fsforum.com/types/press/blog/building-bridges-between-savers-and-borrowers-during-the-pandemic-large-bank-underwriting/">Read more</a>.</li><li>Remained strong and resilient, despite the significant headwinds. The members of the Financial Services Forum in 2020 increased capital and strengthened their liquidity positions while at the same time supporting business and consumers.</li></ul>

large_shutterstock_1673662414.jpg

medium_shutterstock_1673662414.jpg

small_shutterstock_1673662414.jpg

thumbnail_shutterstock_1673662414.jpg

shutterstock_1673662414.jpg

Supporting the Economy

Forum member institutions have been a key source of support for the economy during the pandemic. They have supported the economy in a number of important ways.



Throughout the pandemic, we facilitated $94 billion in PPP loans to nearly 1.25 million small businesses across the country.

COVID-19 Response

Letter to the Editor Submitted to Bloomberg on January 17, 2018:To the Editor:We are writing in response to your editorial “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-18/trump-takes-a-step-closer-to-impeachment">The Fed is Ignoring the Biggest Lesson of 2008</a>,” on January 8, 2019.&nbsp;We disagree.&nbsp;<blockquote>In arguing that the Federal Reserve has failed to raise bank capital requirements sufficiently, the editorial ignores completely the significant increases in capital in the past decade.&nbsp;The six largest U.S. banks have roughly tripled their common equity from $270 billion to $772 billion since 2009. The ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets -- the capital ratio generally considered the most loss-absorbing form of capital -- for these firms has risen from 4.7 percent to 12.1 percent.</blockquote>&nbsp;These changes were largely driven by the Fed -- most notably, its stress-testing regime, of which the editorial makes no mention. In 2018, the 35 largest U.S. banks showed they held enough capital to remain well capitalized and continue to lend to businesses and households even after enduring a hypothetical financial crisis that included an increase in unemployment from then 4.1 percent to 10 percent; a 65 percent drop in the stock market; a 30 percent drop in housing prices; a 40 percent drop in commercial real estate prices, and a global market shock of unprecedented severity. Still, the editorial argues that the Fed raise capital still higher by imposing a “countercyclical capital buffer,” for three flawed reasons.First, it notes that the largest U.S. banks have less than $7 in equity for every $100 in assets, and thus presumably should have more. The largest banks now hold -- as required by Fed liquidity rules, not mentioned in the editorial -- about 25 percent of their balance sheet in cash and cash equivalents.Second, it cites a widely disputed study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis -- not the Fed itself -- that argues capital requirements should be doubled, even though by that study’s own measure, a capital increase of that size would cost twice as much in lost U.S. economic growth as its benefit from reducing the likelihood of future crises.Third, the article argues that a countercyclical buffer is in place in some European countries. Although true, those countries -- the Czech Republic, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovakia and Sweden -- are in a vastly different position in terms of economic growth and capital markets activity, and none of the countries listed has as rigorous a stress-testing regime as the U.S.The Fed’s framework states the buffer would be implemented when “systemic vulnerabilities are meaningfully above normal.” The Fed, however, has not raised such systemic concerns. The case to raise capital requirements higher has yet to be made. Banks are strongly positioned to serve consumers, businesses, and communities -- even during times of economic distress. The Fed should not needlessly impose a requirement that would harm economic growth with little benefit to the safety and soundness of the financial system.Kevin FromerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerFinancial Services Forum&nbsp;Greg BaerPresident and Chief Executive Officer&nbsp;Bank Policy Institute<hr><h3>LEARN MORE: Press Release: Forum Submits Comments on Proposals to Revise Aspects of Capital Rules</h3>U.S. bank regulators should take additional steps to develop a more efficient capital framework that allows financial institutions to best serve consumers, businesses, investors, and communities across the United States, the Financial Services Forum told regulators in two comment letters. &nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsforum.com/press/releases/press-release-forum-submits-comments-on-proposals-to-revise-aspects-of-capital-rules/">Read our statement</a>.

Joint Forum, BPI Letter to the Editor: The Case to Raise Capital Requirements Has Yet to be Made

Fact Sheet

Video

Letters

Press Releases

Member News

thumbnail_State_Street_250x67.png

State_Street_250x67.png

State Street Corporation

Ron is chairman and chief executive officer of State Street Corporation. He is also a member of State Street Corporation’s Board of Directors. Ron was previously president and chief operating officer of State Street Corporation, and before that president and chief executive officer of State Street Global Advisors, the investment management arm of State Street Corporation. He joined State Street in 2015. Prior to State Street, Ron was president of Asset Management &amp; Corporate Services for Fidelity Investments, responsible for all Fidelity asset management organizations and Fidelity’s corporate functions and enterprise technology. He served at Fidelity from 2010 to 2014. Prior to joining Fidelity, Ron served as president and chief executive officer of BNY Mellon Asset Management in Boston, a position to which he was named in 2007. During this time, he also served as vice chairman of Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and was a member of its Executive Committee. Additionally, Ron oversaw all of Bank of New York Mellon’s activities in Asia. Prior to the 2007 merger of Bank of New York and Mellon, he was vice chairman of Mellon Financial Corporation and president and chief executive officer of Mellon Asset Management. He served at Mellon and Bank of New York Mellon from 1997 to 2010. Prior to Mellon, Ron was with McKinsey &amp; Company, Inc., from 1986 to 1997 and was elected a partner in 1992. He founded the Investment Management practice worldwide and was co-founder and co-leader of the firm’s North American Personal Financial Services practice. Additionally, he was a member of the Worldwide Property &amp; Casualty Insurance practice. During his tenure with McKinsey, Ron served in the firm’s Boston, New York, and Stockholm offices. Ron received his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Syracuse University in 1980 and his Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1986. Ron serves on the boards of Unum Corp. and Rhode Island Commerce Corporation. He also serves on the boards of Beth Israel Lahey Health, The Boston Foundation, IYRS School of Technology and Trades, Syracuse University and WBUR. Ron’s philanthropic and civic interests include corporate governance, retirement/healthcare policy and funding, education, and climate. He has led several initiatives on gender equality. Ron is a frequent speaker and writer, and an avid offshore sailboat racer.

small_ron_ohanley.jpg

thumbnail_ron_ohanley.jpg

ron_ohanley.jpg

Ronald O'Hanley

State Street Corporation Chairman And Chief Executive Officer, Forum Chair

Citi.png

Citigroup

Jane Fraser is the Chief Executive Officer of Citi, the world's most global bank, serving millions of consumers, businesses and institutions across 160 countries and jurisdictions. She is the first female CEO in the firm’s history. Jane has deep experience across Citi’s consumer and institutional businesses and, in many ways, she helped shape Citi into the company it is today. Before becoming CEO in February 2021, she was President of Citi and CEO of the Global Consumer Bank, responsible for all of Citi’s Consumer businesses, including Retail Banking and Wealth Management, Credit Cards, Mortgage and Operations and Technology in 19 markets. Before that, she was the Chief Executive Officer of Citigroup Latin America from 2015 to 2019. From 2013 to 2015, she was the Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Consumer and Commercial Banking and CitiMortgage. From 2009 to 2013, Jane served as the Chief Executive Officer of Citi's Global Private Bank. Prior, Jane was the Global Head of Strategy and Mergers &amp; Acquisitions for Citi from 2007 to 2009. She joined Citi in 2004 in the Corporate and Investment Banking division. Before joining Citi, Jane was a Partner at McKinsey &amp; Company. She started her career at Goldman Sachs in the Mergers &amp; Acquisitions department in London and then worked for Asesores Bursátiles in Madrid, Spain. Jane serves as a Board Member for the Business Roundtable and the Council on Foreign Relations. She is Vice Chair for the Partnership for New York City and a member of Harvard Business School’s Board of Dean’s Advisors, the Stanford Global Advisory Board and the Economic Club of New York. Jane has an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School and an M.A. in economics from Cambridge University. She is married with two children.

large_Screen Shot 2023-01-12 at 1.47.13 PM.png

medium_Screen Shot 2023-01-12 at 1.47.13 PM.png

small_Screen Shot 2023-01-12 at 1.47.13 PM.png

thumbnail_Screen Shot 2023-01-12 at 1.47.13 PM.png

Screen Shot 2023-01-12 at 1.47.13 PM.png

Jane Fraser

Citigroup Chief Executive Officer, Forum Vice Chair

thumbnail_Bank of America.png

Bank of America.png

Bank Of America

Brian Moynihan leads a team of more than 200,000 employees dedicated to making financial lives better for people, companies of every size, and institutional investors across the United States and around the world. Bank of America is recognized as a top employer by Working Mother magazine and Military Times. The company is also listed on Fortune magazine’s list of the Best Workplaces for Diversity and the Best Workplaces for Parents. It was also named one of the Best Places to Work for Disability Inclusion by the U.S. Business Leadership Network and the American Association of People with Disabilities. In 2018, Euromoney recognized Bank of America as the World’s Best Bank and the World’s Best Bank for Diversity and Inclusion, as part of their annual Global Awards for Excellence. Bank of America was also named the 2019 Catalyst Award winner, honored for supporting the continued development, empowerment and advancement of women in the company and around the world. Moynihan participates in several organizations that focus on economic and market trends, including the World Economic Forum International Business Council, the Financial Services Forum, the Bank Policy Institute (chair), the Business Roundtable, and the American Heart Association CEO Roundtable (co-chair). He is also a member of the Federal Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Board. Moynihan leads the company’s Global Diversity and Inclusion Council and is a member of the museum council for the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture. Moynihan is also a member of the Brown University Corporation’s Board of Fellows and the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation Board.

small_brian_moynihan.jpg

thumbnail_brian_moynihan.jpg

brian_moynihan.jpg

Brian Moynihan

Bank Of America Chairman Of The Board And Chief Executive Officer

thumbnail_BNY Logo Cropped V2.png

BNY Logo Cropped V2.png

BNY 

Robin Vince is President and Chief Executive Officer of BNY and a member of its Board of Directors. Previously, he was Vice Chair of BNY and CEO of Global Market Infrastructure. In that role, he oversaw BNY’s Clearance and Collateral Management, Treasury Services, Markets and Execution Services and Pershing businesses. Prior to joining BNY in October 2020, Robin was the Chief Risk Officer of Goldman Sachs and a member of the Management Committee. He joined Goldman Sachs in 1994 and held many leadership roles, including Treasurer, Head of Operations, Head of Global Money Markets, COO of the EMEA region and CEO of Goldman Sachs International Bank, among others. He served on several key subsidiary boards and governance committees. He was named managing director in 2002 and partner in 2006. Robin is a member of National Geographic Society's Hubbard Council and serves on the Board of Advisors of The Hospital for Special Surgery.

large_Robin Vince 2.png

medium_Robin Vince 2.png

small_Robin Vince 2.png

thumbnail_Robin Vince 2.png

Robin Vince 2.png

Robin Vince 

BNY Chief Executive Officer 

thumbnail_Goldman_Sachs1.png

Goldman_Sachs1.png

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

David Solomon is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Board of Directors of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Previously, he was President and Chief Operating Officer and prior to that, he served as Co-Head of the Investment Banking Division from 2006 to 2016. Before that, Mr. Solomon was Global Head of the Financing Group, which includes all capital markets and derivative products for the firm’s corporate clients. He joined Goldman Sachs as a Partner in 1999. Mr. Solomon is a member of the Board of Trustees of Hamilton College and serves on the board of The Robin Hood Foundation.

small_solomon_david.jpg

thumbnail_solomon_david.jpg

solomon_david.jpg

David Solomon

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

thumbnail_JP Morgan.png

JP Morgan.png

JPMorganChase 

Jamie Dimon is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of JPMorganChase, a global financial services firm with assets of $2.5 trillion and operations worldwide. The firm is a leader in investment banking, financial services for consumers, small business, commercial banking, financial transaction processing and asset management. Dimon became CEO on January 1, 2006 and one year later also became Chairman of the Board. He was named President and Chief Operating Officer upon the company’s merger with Bank One Corporation on July 1, 2004. Dimon joined Bank One as Chairman and CEO in 2000. Dimon began his career at American Express Company. Next, he served as Chief Financial Officer and then President at Commercial Credit, which made numerous acquisitions and divestitures, including acquiring Primerica Corporation in 1987 and The Travelers Corporation in 1993. Dimon served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Travelers from 1990 through 1998 while concurrently serving as Chief Operating Officer of its Smith Barney Inc. subsidiary before becoming co-Chairman and Co-CEO of the combined brokerage following the 1997 merger of Smith Barney and Salomon Brothers. In 1998, Dimon was named President of Citigroup Inc., the global financial services company formed by the combination of Travelers Group and Citicorp. Dimon earned his bachelors degree from Tufts University and holds an MBA from Harvard Business School. He serves on the boards of directors of a number of non-profit institutions including the Clearing House and Harvard Business School. Additionally, he is the Chairman of the Business Roundtable and serves on the executive committee of the Business Council and the Partnership for New York City, and is a member of the Financial Services Forum, Financial Services Roundtable and Council on Foreign Relations.

small_jamie_dimon.jpg

thumbnail_jamie_dimon.jpg

jamie_dimon.jpg

Jamie Dimon

JPMorganChase Chairman And Chief Executive Officer

thumbnail_Morgan Stanley.png

Morgan Stanley.png

Morgan Stanley

Edward (Ted) Pick is the Chief Executive Officer of Morgan Stanley.Before becoming CEO in 2024, Mr. Pick served as Morgan Stanley's Co-President, Co-Head of Firm Strategy and Head of the Institutional Securities Group, overseeing Investment Banking, Equities, Fixed Income, Global Capital Markets and Research.&nbsp;In previous roles, Mr. Pick was Global Head of Sales and Trading, engineering a turnaround of the firm’s Fixed Income Division. As Head of Institutional Equities, he led that business to a leading global position. He also served as Head of Equity Capital Markets, helping the firm actively raise capital during the financial crisis.&nbsp;Mr. Pick joined Morgan Stanley in 1990 and was promoted to Managing Director in 2002. He is a member of the firm’s Board of Directors (2024), Operating Committee (2012), Management Committee (2008) and Morgan Stanley-MUFG Steering Committee (2013).Mr. Pick graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Middlebury College (1990) and received an MBA from Harvard Business School (1994). He is a Trustee at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (2018), and serves on the MET’s Nominating &amp; Governance Committees. Mr. Pick is Chair of the Advisory Board for the Morgan Stanley Alliance for Children’s Mental Health and a board member of the Institute of International Finance.

thumbnail_Ted Pick_Morgan Stanley.jpeg

Ted Pick_Morgan Stanley.jpeg

Ted Pick

Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer

thumbnail_wf_logo_final.png

wf_logo_final.png

Wells Fargo & Company

Charles W. Scharf is chief executive officer and president, and a member of the Board of Directors of Wells Fargo &amp; Company. A financial services veteran with 24 years of experience in leadership roles in the banking and payments industries, Charlie served as chief executive officer of Bank of New York Mellon from July 2017 to October 2019 and the chairman of its board from January 2018 to October 2018. He also was chief executive officer and a director of Visa Inc. from October 2012 to December 2016. During his tenure at Bank of New York Mellon, Charlie demonstrated a strong track record in initiating and leading change, driving results, strengthening operational risk and compliance, and innovating amid a rapidly evolving digital landscape. As the CEO of Visa, Charlie transformed the firm into a technology-driven digital commerce company by partnering with the world’s leading technology companies to drive new payment experiences and introduce new technologies to improve payment system security. Previously, he was a managing director of One Equity Partners at JPMorgan Chase &amp; Co. and chief executive officer of Retail Financial Services at JPMorgan Chase. He also was chief executive officer of the retail division of Bank One Corp., chief financial officer of Bank One Corp., chief financial officer of the Global Corporate and Investment Bank division of Citigroup, and chief financial officer of Salomon Smith Barney and its predecessor company. Charlie earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Johns Hopkins University and an MBA from New York University. He is a director of Microsoft Corporation, serves on the board of trustees of Johns Hopkins University, is a member of The Business Council, and is chairman of the New York City Ballet. He lives in New York City.&nbsp;

News

Opinion

Sign Up for Updates