OCC had a security breach that exposed highly-sensitive information about the financial condition of banks. The stability of our banking system requires and relies on trust. The OCC’s security breach and release of sensitive information on banks breaks that trust and erodes confidence in the OCC’s ability to do its job and protect people’s money and the banking system.

Acting FDIC Chairman Hill discussed a range of new policies that are intended to spur new bank formation. Hill proposes loosening the rules to encourage new banks to form in rural/underserved areas, make it easier for fintechs to become insured banks, and encourage more industrial loan companies. While new banks can help to spur economic growth, the FDIC must ensure that new banks are safe and sound to safeguard families’ savings.

Acting FDIC Chairman Hill discussed views on expanding crypto access to the banking system.

Hill said that “deposits are deposits, regardless of the technology or recordkeeping deployed.” He also said that the deposit insurance regulations need to be revisited to cover stablecoin reserves.

Acting FDIC Chairman Hill discussed views changes needed to strengthen resolution planning rules.

Hill said that the FDIC will soon issue an FAQ document waiving certain resolution planning requirements to focus banks on providing information the FDIC would need to market the institution (rather than keep it operating as a bridge bank after failure). This is a problem because it allows systemically important banks to ignore an important part of their resolution plans.

Acting FDIC Chairman Hill discussed views on adjusting the “tailoring” categories for inflation. Hill said that the asset size thresholds that limit regulations for some banks need to be adjusted upward for inflation. In other words, this would make larger banks exempt from certain rules related to capital, stress testing, resolution planning, etc.

New CFPB leadership continues its trend of dismissing prior CFPB enforcement actions against alleged corporate wrongdoers—this time against a remittance provider that allegedly repeatedly violated federal law by repeatedly lying to consumers about when transfers would be available, delaying transfers and refunds, failing to investigate and resolve disputes and error notices from consumers, and failing to retain certain documents.