Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill mandates that federal banking regulators (OCC, NCUA, FRB, FDIC), and jointly with state regulators, publish annual reports on charter, deposit insurance, and holding company applications. Each report must include counts of application dispositions, mean and median processing times, and, to the extent practicable, common reasons for denials, withdrawals, or returns.
Whether transparency will improve community access or pressure risky approvals
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly prescribes which agencies must publish annual reports and enumerates the core data elements to be reported.
The bill mandates that federal banking regulators (OCC, NCUA, FRB, FDIC), and jointly with state regulators, publish annual reports on charter, deposit insurance, and holding company applications.
Each report must include counts of application dispositions, mean and median processing times, and, to the extent practicable, common reasons for denials, withdrawals, or returns.
The joint state report requires state-by-state counts and processing times for state depository and credit union charters.
Modest, procedural transparency measure with low cost and limited controversy, but many technical bills still stall due to calendar or procedural hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly prescribes which agencies must publish annual reports and enumerates the core data elements to be reported. It assigns responsibility to specific regulators and, in one section, mandates a joint report with state consultation. However, it leaves substantial implementation detail unspecified: timing, data definitions and methodology, publication modality, treatment of confidential information, fiscal impacts, and accountability mechanisms are absent or minimal.
Whether transparency will improve community access or pressure risky approvals
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether transparency will improve community access or pressure risky approvals
Generally supportive of increased transparency and data to hold regulators accountable.
Cautious that reports could be used to pressure approvals or lack detail on community impacts.
Views the bill as a modest, reasonable transparency measure that improves oversight.
Wants clarity on definitions, standardization, and administrative costs before full endorsement.
Favors transparency that exposes regulatory obstacles and increases competition.
Sees reports as a tool to argue for reduced barriers to entry and faster approvals.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest, procedural transparency measure with low cost and limited controversy, but many technical bills still stall due to calendar or procedural hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether transparency will improve community access or pressure risky approvals
Modest, procedural transparency measure with low cost and limited controversy, but many technical bills still stall due to calendar or proc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly prescribes which agencies must publish annual reports and enumerates the core data elements to be reported. It assigns responsibility to specific regulators a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.