Holiday Stress Test
Banks are Fed up: In 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a major law regulating large financial institutions. The goal of the law was to prevent another financial crisis. Among the law’s many provisions was a requirement that the Federal Reserve perform “stress tests” to determine how big banks would perform in another, hypothetical crisis.Â
But like so many elements of Dodd-Frank, the exact details weren’t spelled out. Instead, Congress left others to figure out the particulars. Since then, the Fed has performed capital adequacy analyses as part of the test, and has used those analyses to require banks to maintain certain levels of capital.Â
To make those determinations, the Fed uses various models and scenarios to determine a bank’s performance in a crisis. How do those models work? What sort of scenarios? Well, like an unopened Christmas present, that’s something of a secret. In July, CNBC reports, a consortium of financial institutions “accused the Fed of being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it didn’t seek public comment on its stress scenarios and kept supervisory models secret.” Unwrap those stress test models!Â
So, on Christmas Eve, a group of banks and business groups sued the Fed, arguing that the process needs to be more transparent. The banks are trying to eliminate the stress tests, the suit claims. Instead, they just want the rules and requirements to be clear and logical. The existing system, they argue, “produces vacillating and unexplained requirements and restrictions on bank capital.”Â
The Fed was already moving in this direction. Just one day before the lawsuit was filed, the Fed announced that it would implement changes to the stress test program, allowing banks to provide comment and feedback on the models it uses, perhaps along with other transparency measures.Â
But the Fed’s shift may not have been entirely voluntary. The Fed cited an “evolving legal landscape” for the move, which is another way of saying that the Supreme Court has made it somewhat more difficult for bureaucracies to engage in shady business. As Reuters coyly noted, the decision “followed recent court rulings that have significantly changed the framework of administrative law in recent years.”Â
What’s the opposite of low-energy? On Christmas day, the front page of The New York Times website linked to a report worrying that incoming President Donald Trump might scrap clean energy “investments”—read, federal spending—put in place by the Biden administration, specifically by pulling back on subsidies included in the Inflation Reduction Act.Â
But whether Trump will be good or bad for clean energy is a separate question from whether he’ll continue to push the Biden administration’s subsidies-first approach to green te
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
