Friday, April 1, 2016
NCUA Opposed to Government Watchdog Recommendation on Reforming Regulatory Structure
The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) disagreed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that Congress should consider consolidating regulatory agencies to eliminate regulatory fragmentation and overlap.
The GAO study found that the U.S. financial regulatory structure is complex, with responsibilities fragmented among a number of regulators that have overlapping authorities. GAO wrote that this fragmented regulatory structure introduces inefficiencies in the regulatory process; inconsistencies in how regulators conduct oversight activities over similar types of institutions, products, and risks; the potential for duplication in regulators’ oversight activities; and differences in the levels of protection provided to consumers.
The GAO recommended that Congress should consider whether additional changes to the financial regulatory structure are needed to reduce or better manage fragmentation and overlap in the oversight of financial institutions and activities. GAO believes that reducing regulatory fragmentation and overlap would improve (1) the efficiency and effectiveness of oversight; (2) the consistency of consumer protections; and (3) the consistency of financial oversight for similar institutions, products, risks, and services.
However, NCUA disagreed with GAO's suggestion that Congress consider whether additional changes are needed to the regulatory structure. NCUA stated that consideration of changes to the regulatory structure would need to include a careful review of the costs and benefits.
Read the GAO Report.
The GAO study found that the U.S. financial regulatory structure is complex, with responsibilities fragmented among a number of regulators that have overlapping authorities. GAO wrote that this fragmented regulatory structure introduces inefficiencies in the regulatory process; inconsistencies in how regulators conduct oversight activities over similar types of institutions, products, and risks; the potential for duplication in regulators’ oversight activities; and differences in the levels of protection provided to consumers.
The GAO recommended that Congress should consider whether additional changes to the financial regulatory structure are needed to reduce or better manage fragmentation and overlap in the oversight of financial institutions and activities. GAO believes that reducing regulatory fragmentation and overlap would improve (1) the efficiency and effectiveness of oversight; (2) the consistency of consumer protections; and (3) the consistency of financial oversight for similar institutions, products, risks, and services.
However, NCUA disagreed with GAO's suggestion that Congress consider whether additional changes are needed to the regulatory structure. NCUA stated that consideration of changes to the regulatory structure would need to include a careful review of the costs and benefits.
Read the GAO Report.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, like the careful and transparent review of the NCUA's budget and the overhead transfer rate.
ReplyDeleteGood idea.
Let's start with THAT.
Good idea!
ReplyDeleteThere is, of course, no way that eliminating NCUA and moving credit unions to bank regulators would cost more.
It would cost less!
But NCUA saying there should be a cost/benefit analysis is hilarious.this is the agency that redacted a "transparent" look at their budget process when sent to a Congressman.
I can't stop laughing.
The costs to run the NCUA are EXCESSIVE. The benefits are ZILCH. The NCUA should be shut down. The NCUA is incompetent at best, and WORTHLESS at worse. Move 'em into the FDIC. Merge the Insurance Funds (NCUSIF & FDIC) & reduce the coverage to $50,000 max per account. Make the consumer responsible for placing deposits in excess of $50,000. And please publish the Bank & Credit Union CAMEL ratings. How about sum damn transparency for REAL?
ReplyDeleteMerging the NCUSIF and the BIF would be a windfall for credit unions and cost banks. The NCUSIF would refund the 1% deposit to FICUs. Then CUs would have to pay insurance premiums that would be less than what they get from the NCUSIF closure. Banks would see the BIF ratio fall and have to make an insurance payment.
Delete