POLISCOPE
Back to feed

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.

Congressional Hearing on Non-Bank SIFI Designation Process

Original title: THE ARBITRARY AND INCONSISTENT NON-BANK SIFI DESIGNATION PROCESS

Record date · January 1, 2018

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

What This Bill Does

This document is a transcript of a March 28, 2017, House Subcommittee hearing regarding the process used to designate financial institutions as Systemically Important Financial Institutions (s). The hearing focused on criticisms that the designation process under the is arbitrary and inconsistent.

Why it matters

The hearing examines the regulatory oversight of large financial firms, which impacts how these companies are supervised and the potential financial risks they pose to the broader economy.

Who It Affects

Groups the bill's text affects, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

Non-bank financial institutions

These companies are subject to the SIFI designation process, which determines their regulatory oversight requirements.

Directly affected

Financial regulators

These agencies are responsible for implementing the SIFI designation process under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Key Facts

  • The hearing was held on March 28, 2017, by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
  • The subject of the hearing was the 'Non-Bank SIFI Designation Process' established by the Dodd-Frank Act.
  • The subcommittee heard testimony from four witnesses: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Paul H. Kupiec, Alex J. Pollock, and David Zaring.
  • The hearing included the submission of written statements from the American Council of Life Insurers and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.
Show all 5 facts
  • The hearing was conducted in room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a non-bank SIFI?
A is a non-bank financial institution designated as 'Systemically Important' under the , meaning its failure could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States.
What was the purpose of this hearing?
The purpose was to investigate and discuss criticisms that the process for designating these institutions is arbitrary and inconsistent.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Discoveries

1 pattern noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Regulatory Scrutiny

The hearing highlights a period of legislative pushback against the regulatory powers granted to financial oversight bodies by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Connected Entities

Paul H. Kupiec, Alex J. Pollock, David Zaring and 2 more
PersonPaul H. Kupiec“Witness, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute”Map →
PersonAlex J. Pollock“Witness, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute”Map →
PersonDavid Zaring“Witness, Associate Professor at The Wharton School”Map →
PersonAnn Wagner“Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations”Map →
PersonDouglas Holtz-Eakin“Witness, President of the American Action Forum”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance60
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy50
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment10
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz20
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record