Meh, Men are rewarded in my unit and women are not. I've seen it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is FDIC still going to push RTO? Morale must be at an all time low…won’t this make it even worse?

Any news on when Gruenberg will resign?

The end may be near. Rs in House Financial Services Committee are launching an investigation into FDIC and Gruenberg.

https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=409051

This all seems like a coordinated attack to delay the capital rules. With that said, the attack would not have worked if gruenberg didn’t have a bunch of allegations against him and his cronies to make for interesting news stories. Even now, gruenberg is very unpopular because of his demand that people come back to the office more. Seems like he has made enemies everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:Is FDIC still going to push RTO? Morale must be at an all time low…won’t this make it even worse?

Any news on when Gruenberg will resign?

The end may be near. Rs in House Financial Services Committee are launching an investigation into FDIC and Gruenberg.

https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=409051

Is FDIC still going to push RTO? Morale must be at an all time low…won’t this make it even worse?

Any news on when Gruenberg will resign?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not just about bank failures:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fdic-thrown-into-turmoil-amid-push-for-biggest-us-banking-rules-overhaul-since-2008-160034933.html

True, the proposed capital rule is surely a factor, but Gruenberg and others justify the high charges as what is needed to prevent another SVB, Signature or First Republic type failure. In other words, a view that is was not a failure of supervision but one of regulation.

The D member on the FDIC board from the OCC likely was not all that on board with the excesses of the proposed rule that Gruenberg pushed and would probably work with the Rs if Gruenberg were not there.

Are you kidding? The OCC participated in that jointrulemaking and issued the same proposed rule.

And with the Federal Reserve. Capital rules are almost always issued jointly. FDIC would have held the rule up indefinitely if the other two agencies didn't cave to Gruenberg's excessive demands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not just about bank failures:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fdic-thrown-into-turmoil-amid-push-for-biggest-us-banking-rules-overhaul-since-2008-160034933.html

True, the proposed capital rule is surely a factor, but Gruenberg and others justify the high charges as what is needed to prevent another SVB, Signature or First Republic type failure. In other words, a view that is was not a failure of supervision but one of regulation.

The D member on the FDIC board from the OCC likely was not all that on board with the excesses of the proposed rule that Gruenberg pushed and would probably work with the Rs if Gruenberg were not there.

Are you kidding? The OCC participated in that jointrulemaking and issued the same proposed rule.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably not just about bank failures:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fdic-thrown-into-turmoil-amid-push-for-biggest-us-banking-rules-overhaul-since-2008-160034933.html

True, the proposed capital rule is surely a factor, but Gruenberg and others justify the high charges as what is needed to prevent another SVB, Signature or First Republic type failure. In other words, a view that is was not a failure of supervision but one of regulation.

The D member on the FDIC board from the OCC likely was not all that on board with the excesses of the proposed rule that Gruenberg pushed and would probably work with the Rs if Gruenberg were not there.

Are you talking about this guy?

"I support the notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the capital requirements applicable to large banking organizations and banking organizations with significant trading activity .... Recent events demonstrated the effects that stress at a few large, regional banking organizations could have on the stability, public confidence, and trust in the banking system. While the recent events may be attributed to a variety of factors, the effect on financial stability supports further alignment of the regulatory capital framework across all large banking organizations with $100 billion or more of assets."
https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2023/nr-occ-2023-79a.pdf
https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2023/nr-occ-2023-95.html

Anonymous wrote:Out of curiosity who is the highest ranked woman in leadership at the FDIC?

There’s a lot of women in senior mgmt, including directors of Deposit Insurance and Risk Mgmt Supervision (oversees the examiners)

https://www.fdic.gov/contact/headquarters-directory/

Anonymous wrote:Out of curiosity who is the highest ranked woman in leadership at the FDIC?

There are a lot of women among the senior staff. Plus the chair before Gruenberg for both of his times as chairman was a woman (McWilliams and Bair).

Anonymous wrote:Having a hung 2-2 board in the middle of a major bank failure would be catastrophic.

A "hung" board at the FDIC? So inappropriate....

Out of curiosity who is the highest ranked woman in leadership at the FDIC?

Anonymous wrote:Probably not just about bank failures:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fdic-thrown-into-turmoil-amid-push-for-biggest-us-banking-rules-overhaul-since-2008-160034933.html

True, the proposed capital rule is surely a factor, but Gruenberg and others justify the high charges as what is needed to prevent another SVB, Signature or First Republic type failure. In other words, a view that is was not a failure of supervision but one of regulation.

The D member on the FDIC board from the OCC likely was not all that on board with the excesses of the proposed rule that Gruenberg pushed and would probably work with the Rs if Gruenberg were not there.

Probably not just about bank failures:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fdic-thrown-into-turmoil-amid-push-for-biggest-us-banking-rules-overhaul-since-2008-160034933.html

Having a hung 2-2 board in the middle of a major bank failure would be catastrophic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If gruenberg resigned, his replacement would have to be confirmed by the senate, right? If so, I think he stays so that the fdic board doesn’t get gridlocked 2-2 for the remainder of bidens first term.

Assume Hill would become acting chair. Gridlock need not occur if all are willing to compromise on workable solutions.

But there would still be a vacancy that requires senate confirmation? What constitutes a workable solution is always in the eye of the beholder.

There would be a vacancy, but good luck filling it in an election year.

As to workable, maybe, maybe not. There is a split view on the bank failures this year; one side blames poor supervision by the supervisory authorities and says the failures are not attributable to inadequacies in the rules, the other is convinced they show a need for much tougher rules.