Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill raises multiple statutory asset-size thresholds used in banking and financial stability statutes (e.g., $250B→$370B, $100B→$150B, $10B→$15B, $50B→$75B) and requires periodic 5-year adjustments of those thresholds tied to current‑dollar U.S. GDP. It directs the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC to review and, where appropriate, modify rule‑based thresholds every five years, prescribes rounding and publication rules, and requires agency reports to Congress.
Progressives emphasize systemic‑risk and consumer protection loss.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and concrete statutory amendment package that both updates specific numeric thresholds and establishes a recurring, formula-based indexing process tied to current-dollar GDP.
The bill raises multiple statutory asset-size thresholds used in banking and financial stability statutes (e.g., $250B→$370B, $100B→$150B, $10B→$15B, $50B→$75B) and requires periodic 5-year adjustments of those thresholds tied to current‑dollar U.S. GDP.
It directs the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC to review and, where appropriate, modify rule‑based thresholds every five years, prescribes rounding and publication rules, and requires agency reports to Congress.
The changes primarily affect which bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, and financial companies are subject to enhanced regulation and certain FSOC/Title I/Tailoring provisions.
Technically focused and administrable, increasing chances; but substantive impact on financial oversight and need for wider Senate agreement reduce prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and concrete statutory amendment package that both updates specific numeric thresholds and establishes a recurring, formula-based indexing process tied to current-dollar GDP. It identifies responsible agencies, sets schedules, and prescribes publication and reporting requirements, while allowing some agency discretion for thresholds established by rule.
Progressives emphasize systemic‑risk and consumer protection loss.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize systemic‑risk and consumer protection loss.
Skeptical.
Likely to view the bill as a deregulatory shift that narrows the population of firms subject to enhanced oversight and resolution planning.
May accept periodic indexing to avoid accidental coverage creep, but worries the aggregate effect weakens safeguards against systemic risk and reduces protections for consumers and communities.
Cautiously supportive if implemented with safeguards.
Recognizes need to prevent threshold creep and reduce needless compliance costs for smaller institutions, but wants careful oversight, transparency, and contingency mechanisms to preserve financial stability.
Generally favorable.
Likely to view the bill as reasonable tailoring and modernization that prevents over‑broad application of enhanced regulations to institutions that have grown only due to nominal economic growth.
Values predictability and lower regulatory burden.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically focused and administrable, increasing chances; but substantive impact on financial oversight and need for wider Senate agreement reduce prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize systemic‑risk and consumer protection loss.
Technically focused and administrable, increasing chances; but substantive impact on financial oversight and need for wider Senate agreemen…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear and concrete statutory amendment package that both updates specific numeric thresholds and establishes a recurring, formula-based indexing process tied to…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.