Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The bill amends Section 29(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to change the amounts of reciprocal deposits that an insured depository institution (an "agent institution") may accept without those deposits being treated as funds obtained by or through a deposit broker. It sets a tiered schedule of percentages that determine how much reciprocal deposits are excluded from the brokered-deposit determination: 50% of liabilities up to $1 billion; 40% of liabilities from $1 billion to $10 billion; 30% for $10 billion to $250 billion; 20% for $250 billion to $1 trillion; and 2% for amounts above $1 trillion.
Progressives emphasize financial-stability and FDIC-exposure risks from loosening brokered-deposit treatment; conservatives emphasize deregulatory and local-banking benefits.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides highly specific statutory language to change how reciprocal deposits are treated and clarifies a CAMELS-rating reference, but it minimally frames the problem, omits fiscal and implementation detail, and lacks accountability and anti-abuse provisions.
The bill amends Section 29(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to change the amounts of reciprocal deposits that an insured depository institution (an "agent institution") may accept without those deposits being treated as funds obtained by or through a deposit broker.
It sets a tiered schedule of percentages that determine how much reciprocal deposits are excluded from the brokered-deposit determination: 50% of liabilities up to $1 billion; 40% of liabilities from $1 billion to $10 billion; 30% for $10 billion to $250 billion; 20% for $250 billion to $1 trillion; and 2% for amounts above $1 trillion.
The bill also modifies the statutory wording for the definition of an "agent institution" to reference institutions assigned a CAMELS rating of 1, 2, or 3 (outstanding or good).
On content alone, this is a narrow, technical statutory tweak that could win support from industry and some regulators and be folded into broader financial-services legislation. The lack of direct spending or social-policy controversy increases its chances relative to sweeping bills. However, because it alters how deposits are classified—affecting FDIC exposure and supervisory treatment—it could trigger focused opposition from some regulators or consumer/stability-focused stakeholders. The absence of compromise mechanisms (sunset, pilot) and the potential for contested committee debate lower the probability that it moves swiftly through both chambers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides highly specific statutory language to change how reciprocal deposits are treated and clarifies a CAMELS-rating reference, but it minimally frames the problem, omits fiscal and implementation detail, and lacks accountability and anti-abuse provisions.
Progressives emphasize financial-stability and FDIC-exposure risks from loosening brokered-deposit treatment; conservatives emphasize deregulatory and local-banking benefits.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize financial-stability and FDIC-exposure risks from loosening brokered-deposit treatment; conservatives emphasize deregulatory and local-banking benefits.
A mainstream progressive would see parts of the bill as intended to keep deposits in local institutions and to formalize protections by tying agent status to good CAMELS ratings.
However, they would be wary that loosening brokered-deposit treatment could increase reliance on non-core deposit sources and potentially expose the Deposit Insurance Fund to risk if institutions behave imprudently.
They would weigh the potential community-banking benefits against risks to financial stability and to consumers if weaker safeguards or inadequate oversight accompany the change.
A moderate would view the bill as a pragmatic tweak to the brokered-deposit rules intended to help institutions keep deposits local while maintaining a safety screen by limiting agent status to well-rated banks.
They would appreciate the tiered approach as recognizing scale differences across institutions but want evidence the change does not materially raise systemic or insurance-fund risk.
The centrist outlook is cautiously favorable if accompanied by monitoring, data collection, and sunset or review provisions to confirm the effects.
A mainstream conservative would generally favor the bill as a deregulatory adjustment that helps local and regional banks attract and keep deposits without being penalized as taking brokered funds.
They would view the tiered exclusions as a pragmatic recognition that institutions of different sizes need different treatment and would like the CAMELS 1–3 requirement as a common-sense safety filter.
Conservatives would likely see this as enabling market-based competition for deposits and supporting community banking.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a narrow, technical statutory tweak that could win support from industry and some regulators and be folded into broader financial-services legislation. The lack of direct spending or social-policy controversy increases its chances relative to sweeping bills. However, because it alters how deposits are classified—affecting FDIC exposure and supervisory treatment—it could trigger focused opposition from some regulators or consumer/stability-focused stakeholders. The absence of compromise mechanisms (sunset, pilot) and the potential for contested committee debate lower the probability that it moves swiftly through both chambers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize financial-stability and FDIC-exposure risks from loosening brokered-deposit treatment; conservatives emphasize dereg…
On content alone, this is a narrow, technical statutory tweak that could win support from industry and some regulators and be folded into b…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill provides highly specific statutory language to change how reciprocal deposits are treated and clarifies a CAMELS-rating reference, but it minimally frames the problem…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.