[Senate Hearing 115-366] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 115-366 FEDERAL RESERVE'S SECOND MONETARY POLICY REPORT FOR 2018 ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON OVERSIGHT ON THE MONETARY POLICY REPORT TO CONGRESS PURSU- ANT TO THE FULL EMPLOYMENT AND BALANCED GROWTH ACT OF 1978 __________ JULY 17, 2018 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available at: http: //www.fdsys.gov / _______________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 32-517 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS MIKE CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama SHERROD BROWN, Ohio BOB CORKER, Tennessee JACK REED, Rhode Island PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey DEAN HELLER, Nevada JON TESTER, Montana TIM SCOTT, South Carolina MARK R. WARNER, Virginia BEN SASSE, Nebraska ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts TOM COTTON, Arkansas HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota JOE DONNELLY, Indiana DAVID PERDUE, Georgia BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii THOM TILLIS, North Carolina CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada JERRY MORAN, Kansas DOUG JONES, Alabama Gregg Richard, Staff Director Mark Powden, Democratic Staff Director Joe Carapiet, Chief Counsel Kristine Johnson, Professional Staff Member Elisha Tuku, Democratic Chief Counsel Laura Swanson, Democratic Deputy Staff Director Phil Rudd, Democratic Legislative Assistan Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk Cameron Ricker, Deputy Clerk James Guiliano, Hearing Clerk Shelvin Simmons, IT Director Jim Crowell, Editor (ii) C O N T E N T S ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018 Page Opening statement of Chairman Crapo.............................. 1 Prepared statement........................................... 37 Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: Senator Brown................................................ 2 Prepared statement........................................... 37 WITNESS Jerome H. Powell, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 4 Prepared statement........................................... 39 Responses to written questions of: Senator Brown............................................ 41 Senator Corker........................................... 58 Senator Cotton........................................... 59 Senator Rounds........................................... 62 Senator Scott............................................ 64 Senator Tillis........................................... 66 Senator Reed............................................. 69 Senator Menendez......................................... 70 Senator Warner........................................... 122 Senator Cortez Masto..................................... 125 Senator Jones............................................ 141 Additional Material Supplied for the Record Monetary Policy Report to the Congress dated July 13, 2018....... 146 Article submitted by Senator Brown............................... 212 FEDERAL RESERVE'S SECOND MONETARY POLICY REPORT FOR 2018 ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018 U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Crapo, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE CRAPO Chairman Crapo. This hearing will now come to order. Today we welcome Chairman Powell back to the Committee for the Federal Reserve's Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress. This hearing provides the Committee an opportunity to explore the current state of the U.S. economy and the Fed's implementation of monetary policy and supervision and regulatory activities. Since our last Humphrey-Hawkins hearing in March, Congress passed, with significant bipartisan support, and the President signed into law S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The primary purpose of this bill is to make targeted changes to simplify and improve the regulatory regime for community banks, credit unions, midsize banks, and regional banks to promote economic growth. A key provision of the bill provides immediate relief from enhanced prudential standards to banks with $100 billion in total assets or less. The bill also authorizes the Fed to provide immediate relief from unnecessary enhanced prudential standards to banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets. It is my hope that the Fed promptly provides relief to those within these thresholds. By rightsizing regulation, the bill will improve access to capital for consumers and small businesses that help drive our economy. And the banking regulators are already considering this bill in some of their statements and rulemakings. Earlier this month, the Fed, FDIC, and OCC issued a joint statement outlining rules and reporting requirements immediately impacted by the bill, including a separate letter issued by the Fed that was particularly focused on those impacting smaller, less complex banks. But there is still much work to do on the bill's implementation. As the Fed and other agencies revisit past rules and develop new rules in conjunction with the bill, it is my expectation that such rules will be developed consistent with the purpose of the bill and the intent of the Members of Congress who voted for the bill. With respect to monetary policy, the Fed continues to monitor and respond to market developments and economic conditions. In recent comments at a European Central Bank Forum on Central Banking, Chairman Powell described the state of the U.S. economy, saying, ``Today most Americans who want jobs can find them. High demand for workers should support wage growth and labor force participation . . . Looking ahead, the job market is likely to strengthen further. Real gross domestic product in the United States is now reported to have risen 2.75 percent over the past four quarters, well above most estimates of its long-run trend . . . Many forecasters expect the unemployment rate to fall into the mid-3s and to remain there for an extended period.'' According to the FOMC's June meeting minutes, the FOMC meeting participants agreed that the labor market has continued to strengthen and economic activity has been rising at a solid rate. Additionally, job gains have been strong and inflation has moved closer to the 2-percent target. The Fed also noted that the recently passed tax reform legislation has contributed to these favorable economic factors. I am encouraged by these recent economic developments and look forward to seeing our bill's meaningful contribution to the prosperity of consumers and households. As economic conditions improve, the Fed faces critical decisions with respect to the level and trajectory of short- term interest rates and the size of its balance sheet. I look forward to hearing more from Chairman Powell about the Fed's monetary policy outlook and the ongoing effort to review, improve, and tailor regulations consistent with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. Senator Brown. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Chair. It is nice to see you again. This week the President of the United States went overseas and sided with President of Russia while denigrating critical American institutions, including the press, the intelligence community, and the rule of law. Our colleague Senator McCain expressed clearly what every patriotic American thought: ``No prior President has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our President failed to defend all that makes us who we are--a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American Presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed.'' The words of the 2008 Republican Presidential nominee. With our democratic institutions under threat, we cannot ignore what happened in Helsinki yesterday. But we must not lose sight of the other special interest policies of this Administration, including the rollback of the rules put in place to prevent the next economic crisis. Just last week, a Federal Reserve official said, ``There are definitely downside risks, but the strength of the economy is really pretty important at the moment. The fundamentals for the U.S. economy are very strong.'' That may be true for Wall Street, but for most of America workers have not seen a real raise in years, young Americans are drowning in student loan debt, families are trying to buy their first home. For most of America, the strength of the economy is an open question. Last month former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke was very clear about the long-term impact of the tax cut and the recent bump in Federal spending when he said, ``in 2020 Wile E. Coyote is going to go off the cliff.'' Last week the San Francisco Fed released a study finding that the rosy forecasts of the tax bill are likely ``overly optimistic.'' It found that the bill's boost to growth is likely to be well below projections--or even as small as zero. It suggested that these policies could make it difficult to respond to future economic downturns and manage growing Federal debt. And it is not just the tax bill. The economic recovery has not been evenly felt across the country. Not even close. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record an article from the New York Times this weekend which talks about those families still struggling from the lack of meaningful raises and other job opportunities. Chairman Crapo. Without objection. Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While hours have increased a bit over the past year for workers as a whole, real hourly earnings have not. For production and nonsupervisory workers, hours are flat; pay has actually dropped slightly, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of jobs created in 2017 was smaller than in each of the previous 4 years. Not what we hear in the mainstream media, perhaps. Some of the very companies that announced billions in buybacks and dividends are now announcing layoffs, shutting down factories, and offshoring more jobs. Some of the biggest buybacks, as we know in this Committee, are in the banking industry, assisted in part by the Federal Reserve's increasingly lax approach to financial oversight. Earlier this month, as part of the annual stress tests, the Fed allowed the seven largest banks to redirect $96 billion to dividends and buybacks. This money might have been used, as the President and members of the majority party liked to promise during the tax bill, this money might have been used to pay workers, to reduce fees for consumers, to protect taxpayers from bailouts, or be deployed to help American businesses. Three banks--Goldman, Morgan Stanley, and State Street--all had capital below the amount required to pass the stress tests, but the Fed gave them passing grades anyway. The Fed wants to make the tests easier next year. Vice Chair Quarles has suggested he wants to give bankers more leeway to comment on the tests before they are administered. I guess it is OK in Washington to let students help write the exam. The Fed is considering dropping the qualitative portion of the stress tests altogether--even though banks like Deutsche Bank and Santander and Citigroup and HSBC and RBS have failed on qualitative grounds before. That does not even include the changes the Fed is working on after Congress passed S. 2155 to weaken Dodd-Frank, making company-run stress tests for the largest banks ``periodic'' instead of annual and exempting more banks from stress tests altogether. And, oh, yeah, Vice Chair Quarles has also made it clear that massive foreign banks can expect goodies, too. And on and on and on it goes. The regulators loosen rules around big bank capital, dismantle the CFPB, ignore the role of the FSOC, undermine the Volcker Rule, and weaken the Community Reinvestment Act. When banks make record profits, we should be preparing the financial system for the next crisis. We should buildup capital, we should invest in workers, we should combat asset bubbles. And we should be turning our attention to bigger issues that do not get enough attention, like how the value that we place on work has declined in this country, how our economy increasingly measures success only in quarterly earning reports. Much of that is up to Congress to address. Over the last 6 months, tragically, I have seen the Fed moving in the direction of making it easier for financial institutions to cut corners, and I have only become more worried about our preparedness for the next crisis. I look forward to the testimony, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Thank you, Senator Brown. And, again, Chairman Powell, welcome. We appreciate you testifying today, and we look forward to your opening statement. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF JEROME H. POWELL, CHAIR, BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Mr. Powell. Thank you and good morning. Good morning Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, and other Members of the Committee. I am happy to present the Federal Reserve's semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress today. Let me start by saying that my colleagues and I strongly support the goals that Congress has set for monetary policy: maximum employment and price stability. We also support clear and open communication about the policies we undertake to achieve these goals. We owe you, and the public in general, clear explanations of what we are doing and why we are doing it. Monetary policy affects everyone and should be a mystery to no one. For the past 3 years, we have been gradually returning interest rates and the Fed's securities holdings to more normal levels as the economy has strengthened. We believe that this is the best way we can help set conditions in which Americans who want a job can find one and in which inflation remains low and stable. I will review the current economic situation and outlook, and then I will turn to monetary policy. Since I last testified here in February, the job market has continued to strengthen and inflation has moved up. In the most recent data, inflation was a little above 2 percent, the level that the Federal Open Market Committee thinks will best achieve our price stability and employment objectives over the longer term. The latest figure was boosted by a significant increase in gasoline and other energy prices. An average of 215,000 net new jobs per month were created each month in the first half of this year. That number is somewhat higher than the monthly average of 2017. It is also a good deal higher than the average number of people who enter the workforce each month on net. The unemployment rate edged down 0.1 percent over the first half of the year to 4.0 percent in June, near the lowest level of the past two decades. In addition, the share of the population that either has a job or has looked for one in the past month--what we call the ``labor force participation rate''--has not changed much since late 2013, and this development is another sign of labor market strength. Part of what has kept the participation rate stable is that more working-age people have started looking for a job, which has helped make up for the large number of baby boomers who are retiring and leaving the labor force. Another piece of good news is that the robust conditions in the labor market are being felt by many different groups. For example, the unemployment rates for African Americans and Hispanics have fallen sharply over the past few years and are now near their lowest levels since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began reporting these data in 1972. Groups with higher unemployment rates have tended to benefit the most as the job market has strengthened. But jobless rates for these groups are still higher than those for whites. And while three- fourths of whites responded in a recent Fed survey that they were doing at least OK financially, only two-thirds of African Americans and Hispanics responded that way. Incoming data show that, alongside the strong job market, the U.S. economy has grown at a solid pace so far this year. The value of goods and services produced in the economy--or GDP--rose at a moderate annual rate of 2 percent in the first quarter after adjusting for inflation. However, the latest data suggest that economic growth in the second quarter has been considerably stronger than in the first. The solid pace of growth so far this year is based on several factors. Robust job gains, rising after-tax income, and optimism among households have lifted consumer spending in recent months. Investment by businesses has continued to grow at a healthy rate. Good economic performance in other countries has supported U.S. exports and manufacturing. And while housing construction has not increased this year, it is up noticeably from where it stood a few years ago. Turning to inflation, after several years in which inflation ran below our 2-percent objective, the recent data are more encouraging. The price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE inflation--an overall measure of prices paid by consumers--increased 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending in May. That number is up from 1.5 percent a year ago. Overall or headline inflation increased partly because of higher oil prices, which caused a sharp rise in gasoline and other energy prices paid by consumers. Because energy prices move up and down a great deal, we also look at core inflation. Core inflation excludes energy and food prices and generally is a better indicator of future overall inflation. Core inflation was 2.0 percent for the 12 months ending in May, compared to 1.5 percent a year ago. We will continue to keep a close eye on inflation with the goal of keeping it near 2 percent. Looking ahead, my colleagues on the FOMC and I expect that, with appropriate monetary policy, the job market will remain strong and inflation will stay near 2 percent over the next several years. This judgment reflects several factors. First, interest rates, and financial conditions more broadly, remain favorable to growth. Second, our financial system is much stronger than before the crisis and is in a good position to meet the credit needs of households and businesses. Third, Federal tax and spending policies likely will continue to support the expansion. And, fourth, the outlook for economic growth abroad remains solid despite greater uncertainties in several parts of the world. What I have just described is what we see as the most likely path for the economy. Of course, economic outcomes that we experience often turn out to be a good deal stronger or weaker than our best forecast. For example, it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of current discussions over trade policy as well as the size and timing of the economic effects of the recent changes in fiscal policy. Overall, we see the risk of the economy unexpectedly weakening as roughly balanced with the possibility of the economy growing faster than we currently anticipate. Over the first half of 2018, the FOMC has continued to gradually reduce monetary policy accommodation. In other words, we have continued to dial back the extra boost that was needed to help the economy recover from the financial crisis and the Great Recession. Specifically, we raised the target range for the Federal funds rate by a quarter percentage point at both our March and June meetings, bringing the target to its current range of 1\3/4\ to 2 percent. In addition, last October we started gradually reducing the Fed's holdings of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities, and that process has been running smoothly. Our policies reflect the strong performance of the economy and are intended to help make sure that this trend continues. The payment of interest on balances held by banks in their accounts at the Federal Reserve has played a key role in carrying out these policies, as the current Monetary Policy Report explains. Payment of interest on these balances is our principal tool for keeping the Federal funds rate in the FOMC's target range. This tool has made it possible for us to gradually return interest rates to a more normal level without disrupting financial markets and the economy. As I mentioned, after many years of running below our longer-run objective of 2 percent, inflation has recently moved close to that level. Our challenge will be to keep it there. Many factors affect inflation--some temporary and others longer lasting. So inflation will at times be above 2 percent and at times below. We say that the 2-percent objective is ``symmetric'' because the FOMC would be concerned if inflation were running persistently above or below our 2-percent objective. The unemployment rate is low and expected to fall further. Americans who want jobs have a good chance of finding them. Moreover, wages are growing a little faster than they did a few years ago. That said, they still are not rising as fast as in the years before the crisis. One explanation could be that productivity growth has been low in recent years. On a brighter note, moderate wage growth also tells us that the job market is not causing high inflation. With a strong job market, inflation close to our objective, and the risks to the outlook roughly balanced, the FOMC believes that--for now--the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the Federal funds rate. We are aware that, on the one hand, raising interest rates too slowly may lead to high inflation or financial market excesses. On the other hand, if we raise rates too rapidly, the economy could weaken and inflation could run persistently below our objective. The Committee will continue to weigh a wide range of relevant information when deciding what monetary policy will be appropriate. As always, our actions will depend on the economic outlook, which may and will change as we receive new data. For guideposts on appropriate policy, the FOMC routinely looks at a range of monetary policy rules that recommend a level for the Federal funds rate based on the current rates of inflation and unemployment. The July Monetary Policy Report gives an update on monetary policy rules and their role in our policy discussions. I continue to find these rules helpful, although using them requires careful judgment. Thank you, and I will now be happy to take your questions. Chairman Crapo. Thank you for your statement, Chairman Powell. The first question I have will relate to CCAR. As you know, the Fed recently released the results of the 2018 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review, the CCAR, stress test. This year the Fed issued conditional nonobjections to certain banks, which, as you are aware, some have criticized. What details can you share about the Fed's decision to issue the conditional nonobjections while allowing those firms to maintain capital distributions at recent levels? Mr. Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the CCAR supervisory test is and will remain an important part of our supervisory framework, particularly for the largest and most systemically important firms. And I guess I would start by saying that this year's test was by a good margin the most stringent test yet. Hypothetical losses for 2018 were $85 billion higher than during the 2017 stress test, and the hypothetical decline in the capital ratio was 110 basis points higher this year than last year; so a very significantly severe test, and it will result in a material increase in the effect of aggregate capital requirement of the firms subject to the test. So, you know, we carefully evaluated the results. We voted on them on June 20th, and the next day the firms received a call from our staff, which informed them of the results and their options. This is the standard operating procedure that we follow every year. There is no negotiation, there is no haggling. The decision has been made the day before by the Board, and they are just informed of their options, and they deal with them as they are. Almost all the firms finished above the required poststress minimums, which is a sign of how well capitalized the industry is. Two firms that did not were required to restrict their distributions to past years' levels. That has always been the penalty for failing to meet the poststress minimums, and that will require the firms to build capital this year, these two firms. The third firm was required to take certain steps regarding the management and analysis of its counterparty exposures under stress. So the same exact penalty was paid. We labeled these as conditional nonobjects rather than objecting straight out to the plan, and we have done that over a period of years many times, and we thought that it was appropriate here. When we fail a firm, when we actually fail them and send-- what we do is we send the plan back and say that your capital planning process is deficient, please take this plan back, please fix it and bring it back to us, and we will look at it again. So that sends a signal that we believe that the capital planning processes of the firms are deficient in some serious way. As I mentioned, in a number of cases we have gone with sort of an intermediate sanction, and we felt that that was appropriate here. One reason for that is the timing of the tax bill, as we mentioned, and firms plan, of course, well in advance so that they will have enough capital to pass the test. This particular bill passed, was signed into law on December 22nd. We used fourth quarter capital levels for the test, so the TCJA resulted in a significant decrease in the level of capital these firms have. But, of course, they do not benefit from what in the longer term will be a lower tax effect on their earnings. So I think whereas any analyst would look at that law and say that it is positive for banks and for their ability to earn money, it was strictly a negative in this test. So we looked at that, and among other factors we decided to use the conditional nonobject. I will stop there, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. All right. I appreciate that explanation, and essentially what I am hearing you say is that the same--in fact, even a stricter test was applied, and the same standards of review were used in your analysis and in the consequences that were applied. Mr. Powell. That is right, and I just would reiterate our commitment to this particular supervisory stress test. It is a very important thing for us, and we will make sure to keep it stringent. Chairman Crapo. All right. Thank you. Chairman Powell, moving to regulation, the recently enacted Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act received significant bipartisan support, as you know. In addition to several provisions providing regulatory relief to community and midsize banks, a key provision of the bill raises the threshold for the application of the enhanced prudential standards from $50 billion to $250 billion. What is the Fed's process for quickly implementing S. 2155, including its process for ensuring that the financial companies with total assets between $100 billion and $250 billion promptly receive similar relief to the relief provided for the financial institutions with less than $100 billion in total assets? Mr. Powell. So our intention and our practice is going to be to implement the bill as quickly as we possibly can. As you probably know, I am sure you know, we released a statement the Friday of July 4th week laying out our plans to move ahead with some things. And, again, we will do them as quickly as possible, and we indicated that we will try to move that along very quickly. Chairman Crapo. All right. Thank you. Senator Brown. Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions. I hope your answers can be brief. Thank you for our phone call the other day. I know you know this: In real terms wages have not budged recently. Last week BLS reported that hours for production and nonsupervisory workers are flat and pay has actually dropped over the past year. Of course, we should focus on real wages rather than nominal wages. By that measure, is the typical worker really better off this year than he or she was a year ago? Mr. Powell. Yes. Yes, I would say that the labor market has strengthened. The labor report will show that wages went up 2.7 percent. That is significantly higher than trend inflation. There is a bit of a bump from gas prices going up and consumers do pay that, but I would say that overall workers are better off because---- Senator Brown. I would partially contradict that and say that nonsupervisory workers, four out of five workers have seen nominal wages go up but real wages have not by those same BLS statistics. Let me move to another. You have called stress testing ``the most successful regulatory innovation of the postcrisis era''--you said that some time ago--but the actions the Fed has taken during your tenure undercut that effect when the Fed gave Goldman, Morgan, and State Street passing grades this year even though they failed to meet capital requirements in CCAR, the first time that has ever happened in CCAR history. The Fed proposes to weaken the leverage constraint, and CCAR reportedly may drop the qualitative portion of the test, wants to give bankers more leeway to influence the Fed's models, and may soon adjust Dodd-Frank stress tests to make them less stressful and less frequent, hence the ``periodic.'' Stress test tests were adopted in 2009 to provide confidence to the public that the banks could weather economic shocks. How is the public supposed to trust the stress test when the Fed proposes all of those ways to weaken them? Mr. Powell. So we are strongly committed to using stress tests. We really developed the supervisory stress test at the Fed, and as you know, we think it is a very important tool. It was one of the main ways that we used to raise capital, particularly among the largest firms, and we are committed to continuing stress testing as one of the three or four most important innovations, along with higher capital, higher liquidity, and resolution. It is one of the big four pillars for us. The program has to continue to evolve. We want to strengthen it. We want to make it more transparent. We want to improve it over time. And all of our actions are designed to do that, and I think if you look at the state of the banking system and the fact that this test will require higher capital, then I think you will see that is consistent with--that our words are consistent with our actions. Senator Brown. Well, I think the message coming out emanating from the business press--and those are not, you know, Democratic, liberal newspapers; they are the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New York Times business section--speaks to the fact that these stress tests are getting weaker. Let me ask another question. Vice Chair Quarles has given two speeches outlining how the Fed wants to recalibrate the rules for large foreign banks. You gave an answer, a carefully worded answer, I thought, to obscure the fact that large foreign banks may receive less oversight as a result of S. 2155. The public is getting mixed messages from the Fed. For the record, can foreign banks with more than $50 billion in U.S. assets--Deutsche, Santander, Credit Suisse, the others--can foreign banks with more than $50 billion in U.S. assets expect to get regulatory relief during your tenure? Mr. Powell. You know, I think I can say that S. 2155, it is not clear to me how it provides regulatory relief to those firms. I mean, all of the banks that have $50 billion in U.S. assets have more than $250 billion in global assets. So I do not think there really will be much effect. I will not say that we will never do anything to provide regulatory relief to a group during my tenure, but---- Senator Brown. So your position seems to be that if they are between--if they are over 50 in the U.S., under 250 as those are, but much, much, much bigger with all the---- Mr. Powell. Globally. Senator Brown. Globally, that you do not expect any regulatory relief for them? Mr. Powell. Well, the main thing is the $50 billion threshold for internal holding companies will remain the same. We are not looking at that. And I think they will not see much difference. Senator Brown. Physical commodities. The Fed proposed a physical commodities rule for 2016. You are moving presumably to finalize it. The Fed responded to questions for the record saying that the Board continues to consider this proposal. When can we expect action on it, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Powell. I do not have a date for you on that. I know that we received extensive comments on it, and we are considering them. Senator Brown. Do you feel some urgency on it? Mr. Powell. I will have to go back and look and see where that is in the line. Senator Brown. If you would please respond in writing to that. And a last question, Mr. Chairman. The Administration and some in Congress pushed through tax cuts and bank deregulation under the guise that it would trickle down to American families in the form of more loans. Loan growth has slowed in the last quarter. It was less than half the growth rate than during the last year of the Obama administration. The four largest banks, as you know, redirected record levels of profits into dividends and stock buybacks. The four big banks' CEOs got an average raise of 26 percent. My question is simple: When, if ever, do you expect to be able to come before this Committee and demonstrate to us in this Committee, as Chair of the Fed, demonstrate to us how tax cuts and deregulation have actually benefited the real economy in the forms of more lending? Mr. Powell. I guess I see my role as reporting about the overall economy rather than the effect of any particular law, although I will be happy to take questions on that. Senator Brown. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Senator Scott. Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Chairman Powell. Thank you for being with us today. Mr. Powell. Good morning, Senator. Senator Scott. It certainly is difficult to find negative news as it relates to our economic reality. The truth of the matter is that we are in the third largest economic expansion since 1854--not 1954--1854. An 18-year low in our unemployment rates. African American unemployment for the first time in recorded history below 6 percent at 5.9 percent. Hispanic unemployment at 4.6 percent, lowest recorded as well. Wage growth 2.7 percent, the highest level since 2009. And the Atlanta Federal Reserve suggests that we could have a 5-percent GDP growth in the second quarter. And the good news just keeps on coming. Small businesses said they have not been this optimistic in 45 years. That has got to be a record. Beyond a doubt, tax reform combined with responsible regulations have resulted in more Americans have more money in their pockets. And another great example of the economic reality that we face today is that the core prime-age labor force participation rate has stabilized since 2013 and is starting to climb in the right direction. My question for you, Chair Powell, is: What has been the overall impact of the economic growth for the long-term unemployed? And can we read into the prime-age labor force participation rate's increase really positive news for those long-term unemployed? Mr. Powell. Yes, so prime-age labor force participation, Senator, as you pointed out, has been climbing here in the last couple of years. That is a very healthy sign because prime-age labor force participation is really--you know, it has been weak, and it has been weak in the United States compared to other countries. So it is very troubling, and the fact that that is coming back up is a very positive thing. We really hope it is sustained, and we hope that these gains in participation can be sustained. We have a long box in our Monetary Policy Report that talks about that. The other thing, you mentioned the long-term unemployed. Senator Scott. Yes. Mr. Powell. So the number of long-term unemployed has come down dramatically since, I do not know, maybe 2010. I want to say the numbers were between 6 and 7 million, and unless I get this wrong, I think the current number of longer-term unemployed is around 1.5 million. So the people who are on the very edges of the labor force like those people, those are the ones who have benefited the most. Senator Scott. Thank you. With all that economic heat coming our way in a positive way, the prices seem to be going up, so the CPI rose 2.9 percent, the fastest pace since 2012. Those rising prices could negate some of the wage growth that I just talked about if left unchecked. In the past we have discussed, you and I, the Fed role according to the congressional mandate seeking stable prices being one of those specific mandates. We have also talked about the downsides of low interest rates for extended periods of time. What do you see in the prices for energy, housing, health care, and transportation? And how is that going to impact your thinking moving forward? Mr. Powell. Inflation has been below our 2-percent objective since I joined the Board of Governors in May of 2012 just until last month. For the first time, we have 12 months of core inflation being at 2 percent. So that is a very positive thing. We want to see overall inflation continue to come up so that it is sort of symmetrically around 2 percent. I would say we are just shy of achieving that. But we want inflation to remain right around 2 percent and be as likely to be a little above as a little below. I would say we are on the--and I think our monetary policy is really designed to help us continue to achieve that. So we are gradually moving up rates, and that we think is the policy that will help us get inflation to 2 percent sustainably. Senator Scott. Thank you. Just two more areas for you. South Carolina, my home State's economy is built on trade. You name it, we make it. We grow it and we ship it. Cars, cotton, tires, jets, peaches, soybeans, turbines, solar panels, and the list goes on and on. What has generally happened in the past to economic growth when we have raised tariffs? Mr. Powell. I have to start by saying that, you know, I am really firmly committed to staying in our lane and, you know, our lane is the economy. Trade is really the business of Congress, and Congress has delegated some of that to the executive branch. But, nonetheless, it has significant effects on the economy, and I think when there are long-run effects, we should talk about it and talk in principle. And I would say in general countries that have remained open to trade, that have not erected barriers, including tariffs, have grown faster. They have had higher incomes, high productivity. And countries that have, you know, gone in a more protectionist direction have done worse. I think that is the empirical result. Senator Scott. I only have about 5 seconds left, so let me use my time wisely. As you know, I have a background in the insurance industry, and I am seriously a fan of a State-based system of insurance regulations. I think it is the best in the world. As the Fed participates in developing the ICS with the IAIS, I strongly urge you to shape a final product that protects the U.S. system of insurance regulation, and I would appreciate you and I having a conversation in the near future. Mr. Powell. Thank you, Senator. Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Senator Reed. Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Chairman Powell. The issue of wages has been discussed by several of my colleagues and yourself. In 2000, the last time we were at this situation where we were touching 4 percent unemployment, the share of national income by corporations was about 8.3 percent, and the share of wages was 66 percent. Today we are once again reaching that point of about 4 percent unemployment, yet corporate profits account for about 13.2 percent of national income. They have gone up significantly. Wages as a share of national income have gone down from 66 percent to 62 percent. If those trends continue, we are in a situation where working men and women are not going to get their fair share of growth. What are you trying to do at the Fed to ensure that they get their fair share of growth? Mr. Powell. The decline in labor share of profits--labor share of profits was generally, you know, oscillating fairly constant for a number of decades and right around the turn of the century began to drop precipitously and continued to do so for more than a decade. It is very troubling. We want an economy that works for everyone. And that happened, by the way, in essentially all advanced economies, and probably a range of factors are responsible for that. In the last 5 years or so, labor share of profits has been sideways. This is very much akin to the flattening out of median incomes over the last few decades. So it has got to do with a number of global factors. The thing that we can do is to take seriously your congressional order that we seek maximum employment, so in tight labor markets, workers are more likely going to be paid well and paid their share. I would say most of the factors that have driven down labor share of profits are really not under the control of the Fed. And so those are issues that we do not have control over. Senator Reed. But would you say that the tax bill did not affect those downward trends in wages positively, that, in fact, it has done nothing to reverse what you have seen as a decade or more of decreases? Mr. Powell. I think wages are set in the marketplace between workers and companies, and they are affected by a range of factors. I think it would be early to be looking for a bill that was signed into law less than a year ago to be able to visibly be affecting much of anything at this point, really. These things, big changes in fiscal policy, take quite a while to affect wages. Senator Reed. So none of this good news we are talking about today is a result of this tax bill, it is too early? Mr. Powell. It is very hard to isolate the--I mean, I would say wages have moved up meaningful over the last 5 years. It has been quite gradual. And, you know, we certainly think it would be fine for them to move up more. Senator Reed. Do you think the European Union is a foe of the United States? Mr. Powell. No, I do not. Senator Reed. Thank you. As we look ahead to some of the potential obstacles--and having, both of us, lived through 2008 and 2009, it looked good and then it looked real bad. In retrospect, we saw some signs of the danger. What are the signs of danger that you are sort of focusing on? There are huge deficits, both Government deficits, private deficits worldwide. You have got a trade battle brewing. And you have got things like Brexit that could complicate our life dramatically. So what are the two or three things that you think could throw us off this track? Mr. Powell. There is a difference between the longer term and the short term. So in the near term, things look good. You know, we look very carefully at a range of financial conditions and financial stability vulnerabilities, we feel that those are at sort of normal, moderate levels right now, although there are some areas that are elevated, some assets prices are high, and there is an elevated level of debt in the nonfinancial corporate sector. More broadly, banks are well capitalized. Households are in much better shape. So financial stability I do not worry about too much at this point, although we keep our eye on that very carefully after our recent experience. You mentioned trade. It is hard to say what the outcome will be. Really, there is no precedent for this kind of broad trade discussions. In my adult life, I have not seen where essentially all of our major trading partners--hard to know how that comes out. If it results in lower tariffs for everyone, that would be a good thing for the economy. If it results in, you know, higher tariffs across a broad range of traded goods and services that remain that way for a longer period of time, that will be bad for our economy and for other economies, too. Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Thank you. Senator Rounds. Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Powell, first of all, I want to thank you for being here today. Before I get into the questions, I would just like to take note of the two rules that were announced this spring: the new stress capital buffer and the proposed changes to tailor the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio. I do appreciate the Federal Reserve's efforts, and I hope we can continue an open dialogue on these changes as you move forward. I am just curious. You indicated with regard to Senator Reed's question, based on the tax bill, clearly there is an improvement in GDP growth over the last couple of years. Was it anticipation of the tax bill being passed? I would like to flesh that out just a little bit, because most certainly I think a lot of truly believe that that tax bill is a key component in the development of an improvement in our GDP. Your thoughts? Mr. Powell. I was really answering about whether you could see it in wages right now. That is hard to do. So growth averaged around 2 percent for 8 years, and then in 2017, I think the current estimate is 2.6 percent. And you saw significant improvements in household and business confidence levels. Overall confidence about the economy, you saw that coming on in 2017. Some of that was probably in anticipation of the passage of what finally passed. So probably that was already in the growth rate. I think it is hard to say, but I suspect that some anticipation of tax cuts and tax reform was already in the growth in 2017. Going forward--and we have said this--we expect--there are a range of estimates on this, but we would expect that the tax bill and the spending bill would provide meaningful support to demand for at least the next 2 or 3 years, maybe 3 years, and also might have, you know, effects on the supply side as well. To the extent you are encouraging more investment, you are going to get higher productivity. So it is very--these estimates are subject to tremendous uncertainty both as to amount and as to timing. But I think we look at the range of estimates, and that is certainly where we broadly come out. Senator Rounds. I just want to be clear. That tax bill had a positive impact, even if it is the anticipation of the tax bill. It has a positive impact on our GDP growth, correct? Mr. Powell. Yes, I think, so this year, maybe last year, too. Senator Rounds. OK. Let me ask you this: With regard to trade, you make notes specifically in your comments on trade and the fact that there are some things up in the air right now. There is perhaps some instability or some questions on the part of not only our businesses but businesses around the world. Are businesses looking for stability with regard to trade compacts? Or are they looking for opportunity and instability? Mr. Powell. Well, they would clearly be looking for stability. Senator Rounds. OK. And then I would look to associate myself--and I support what Senator Scott indicated earlier with regard to the insurance issues and the fact that our State- based regulatory system for insurance I think is critical. I think it is a positive thing for consumers when it is as close to that State regulatory process as possible. When you came here before the Committee earlier this year, you discussed capital requirements in the options market and mentioned that the Federal Reserve was working on a rule to transition from the risk-insensitive Current Exposure Method, or CEM, to the internationally agreed upon Standardized Approach for Counterparty Credit Risk, SA-CCR. I am supportive of these efforts, but I remain concerned about the timeline for implementation. I noted with concern in a letter to Vice Chair Quarles last year, in response to my request that the Federal Reserve used its reservation of authority to grant interim relief, Vice Chair Quarles asserted that the Fed lacks such authority in this context. I originally raised this issue when Vice Chair Quarles was testifying at his confirmation hearing last July. Unfortunately, it has been a year since that time, and the Fed has yet to take meaningful action. I remain concerned about this because the longer we wait for American regulators to implement SA-CCR, the more market makers will exit the options market entirely, making our financial system more vulnerable to economic shocks and less competitive compared to our international peers. I noted in the Basel Committee's last progress report from April of 2018 that 22 of the 27 Basel member countries have either implemented SA-CCR or made substantially more progress at implementation compared to the United States. I am a particularly strong supporter of risk-based capital standards, particularly in this context in options markets. Can you provide an update on when the rulemaking from CEM to SA-CCR will be released? Mr. Powell. I know that we are working on it now. I know that we think it is good policy. And I cannot give you an exact date, but I know we are actively directing a rule. By not being able to provide interim relief, all we meant was we actually have to amend the rule. So we will be putting a rule out for proposal and get comments, and then it will go final. It is in train, but these things take time. We are working on it. Senator Rounds. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Senator Menendez. Senator Menendez. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Powell, for being here. Lately we have heard a near constant refrain from the Administration, the President himself, corporate media outlets, and even from you that ``the economy is doing very well'' and ``it has never been better.'' Now, if we take a narrow view of the unemployment rate and corporate profits, then, sure, it is a real rosy picture. But take a wider lens to what working families are seeing, and the view is one of great contrast. Over the last year, despite falling unemployment, working families actually saw their real wages fall. By comparison, after-tax corporate profits increased by 8.7 percent just in the last quarter. There is something fundamentally wrong in our economy when workers are seeing their pay cut while corporations are benefiting from a $2 trillion tax giveaway. Working families not only cannot get ahead, but they are actually falling behind. I can tell you, families in New Jersey cannot keep up with the surge in costs, particularly for prescription drugs and health care. I just heard from a constituent in Glendora, New Jersey, who told me that even with his Medicare and secondary insurance, he cannot afford to pay for his insulin and diabetes equipment, and that is pretty unconscionable. So my question to you, Mr. Chairman, is: When will the benefits of this ``booming economy'' reach working families? Mr. Powell. Thank you, Senator. I think we are aware and I am aware that while the aggregate numbers are good and unemployment is low and surveys overall of households are very positive about the job market, not everybody is experiencing the recovery. Not every demographic group, not every place are experiencing this. So we call that out in every FOMC meeting and in all of our public communications, as I did in my testimony this morning. And, you know, we understand that we have to take maximum employment seriously, and we do. We have been supporting a strong labor market for a long time. Despite many calls for us to raise interest rates much more quickly, I am glad that we stayed in longer than that, and I think gradually raising rates is the way for us to extend this expansion. Nothing hurts working families and people at the margin of the labor markets more than a recession. Senator Menendez. Well, you are probably going to have a couple more interest rates. What specific steps then are you taking to foster broad-based wage growth so that the average worker, not just managers and executives, are reaping the benefits? I cannot accept that wages are growing when the Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that production and nonsupervisory workers saw their wages fall two-tenths of a percent, and that is despite increasing their average work week to make up for it. So they are getting squeezed. Mr. Powell. So the latest Government report was that wages went up 2.7 percent for production, nonsupervisory workers, and supervisory workers over the last 12 months. And that is higher. That is moving up. It also happens that inflation has moved up and that sort of a bump in energy prices is passing through the headline inflation number. So I think overall, though, you see inflation at about a 2-percent trend. You see wages at 2.7 percent. So I think those trends are healthy, and I think they are reflected in what are pretty positive surveys among workers generally. Senator Menendez. Let me ask you this: These working families we are talking about are the first to feel the impact when banks, big banks, and corporations take risky bets with no accountability. When we passed Dodd-Frank, we included language to ban incentive-based compensation practices that reward senior executives for irresponsible risk taking. Regulators issued a proposal in 2016, but more than 2 years later, nothing has been finalized. In the meantime, Wall Street bonuses jumped 17 percent last year to an average of more than $184,000--the most since 2006, and that is bonuses alone. Now, you have made time to weaken Wall Street oversight by revisiting capital rules, revisiting leverage rules, proposing changes to the Volcker Rule, all of which were finalized after years of deliberation, public comments, and input from other regulators, and all of which protect our economy from another financial crisis. How is it, Mr. Chairman, that you have not made time to finish the incentive-based compensation rulemaking for the first time? And can you give me a commitment today as to a timeline for when this will be done? Mr. Powell. We tried for many years--it is a multiagency rule, the incentive comp rule. We tried--we were not able to achieve consensus over a period of many years between the various regulatory agencies that need to sign off on that. But that did not stop us from acting, you should know. Particularly for the large institutions, we do expect that they will have in place compensation plans that do not provide incentives for excessive risk taking. And we expect that the Board of Directors will make sure that that is the case. And so it is not something that we have not done. We have, in fact, moved ahead through supervisory practice to make sure that these things are better than they were, and they are substantially better than they were. You see much better compensation practices here focusing mainly on the big firms where the problem really was. Senator Menendez. Well, that does not have the power of a rule. I hope we can get to a rule-based purpose, because at the end of the day we seem to have revisited everything that was already completed, but yet we cannot get this one going. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Senator Corker. Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here. I was remarking to our staff yesterday, as we talked a little bit about this meeting, that because of the way that you are handling yourself, which I think is in a very positive way, following the Fed is getting really boring these days. But hopefully that will continue. I know that is your goal. We appreciate some of the transparency efforts that you have put forth. I think I heard you earlier talk about inflation, and obviously we are, you know, at full employment. Hopefully there will be additional people participating in the workforce that have not in the past, and I am glad to see those numbers are rising. But if I understand correctly what you are saying, the predictive stat for people who are watching the Fed today will be core inflation. In other words, that will be the determinative factor as it relates to rate increases in the future. Mr. Powell. So we, of course, look at headline inflation, too, and that is our legal mandate. We look at core inflation when we are thinking about the path of future inflation, though, because it is just a better predictor. Many of the things that affect headline inflation do not actually send much of a signal about future inflation. Senator Corker. But for people who are trying to see where things are going, now that the labor issue is where it is today, the predictive matter as it relates to future increases and the amount of those is really going to be inflation. Mr. Powell. Inflation is going to be really important. You know, I think we are--for quite a while here, we have been in the range of achieving our maximum employment goal, and we are only just getting there with inflation. I would not declare victory on that yet, either. Senator Corker. Yeah, it has really been difficult, I think, for many Western countries to get to a place that they are comfortable in inflation, which brings me to the wage issue. Look, like my colleagues, I am very concerned about wage stagnation, and I am not in any way trying to offload that issue to you. We all have responsibilities to put in place policies that will hopefully cause all Americans' wages to increase. But what we are seeing here and what we are seeing actually, let us face it, in Western countries around the world is people are not--the anticipation that people had relative to where they were going to be in life is not being achieved, which is creating some extremes as it relates to the political environment--actually, in some ways beginning to destabilize, because people are, rightly so, concerned about the fact that they are not really increasing the ability to raise their families as they wish. Let us talk a little bit about that. What is it from your perspective that is causing us to be in this place where the economy is growing, but for the last 30 years, Americans really have not seen the wage gains that they would like to see? Could you just lay out--not in any way to take responsibility at the Fed solely yourself, but what is driving that? Mr. Powell. You know, the stagnation of middle-class incomes, the relatively low mobility that we have, the disappointing level of wages over a long period of time, it is all of a piece, and it all does go to that. And I think the causes of these things are really deep. It is not something we can address really successfully over time with monetary policy, as you say. So, I mean, I think it is---- Senator Corker. What are those deep causes? Mr. Powell. So I think, you know, part of it is, in our case, in the case of the United States, stagnation of educational achievement, the leveling out of educational attainment. When U.S. educational attainment was rising, technology was coming in; it was asking for more skills on the part of people. They had those skills, and so you had productivity rising, you had incomes rising, you had inequality declining over a long period of time. U.S. educational attainment flattened out in the 1970s, and everywhere else in the world it has been going up. We really had a lead. We were the first country to have gender-blind, you know, secondary education universally. So that is a big thing. Really the only way for incomes to go up over a long period of time is through higher productivity. Real incomes go up over a long period of time because of higher productivity. Higher productivity is a function of, in part, the educational and skills and aptitude of the workforce. It is also, you know, partly the evolution of technology and investment. I think right now in particular we had a number of years of very weak investment after the crisis because there was no need to invest. That weak investment period is casting a shadow over productivity right now, which is one of the main factors that is holding down wages. These are deep, hard problems, but education is really at the bottom of the pile. Senator Corker. And I am glad you alluded to that, and my time is up, I know. But we have had--we actually have had productivity growth without wage growth. Mr. Powell. Over long periods of time, the only way wages can go up sustainably is with productivity growth. They do not necessarily match all the time. I mean, since the crisis ended, productivity growth has been--output per hour has been very, very weak. Increases have been very, very weak. Senator Corker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Senator Tester. Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Crapo and Ranking Member Brown. And thank you for being here, Chairman Powell. I want to run over some stuff that has been run over already just real quick. You had answered in a previous question that the stress tests continue. Is that correct? Stress tests continue on the banks? Mr. Powell. Absolutely. Every year. Senator Tester. And you said you were going to try to improve them, make them more transparent, which, by the way, I applaud that. Would you also add to that list that you are trying to weaken the stress tests? Mr. Powell. No, absolutely not. Senator Tester. You are still making them do what they need to do to prove that their soundness is there? Mr. Powell. The 2018 stress test was by a margin the most stringent stress test we have done yet. Senator Tester. OK. Folks also continue to be concerned that S. 2155 allowed foreign megabanks like Deutsche Bank, UBS, Barclays to see their enhanced prudential standards weakened. You have agreed--and you have said it again today--that S. 2155 does not do that. Do you have any plans to weaken standards on the largest FBOs that I mentioned? Mr. Powell. No. No, sir. Senator Tester. OK. In your testimony you said, ``Good economic performance in other countries has supported U.S. exports and manufacturing.'' What other countries are you talking about? Would that include the EU? Would that include Canada and Mexico, the other countries, I am talking about, that have good economic performance? Would that include China? Those other countries---- Mr. Powell. It would include all those countries, yes. Senator Tester. All those countries? And I know you said that the tariff situation and the trade situation is something that Congress deals with that you do not deal with, but it would appear to me--and I just want to get your opinion on this because I value it. It would appear to me that all this stuff about getting out of NAFTA and putting tariffs on folks and not being at the table when TPP was finally signed is a net negative on our economy. Would you agree with that long term-- short term and long term? Mr. Powell. I am going to try to walk that line that I mentioned earlier and not comment on any particular policy, but in principle, open trading is good. We do not want countries to have barriers to trade or, you know, tariffs being a barrier to trade. Senator Tester. Both directions. Mr. Powell. In both directions. We want to have an international, you know, rules-based system in which countries can get together and any country that violates that can face the other countries, and that system has served us very well. Tariffs have come down steadily over the years. Until recently, they were at their all-time low level. But the thing is we do not know how this goes. This process we are in right now, the Administration says it is going for broadly lower tariffs. If that happens, that is good for the economy. That would be very good for the economy--our economy and others' too, by the way. On the other hand, if we wind up with higher tariffs, then not so good. Senator Tester. That is correct. And in the meantime, just as a sidebar, if it cuts off foreign markets for grains, for example, there is going to be a lot of people in family farm agriculture that are put out of business. And that is my concern. You do not need to comment on that. I realize that you do not play a central role in our housing finance system, but you do play a central role in our economy, and the Fed does have a sizable balance sheet with billions of dollars' worth of mortgage-backed securities on the books. In March it was announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie--no, not Freddie, but Fannie Mae would need $4 billion from its line of credit at the Treasury Department. How concerning is this to you and the Fed given the size of mortgage-backed securities that are on your books? Mr. Powell. The mortgage-backed securities that we have are guaranteed by the Federal Government. There is no credit risk there. I would say more generally, if this is responsive, I think that the housing finance system, the GSEs, remains one of the big unfinished pieces of business postfinancial crisis, and I think it would be healthy for the economy and for the housing finance system to see that move forward. Senator Tester. You answered my second question. So you think that Congress' inability to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the end could harm our economy? Mr. Powell. I think it is really important for the longer run that we get the housing finance system off the Federal Government's balance sheet and using market forces and some of the things that are already in place and carry forward some kind of a reform. I think it is very important for the economy longer term. Senator Tester. OK. Thank you, Chairman Powell, and I appreciate your being here. I have got a couple other questions for the record that I would love to have you answer. Thank you very much. Mr. Powell. Thanks. Chairman Crapo. Senator Toomey. Senator Toomey. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Powell, for joining us. I just had a quick follow-up on this wage discussion. I think the most recent numbers we had were the month of June. Comparison to the previous June, 2.7 percent I think was the nominal growth in the wage number, so obviously a positive number. I think we would all like to see a bigger real growth. I think there is no question we would like to see that. But I would suggest that there is something peculiar about just the arithmetic of this sometimes, and maybe you could just briefly comment on this. As our economic growth has coincided with a significant growth in entry-level jobs and people coming into the workforce at entry-level wages, since those wages are at the low end of the wage spectrum, isn't it the case that the nature of arithmetic is that the average wage will reflect to some degree the fact that new entrants naturally come in at the low end of the spectrum and it would mask the growth in wages of people who have been continuously employed? Mr. Powell. Yes, that is right. There can be compositional effects, is what we call them, so younger people coming in, lower wages; older people, higher wages, retirement can be an effect. I am not sure it is right now, but I can check on that. Senator Toomey. I think that is likely to be the case as we have increasing workforce participation. I think that is a likely consequence. You made a very important point, I think, earlier that sustained wage growth absolutely requires sustained productivity growth. It is not possible to have the former without the latter. We all know that productivity growth is driven by several things, but one of the principal contributing factors is capital expenditure. It is new tools and equipment and technology in the hands of workers that make them more productive. The June FOMC minutes included a disturbing observation, and I will quote very briefly. It says, ``Some districts indicated that plans for capital spending had been scaled back or postponed as a result of uncertainty over trade policy.'' So the FOMC is saying that there is already adverse consequence in the form of scaled back investment as a result of uncertainty in trade policy. If there is more uncertainty--and we have threats of additional tariffs hanging over the markets right now--doesn't it follow that this is a threat to wage growth because the continuum includes a reduction in capital expenditure, lower productivity growth than we would otherwise have in a corresponding relative weakness in wage growth? So, in other words, isn't all this trade uncertainty a threat to wage growth? Mr. Powell. It may well be. We do not see it in the numbers yet, but we have heard a rising chorus of concern which now begins to speak of actual cap ex plans being put on ice for the time being. Senator Toomey. Yeah, which is really disturbing. The Senator from Tennessee's question about what causes stagnant wages, well, it corresponded to an extended period of very low productivity growth, which itself corresponded to very low capital expenditure growth. We broke that with the incentives in the tax reform that caused a big surge in cap ex. And it would be a tremendous pity to jeopardize that because of the trade policy. Let me move on to a somewhat technical matter regarding the Fed's balance sheet. As you know, historically the Fed has manipulated just overnight rates, the discount rate and Fed funds rate, and let the markets decided all other interest rates. That all changed with quantitative easing when the Fed became the biggest market participant in the purchase of Treasurys. And it changed in an explicit way when the Fed decided that it would intentionally manipulate the shape of the yield curve with Operation Twist, which was very consciously and willfully designed to change the shape of the curve. My understanding is now, to the extent that you make purchases of Treasurys, which you do when payments come back to the Fed in excess of what you want to run off, you do so basically as a set proportion of what the Treasury is issuing without regard to where on the curve they are issuing. So while this is happening, the yield curve is flattening and in a pretty dramatic way, right? Twos, tens were like a hundred basis points a year ago. Today they are, I do not know, 25 basis points. Some people are concerned that a flattening curve or an inverted curve correlates with economic slowdown and recession. Here is my question: Does a dramatic change in the shape of the yield curve in any way influence the trajectory that you guys are on with respect to normalizing interest rates and the balance sheet? Mr. Powell. Sorry. In other words, are we going to change our balance sheet policies due to the--is that what you are asking--due to the changing shape of the curve? Senator Toomey. Yeah, does the changing shape of the curve weigh into your considerations at all? Mr. Powell. You know, I think what really matters is what the neutral rate of interest is, and I think population look at the shape of the curve because they think that there is a message in longer-run rates, which reflects many things, but that longer-run rates also tell us something, along with other things, about what the longer-run neutral rate is. That is really, I think, why the slope of the yield curve matters. So I look directly at that rather than--in other words, if you raise short-term rates higher than long-term rates, you know, then maybe your policy is tighter than you think, or it is tight, anyway. So I think the shape of the curve is something we have talked about quite a lot. Different people think about it different ways. Some people think about it more than others. I think about it as really the question being what is that message from the longer-run rate about neutral rates. Senator Toomey. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Let me check. Senator Warner. I got in under---- Chairman Crapo. Senator Warner. Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Powell, it is great to see you again. Part of the challenge coming this late in the hearing is a lot of my questions have been answered. I want to follow up a comment at least on what Senator Toomey was addressing. I was going to cite the minutes of the Fed June meeting as well in terms of you say you have not seen these effects in the economy yet, but there has been a slowing of cap ex because of concerns about what I think is the President's kind of ill-thought-through trade war. I strongly believe we ought to take into consideration and have a fair and balanced trading system. I think China is the worst offender, particularly in the theft of intellectual property and other items. I was actually applauding the President when he moved strongly at first for a day or two on ZTE and before he folded at the first pushback from President Xi. And I would argue that we would be in a stronger position vis-a-vis citizenship if we had been about to actually rally other nations around the world, nations that are our allies. Instead, he is engaged in trade practices with them. No need to comment on that. Senator Tester raised an issue I wanted to raise as well, indicating foreign banks that have relatively small U.S. subsidiaries but large overall international assets are still going to be subject to stress tests. As a matter of fact, wasn't it correct that at least, since there are a variety of stress tests, the CCAR stress tests still applies to institutions that have assets at any level or relatively any level, and that there was recently a foreign bank with $900 billion of total assets but only $86 billion in U.S. assets that the CCAR stress test still applied to? Is that not correct? Mr. Powell. I believe that is correct. Senator Warner. OK. I think you have addressed that, and there are some tensions here between--the Chairman is a good friend of mine and all. I think there may be appropriate regulatory relief for some regional banks, but I want to make sure--and I think you have addressed this with Senator Tester-- that for those banks in that 100 to 250 range, you can have a thorough process and rulemaking process that stress tests are going to continue on a regular basis, and that these banks that fall into this category are going to be strictly reviewed before they might receive some of this regulatory relief to make sure that they--you know, size alone may not be the only indicator of significance to the overall market, and there may be some institutions that fall in that category but still need the enhanced SIFI diagnosis. Mr. Powell. Right, so the bill gives us all the authority we need, frankly, to reach below 250 down to 100 and apply any prudential standard we want, either on the grounds of financial stability or just the safety and soundness of banking companies. We will published--we are thinking about it carefully now. We are going to publish for public comment the range of factors that we can consider. And, again, the bill is very generous in letting us consider all the factors that we think are relevant. Senator Warner. But one of the reasons that I was supportive of the legislation was testimony that you had given prior to the passage that this was not going to be some blanket dismissal of these institutions, that you were going to go through a thorough rulemaking process and make an evaluation before those regulations were relaxed. Is that still your position? Mr. Powell. We will, absolutely. In fact, there is one institution now that is designated as a SIFI that is less than 250. So we are not shy about finding financial stability risk when we find it. Senator Warner. We think, again, the lines are always arbitrary here, but it is up to you and the Fed to make sure that institutions, particularly based upon their business practices that may be overall economically significant, that they still will have that determination, as you indicated, even if they fall below 250. Mr. Powell. Yes, a wide range of factors it will be. Senator Warner. Let me move to a different topic. I recently sent you a letter with a number of my Democratic colleagues on the Community Reinvestment Act, and I think the renewal of that act is very important. And I am concerned that the OCC has proposed a policy that will ``only consider lowering component performance test ratings of a bank if evidence of discrimination or illegal credit practices directly relates to the institution's CRA lending activities.'' The way I read that would mean that under the OCC's proposal, which I think is inappropriate, you could end up with a bank still getting a good CRA rating, even though they had discriminatory practices, but simply those discriminatory practices fell outside of its CRA lending processes. So my hope would be for those banks that fall under the Fed's review that we will not see a relaxing of those CRA standards. Mr. Powell. You have correctly stated what our policy is, and I have every reason to think that it will continue to be that. We am not looking to change it. Senator Warner. I would hope so, and I want to make sure we will follow up with additional letters and requests on that subject. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Thank you. Senator Van Hollen. Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, welcome. Good to have you here. A couple questions that relate to the tax bill, because much has been said about that. Senator Toomey mentioned that it has resulted in increased investment. What I have seen is a huge whopping increase in stock buybacks. In fact, as of today, the number is $600 billion in stock buybacks. Those are corporations that have decided not to invest the money back into their workers or their plant or their equipment, but give it to stockholders, which included, I should say, one-third of the stock holdings in this country are foreign stockholders. So it is a great windfall for the accounts of foreign stockholders. Much has also been claimed about the economic impact. I am looking at the most recent projection that the Fed had for median long-term growth. As of your June 13th report, I see it is 1.8 percent, is that correct, for the current long-term growth median projection? Mr. Powell. Yes, it is. Senator Van Hollen. Are you aware of what the projection was a year ago before the tax bill was passed? Mr. Powell. I am going to say 1.8 percent. Senator Van Hollen. It was 1.8 percent. I mean, the reality is, despite all the hype around here, it is not really going to have an impact on our long-term growth. Surprisingly, a lot of us did think there was going to be a sugar high. When you dump $2 trillion into the economy, you would think there would be some sugar high, and maybe there will be some sugar high. But I was interested in an analysis that came out of the San Francisco Fed. I do not know if you saw it. Two economists there actually said that the 2017 tax law is likely to give maybe not even a sugar high. Have you had a chance to review that analysis? Mr. Powell. I have, and I would just say that, you know, there is a wide range of estimates of the effects of the recent fiscal changes, and, you know, they are talking about the possibility--I think their point was late in the cycle when you are near full employment, the effects might be less. You know, they might or they might not be. I think there is a lot of uncertainty. One of the great things about the Fed is we get a range of views, which is a healthy thing. Senator Van Hollen. But it does stand to reason, right, that you would have a smaller impact late in a cycle? I mean, that is why most fiscal policy in this country over the years has said that we want to provide stimulus during the really tough times when a lot of people are out of work, but you do not necessarily want to provide stimulus sugar high when the economy is clicking on all cylinders. And I think that is the point these economists made, is we are actually in the ninth year of growth. So when you are talking about some increase in real wages, not nearly what we want--I mean, that is over the 9-year period. Is that right? Mr. Powell. I am sorry. Your question? Senator Van Hollen. When you talk about some small uptick in real wages, that is over the period of recovery, right? Mr. Powell. I was really talking about nominal wages, and what I was talking about was if you look at 2012, 2013, 2014, all of our main wage things sort of were around 2 percent, measures around 2 percent. Now they are close to 3 percent. So it was not an overnight thing, overnight sensation. It was a gradual increase. But you have seen a meaningful increase. Senator Van Hollen. Right. And isn't a fact that real wage increases were higher during the last term of the Obama administration than during the Trump administration? Mr. Powell. I would really have to go back and look at that. Senator Van Hollen. I have the advantage, Mr. Chairman, of having your detailed Fed analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And what it shows is that, in fact, real wage increases were higher during the last term of the Obama administration. The point here really is not play make-believe, as we sometimes hear around here, that this tax bill somehow miraculously helped a lot of people out. The reality is, as we heard, real wages are pretty flat. I understood your testimony about oil price increases. We do not know how long they will be with us. But we also know that real wage increases were higher during the 4 years of the Obama administration than so far in the Trump administration with the tax cut and everything else. So I hope that my colleagues will bring more of a discussion based--a reality-based discussion to this. The one thing we do know that tax bill did, the one thing we did know is it is going to add about $2 trillion to our national debt, a debt that will have to be paid off by everybody in this room and their kids and grandkids. And at the same time, the Fed projection shows no change in the long-term growth projections. So we just blew $2 trillion. A lot of it is already going to stock buybacks, and I just hope we will sort of end the happy talk about what this tax cut did. Thank you. Chairman Crapo. Senator Heitkamp. Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Chairman Powell, for once again coming before the Committee and being willing to answer our questions. I want to just make a point about wages, and you do not need to comment on this. Almost 20 percent of the people in our country who are wage earners earn less than $12.50 an hour. I do not know how many of you think you can live on $12.50 an hour, but I think--given that you are working a 40-hour week. Thirty-two percent earn between $12.50 and $20 an hour. Twenty dollars an hour is just barely $40,000 a year. And the next 30 percent is $22 to $30, much of it heavily weighted on the light end. In fact, I have seen one survey that has told us that two- thirds of all wage earners in this country earn less than $20 an hour, hourly wage earners. If you do not think that that presents economic challenges if that does not change, we are wrong. I think that there is optimism. Optimism is leading to taking on more consumer debt. I think we are seeing that. The response, and I think appropriate, that you have on interest rates is going to drive increased costs. We have targeted or linked the student loan rate to what you do, thereby exacerbating those people who are attempting to take that next leap forward. So I just want to make the point that where your job is to look at macro, we visit with people every day in our States who are struggling, struggling to make ends meet. And I want to transition to the next place for me on North Dakota struggles, and that is trade. You know, I have been asking questions about trade for 2 years now. So if you look at the minutes of the Fed meeting, which I think Senator Toomey talked about, businesses across the country from steel and aluminum to farming have been telling Fed officials about plans to pull back their investments in their business or offshore their business. We have now pork producers talking about moving their pork production offshore to basically avoid what has been happening in the pork industry. These industries I think have good reason to be concerned. Economists across the spectrum, including economists in the private sector, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, European Central Bank, the IMF, they are all raising alarms with trade tensions looming. So if the President's trade policies continue to result in escalating tariffs by our trading partners, I think this is going to have serious damage to the economy and, in particular, to producers and consumers in my State. Now, just to give you a number, North Dakota is the ninth most dependent on imported steel. That surprises people, but you think about our base industry. What is one of the primary inputs in drilling and in moving oil? It is steel. What is one of the primary inputs in large equipment manufacturing? It is steel. And I have heard from my equipment manufacturers that what amount they got in tax savings has been gobbled up in the first 2 or 3 months of this fiscal year. Then we are not even talking about farmers with the double whammy of getting hit with steel tariffs--they are large steel users--and seeing their commodity prices being challenged. You offered a view last week that the President's trade war results in other countries actually lowering their trade barriers. Then that would be a positive outcome. I do not disagree. However, the historic and economic evidence suggests the opposite is likely to occur. In fact, if you look at efforts such as Smoot-Hawley--we can go all the way back there--we know and I believe history will tell you that it contributed significantly to the depth of the Great Depression. I do not say it causes it, but it certainly did not assist in early recovery. So would you agree with former Chairman Ben Bernanke when he said in a 2007 speech on trade that restricting trade by imposing tariffs, quotas, or other barriers is exactly the wrong thing to do for the economy? Mr. Powell. I would, assuming you are talking about them remaining in place over a sustained period of time. Absolutely. Senator Heitkamp. Well, you know, I get a little frustrated by this short-term pain for long-term gain. I think that we are going to have long-term consequences in agriculture because I think we are going to have emerging markets in the competitive space that we have not before. We already see the Chinese are subsidizing their farmers to grow soybeans. We see that Brazil and Argentina are amping up their soybeans and, arguably, could be, in fact, buying American soybeans, marking them up and enjoying our market with the markup as we struggle. So in that same speech, then-Chair Bernanke cites studies which show that the effects of protectionist policies almost invariably lead to lower productivity in U.S. firms and lower living standards for U.S. consumers. Is there any reason to believe that these studies are no longer valid? Mr. Powell. None that I know of. Senator Heitkamp. OK. Chair Powell, I make the point on Bernanke's comments and historic record because we cannot afford to put our head in the sand and ignore the facts about the impact of the Administration's trade policies on our economy. I think it is clear--I have been probably one of the most outspoken critics of the President's trade policy here, certainly on this side of the aisle. And if we want to improve trade, the right way to do it is to expand trade agreements, in my opinion, not impose reciprocal tariffs. And so I am deeply concerned--and I know that at this point you are taking a watchful eye. But I am deeply concerned about the long-term ramifications of this so-called short-term policy. And certainly if we see the next tranche, the $200 billion, and then beyond that we see tariffs on automobiles, we will, in fact, be in a full-on, escalated, damaging trade war. And I do not know where that ends. And if this is a game of who blinks first, the best thing to do would be to get to the negotiating table. Now--oh, I am over my time. Chairman Crapo. Yes. Senator Heitkamp. I am sorry. But I want to make the point that I am going to stay on this. I am going to stay on the macro effects of this trade policy, because this is not good for our economy, and we are going to look back at this time perhaps in a year and say that is the point at which we turned the corner and the economy started taking a downturn. Chairman Crapo. Senator Warren. Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good to see you again, Chairman Powell. Before the financial crisis, banks loaded up on risky loans while regulators just looked the other way. And when those loans went bad, taxpayers were left holding the bag because big banks did not have enough capital to stay afloat. Dodd-Frank included two major reforms to make sure that this never happens again: first, rules that make big banks meet higher capital standards so they are better equipped to handle losses; and, second, rules that make the banks take annual stress tests to ensure that they are not taking on too much risk. But since you have taken over, Chairman Powell, the Fed has rolled back on both of these reforms, and I just want to explore what that means for our economy. In April the Fed proposed an amendment that lowers the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio. That is the special capital requirement for the too-big-to-fail banks. The FDIC claims that this reform will allow the banks to maintain $121 billion less in capital, but the Fed disagrees with the FDIC's assessment. Why is that? Mr. Powell. We actually think that the effect of that proposed change which is under consideration--we are looking at the comments--would be pretty close to zero as it relates to the firm itself. And, also, we think--in other words, if you look at the entire entity, it would be less than $1 billion. I will not say zero, but I think our estimate was $400 million. Senator Warren. So you just think the FDIC's $121 billion estimate is made up? Mr. Powell. They are talking about the bank; whereas, we are talking about the whole firm. Within the whole firm, at the firm level---- Senator Warren. But the banks we have to worry about are the banks that get bailed out here. Mr. Powell. Yeah, and the enhanced supplemental leverage ratio, the problem with this is that we do not want a leverage ratio to be the binding capital requirement because it actually calls upon--if you are bound by that, you are actually called upon to take more risk. So we would rather not have the bank bound by that. Senator Warren. So let us take a look at this in terms of trying to strengthen the banks so that we do not have to be in a position to bail them out. The second thing you have done is you have put a lot of stock in stress tests, and last week you called the stress tests ``the most successful postcrisis innovation for bank regulation.'' But under your leadership, the Fed has weakened the stress test regime. Here is one example. Results of this year's exercise recently became public and reportedly three banks--Goldman Sachs, State Street, and Morgan Stanley--had capital levels that were too low to pass the test. I wrote to you about these banks a few weeks ago, and I appreciate your response on this. But just to be clear, after they flunked, did you give those too-big-to-fail banks a failing grade? Mr. Powell. We gave them what we call a ``conditional nonobject,'' which is something we have done---- Senator Warren. OK, but that is not a failing grade, right? They did not flunk. Mr. Powell. They suffered the same penalty, which was to have to limit their distributions to the prior years. Senator Warren. Well, that is what I want to ask. If you did not flunk them, did you at least follow the Fed guidelines and make those banks submit new capital plans that would pass the test? Mr. Powell. No. In fact, when we do the conditional nonobject, we do not require them to resubmit---- Senator Warren. So you do not require them to actually meet the criteria. Mr. Powell. In the many times we have used that tool over the years, we have not required that. Senator Warren. In other words, the Fed looked the other way. You let these banks off with what you call a conditional nonobjection, letting them distribute capital to their shareholders instead of keeping it on their books. In fact, because of your action, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs investors took home about $5 billion more than they otherwise would have. That is nice gift to the bank, Mr. Chairman. On top of that, the Fed also proposed a rule in April that would make the stress tests less severe, effectively reducing capital requirements at the eight largest banks by a total of about $54 billion, according to a Goldman Sachs analysis. So, Chairman Powell, by your own account, the economy is doing well. We all know that bank profits are gigantic. The banks just got huge tax breaks. Three Fed Presidents--President Rosengren, President Mester, and President Evans--have suggested it is an ideal time to raise capital requirements to strengthen the banks instead of siphoning off cash to shareholders. So why is the Fed under your leadership persistently seeking to reduce capital requirements and weaken stress tests? Mr. Powell. With respect, Senator, we are not doing either of those things. In fact, the stress test in 2018 was materially more stressful--the amount of the loss and the amount of required capital to pass the test was the highest by far of any test. Senator Warren. Look, I do not know what to say. The FDIC does not see it that way. Goldman Sachs does not see it that way. The data do not seem to back you up on this. The Fed's capital requirements and the stress test are like a belt and suspenders. You can loosen the belt and rely on the suspenders, or you can take off the suspenders and rely on the belt. But if you do both, your pants will fall down. And, Chairman Powell, we learned in 2008 that when the big banks' pants fall down, it is the American economy, American taxpayers, American workers who get stuck pulling them back up. So it looks like to me the Fed is headed in the wrong direction here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Senator Schatz. Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Powell, thank you for your service, and thank you for being willing to engage. I understand the need for you to stay in your lane, so I am going to ask a question, and I want to have as constructive of an exchange as possible, knowing that some of this ground has been covered, and I do not want to turn this into a partisan conversation. Banks are doing well. They had record-breaking profits in the years 2016 and 2017, and it looks like 2018 is going to be another gangbuster year. Across the board, banks increased their dividends by 17 percent in 2017, 12 percent in 2018. Community banks' earnings are also up. Household credit is up. In April, after your speech to the Economic Club of Chicago, you said, and I quote, ``As you look around the world, U.S. banks are competing very, very successfully. They are very profitable. They are earning good returns on capital. Their stock prices are doing well. So I am looking for the case for some kind of evidence that regulation is holding them back, and I am not really seeing that case as made at this point.'' The data backs up your statement. Banks are the most profitable that they have ever been. So what is the motivation for weakening Dodd-Frank rules like the Volcker Rule? Mr. Powell. I think we want regulation to be as efficient as well as effective as it can possibly be. Regulation is not free. Regulation, good regulation, has very positive benefits-- avoiding financial crises, avoiding consumer harm, and things like that. But nobody benefits when regulation is inefficient. And so we have taken the job, particularly for the smaller institutions going back and looking at everything we have done over the last decade, to make sure that we are doing it in the most efficient way possible. That is what we are doing. We want the strongest, toughest regulation to apply to the biggest banks, particularly the eight SIFIs. And then we want to make sure that we have tailored appropriately as we move down into regionals and subregionals and then large community banks and then smaller ones. Senator Schatz. OK. A fair answer. What would you say to someone back home who says, ``Why would the Fed focus on this? Why would the Banking Committee focus on this? Why would the Federal legislative branch focus on making life easier for the banks given income inequality, given that these are literally the most profitable institutions in American history?'' I get that it is always better to make things more efficient. It just seems like you have limited resources and we have limited political capital to spend on priorities for the Fed. What do I say to someone back home who says, ``Why are you taking care of these guys who seem to be feeding at the trough pretty nicely?'' Mr. Powell. I think you have to distinguish between different kinds of institutions. You know, I do not think that the smaller community banks are maybe feeling quite as healthy as you are saying. I think they are healthy. But I think, you know, we want them to be devoting their efforts to making loans and investing in their communities, supporting economic activities in communities, not---- Senator Schatz. But lending is up, right? And profitability is at least somewhat of a proxy for the efficiency of the regulations. I will not belabor this. I take your answer in good faith. In a recent interview with Marketplace, you were asked what keeps you up at night. This is one of the things I enjoy about you, is you are frank in your responses while trying to stay in your lane. And you said, ``We face some real longer-term challenges, again, associate with how fast the economy can grow and also how much the benefits of that growth can be spread through the population. I look at things like mobility. If you judge the United States against other similar well-off countries, we have relatively low mobility. So if you are born in the lower end of the income spectrum, your chances of making it to the top or even to the middle are actually lower than they are in other countries.'' Understanding that the Fed cannot address these issue squarely, can you talk a little bit about income inequality and what ought to be done? And then my final question around income inequality is whether, to the extent that you have expressed this view, a tax cut that provides about $33,000 for individuals in the top 1 percent of earners and about 40 bucks to the poorest of the poor, whether or not that helps or hurts in terms of income inequality. Mr. Powell. There are a range of--the question I was answering in that interview and that you are really asking is really these are issues that the Fed does not have the tools or the mandate to fix, but they, nonetheless, involve significant longer-term economic challenges. So I just would--you know, I pointed out low mobility, which is the research of Raj Chetty, who is a professor back at Harvard now, and also just the stagnation of median incomes for a long time. And if you look at things like labor force participation among prime-age males, you have seen a decline over 60 years. These are unhealthy trends in the U.S. economy that we do not have the tools to fix. You do. These are things for the legislature to work on. And, you know, it comes down to things that are easy to say and hard to do, like improve education, deal with the opioid crisis, things like that. And I also think, you know, balanced regulation plays a role in this and in enabling capital to be allocated freely and people to move from job to job. All those things go into it. But these are long-run important issues, particularly--another one is the potential growth rate of the country, which looks like it has slowed down because of aging, really, and demographics and things like that. So these are big issues. We cannot really affect them with monetary policy. Senator Schatz. Thank you. Chairman Crapo. Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Chairman Powell, thank you for being here, and thank you for also answering our questions. I appreciated your comments earlier in the introduction, and noting what you admitted that the aggregate numbers do look good. But I also noted in your presentation that there is a quote that you say, and it is this: ``And while three-fourths of whites responded in a recent Federal Reserve survey that they were doing at least OK financially'' in 2017--``at least OK, only two-thirds of African Americans and Hispanics responded that way'' when it comes to financially whether they were doing OK. And I think that is what this comes down to. It comes down to those individuals who are living out there who are struggling, how much money is in their pocket, how much it can pay for. I notice you talked about the wages are up 0.27 percent, price index increased 2.3 percent. So in response to Senator Menendez's question about the steps that you were taking for broad-based wage growth, you answered several things. But let me ask you this: Is it your opinion that it is the Fed's responsibility or role to do something about wage growth, broad-based wage growth to play a role there? Mr. Powell. I think, you know, what you have assigned us is literally maximum employment and stable prices, and also financial stability, we have an overall responsibility for that. Maximum employment, the sense of that is it is not just one measure. It is a broad range of measures, and I think we have really--you know, we have worked hard to provide support for the labor markets. Senator Cortez Masto. And that would include wage growth then? Mr. Powell. It would. Wage growth comes into really both of those things. It comes into maximum employment. It also comes into inflation. Senator Cortez Masto. Good. I am glad you said that because here is the other thing that you said that concerned me, and you said one way to address and increase wage growth was incomes need to go up, and they only go up with higher productivity. And that is what you said needs to occur. But let me ask you this, because I have looked at some of the economists and studied some of the reports in the last 30 years or so, and I know that was true probably from 1950 to the 1970s, that they were both going up together. But we also have studies that show from 1973 to 2016 it was just the opposite. They are divergent, that productivity went up by 73.7 percent, but the hourly pay went up 12.5 percent, only 12.5 percent. That is 5.9 times more, more productivity than pay. So knowing that, how can you say that we need to focus on higher productivity because that will also increase wages? Mr. Powell. So what I said was that over a long period of time, wages cannot go up sustainably without productivity also increasing. It is a different thing to say that higher productivity guarantees higher wages. I did not say that, and I do not think that is true. I know very well the charts you are talking about. Senator Cortez Masto. So then what tools--then what are you doing to address wage growth to ensure that we are increasing wages? Because here is what is happening--and you know this. If you are in your community--and I am hoping you are--and you are talking to people across America, you know that wages have been flat since 1973. That means that the people when I go home--and me and my family and Nevadans in general who are struggling, they do not have enough money to pay for housing costs, for health care, for education, for prescription drugs. And what do I tell them that you are doing to look out for their interests to help them and improve their lives with the tools that you have? Mr. Powell. The tool that we have is monetary policy, and we can and we have---- Senator Cortez Masto. No, I appreciate that. Let me ask you this: Can you just put it in terms if you are talking to a constituent in my State to explain to them what you are doing-- now, remember, Nevada was a place where we had the foreclosure crisis. People lost their homes, and they lost their jobs. We had 15 percent unemployment at one point in time, underwater in their homes. What would you say to those individuals that you are doing to ensure, one, it does not happen again and, two, improve the wage growth for them? Mr. Powell. We are doing everything we can with our tools to make sure that if you want a job, you can have one, and we are also---- Senator Cortez Masto. But having a job and having a livable wage are two different things. Mr. Powell. Over the long term, we do not have those tools. You have those tools. Congress has the tools to assure stronger wage growth over time. We really do not have that with--we can move interest rates around to support activities, support hiring. We do not have the tools to support higher productivity, for example, which tends to lead to higher wages without guaranteeing them. Senator Cortez Masto. As an economist, you can work with us and tell us the tools or the things that can be done, like increasing the minimum wage, that might improve livable wages for individuals, correct? Mr. Powell. I would say principally over long periods of time investing in education and in skills are the single--that is the single best thing we can do to have a productive workforce and share prosperity widely, which is what we all want. Senator Cortez Masto. And I know my time is up, and I appreciate that. But I am concerned. Is that based on your own individual opinion, or is that research or data or information that you know that shows that? Mr. Powell. It is a lot of research. Senator Cortez Masto. OK. Thank you. Chairman Crapo. Senator Donnelly. Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Powell, I am worried about farmers in my State. I checked about an hour ago. Soybean prices are $8.40 a bushel, well below the cost of production right now. Corn is $3.48 a bushel, well below the cost of production. In the last couple of weeks, I have visited with a number of Hoosier farmers and groups like the Indiana Corn and Soybean Alliance and the Indiana Farm Bureau to hear their growing concerns with falling commodity prices and uncertain trade policies, which are already harming Hoosier farmers in rural communities. Let me tell you a conversation I had last Friday. It was with a businessman who is also a farmer, and he was telling me about he just bought 140 acres from another farmer. And he said, ``Joe, I told the farmer, `I do not want to buy this from you right now because I know you are struggling. And I know you do not want to sell this. And I do not want to take advantage of you.' '' And the farmer who was selling it said, ``If I do not sell this, I could start losing everything else, and so you are actually helping me out.'' This is where our rural economy is going right now. I have also heard from local businesses dealing with canceled orders because of the tariffs. The price of soybeans, as I mentioned, it is a 10-year low--a 10-year low--due largely to the Chinese tariffs on U.S. exports. This current policy, what I worry about is that it has already damaged foreign export markets that took decades and decades to build. And so what I am asking you is: What would be the long-term impact of falling commodity prices and reduced agriculture exports on rural communities, which are struggling in so many ways already? Mr. Powell. Well, I think we know it would be very bad, and we have seen periods in American history where that has happened, and it can be extremely tough on farmers and rural communities. Senator Donnelly. And if they lose the markets that they have developed--I was over in China talking to some of their defense leaders a few years ago about North Korea, and I was walking through the airport, and there was a group just by coincidence--it was a flight back home, the flight to Chicago and then go back home to Indiana. It was a group of Indiana soybean farmers who were traveling the country, developing the market. What happens to rural communities if China just looks up and says, you know, ``we found more reliable suppliers''? Mr. Powell. As we discussed, it can be very tough. Senator Donnelly. So as Fed Chairman, what would you say to all those farmers who are really nervous, really concerned about what their future will be? They look to us for smart policies, for reasonable policies. Is there anything you can say about this trade war that is going on right now? Mr. Powell. I should again start by saying that it is really not the Fed's role. We do not do trade policy. That is Congress and the Administration. But, you know, I think if the current process of negotiation back and forth results in lower tariffs, that would be a good thing for the economy. If it results in higher tariffs, then I think--you know, I hardly need to tell you what higher tariffs would do for agricultural producers. Agriculture is an area where we lead the world in productivity and we are great exporters, and, you know, you would be very hard hit by these tariffs. Senator Donnelly. If this goes on for a couple more years, what would be the impact on our rural communities? Mr. Powell. I think certainly it would be very tough on the rural communities and, you know, I think we would feel that at the national level, too. Senator Donnelly. Let me also ask you about opioids, which you have mentioned, and workforce participation. My State has been deeply impacted by the opioid crisis. Last summer, during one of her final appearances before Congress, I spoke with former Chair Janet Yellen about the opioid epidemic and its connection to not just health outcomes but also economic and employment outcomes, the impact of opioids on the labor participation rate, which has declined from 66 to 63 percent over the last decade. She agreed there was a connection and noted surveys suggest that many prime-age individuals who are not actively participating in the labor market are involved in prescription drug use. You know, I look at these people we have lost, the next doctors, the next electricians, the next nurses. What do you see is the impact of the opioid epidemic on our workforce participation and, in general, the economy? Mr. Powell. You know, it is a terrible human tragedy for many communities, certainly for the individuals and their families involved. I think from an economic standpoint, some high percentage of the prime-age people who are not in the labor force, particularly prime-age males who are not in the labor force, are taking painkillers of some kind. I think the number that Alan Krueger, who is a professor, came up with is 44 percent of them. So it is a big number. It is having a terrible human tool on our communities, and also it matters a lot for labor force participation and economic activity in our country. Senator Donnelly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Thank you, Senator Donnelly. That concludes the questioning, but Senator Brown wants---- Senator Brown. Thirty seconds, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. A number of colleagues have talked about productivity and nonsupervisory pay, that pay has gone up 27 percent and--I am sorry, 2.7 percent, but it is important--from June to June, I think, was what one of my colleagues said. But it is important to recognize that CPI has gone up 3 percent in that period. So we should really never talk about nominal pay. We should talk about real dollar pay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Crapo. Understood. All right. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for being here. We appreciate your work and also your taking the time to come here and respond to our questions. For Senators wishing to submit questions for the record, those questions are due in 1 week, on Tuesday, July 24th, and, Chairman Powell, we ask that you respond as promptly as you can to the questions that may come in. Again, we thank you for being here. This is very good timing. We have got a vote underway right now, so we appreciate you helping to steer this hearing to a good conclusion. With that, the hearing is adjourned. Mr. Powell. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] [Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MIKE CRAPO Today, we welcome Chairman Powell back to the Committee for the Federal Reserve's Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress. This hearing provides the Committee an opportunity to explore the current state of the U.S. economy, and the Fed's implementation of monetary policy and supervision and regulation activities. Since our last Humphrey-Hawkins hearing in March, Congress passed, with significant bipartisan support, and the President signed into law, S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. The primary purpose of the bill is to make targeted changes to simplify and improve the regulatory regime for community banks, credit unions, midsize banks, and regional banks to promote economic growth. A key provision of the bill provides immediate relief from enhanced prudential standards to banks with $100 billion in total assets or less. The bill also authorizes the Fed to provide immediate relief from enhanced prudential standards to banks with between $100 billion and $250 billion in assets. It is my hope that the Fed promptly provides relief to those within those thresholds. By right-sizing regulation, the bill will improve access to capital for consumers and small businesses that help drive our economy. And, the banking regulators are already considering this bill in some of their statements and rulemakings. Earlier this month, the Fed, FDIC and OCC issued a joint statement outlining rules and reporting requirements immediately impacted by the bill, including a separate letter issued by the Fed that was particularly focused on those impacting smaller, less complex banks. But, there is still much work to do on the bill's implementation. As the Fed and other agencies revisit past rules and develop new rules in conjunction with the bill, it is my expectation that such rules be developed consistent with the purpose of the bill and intent of the members of Congress who voted for the bill. With respect to monetary policy, the Fed continues to monitor and respond to market developments and economic conditions. In recent comments at a European Central Bank Forum on Central Banking, Chairman Powell described the state of the U.S. economy, saying, ``Today, most Americans who want jobs can find them. High demand for workers should support wage growth and labor force participation . . . Looking ahead, the job market is likely to strengthen further. Real gross domestic product in the United States is now reported to have risen 2.75 percent over the past four quarters, well above most estimates of its long-run trend . . . Many forecasters expect the unemployment rate to fall into the mid-3s and to remain there for an extended period.'' According to the FOMC's June meeting minutes, the FOMC meeting participants agreed that the labor market has continued to strengthen and economic activity has been rising at a solid rate. Additionally, job gains have been strong and inflation has moved closer to the 2 percent target. The Fed also noted that the recently passed tax reform legislation has contributed to these favorable economic factors. I am encouraged by these recent economic developments, and look forward to seeing our bill's meaningful contribution to the prosperity of consumers and households. As economic conditions continue to improve, the Fed faces critical decisions with respect to the level and trajectory of short-term interest rates and the size of its balance sheet. I look forward to hearing more from Chairman Powell about the Fed's monetary policy outlook and the ongoing effort to review, improve and tailor regulations consistent with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act. ______ PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This week, the President went overseas, and sided with President Putin while denigrating critical American institutions, including the press, the intelligence community, and the rule of law. Our colleague Senator John McCain expressed clearly what every patriotic American thought, ``No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are--a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed.'' With our democratic institutions under threat, we cannot ignore what happened in Helsinki yesterday. But we must not lose sight of the other policies of this Administration--including the rollback of the rules put in place to prevent the next economic crisis. Mr. Powell, thank you for appearing before the Committee to discuss these policies. Just last week, a Federal Reserve official said, ``There are definitely downside risks, but the strength of the economy is really pretty important at the moment. The fundamentals for the U.S. economy are very strong.'' That may be true for Wall Street, but for most of America workers haven't seen a real raise in years, young Americans drowning in student loan debt, families trying to buy their first home--the strength of the economy is an open question at best. Last month, former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke was very clear about the long-term impact of the tax cut and the recent bump in Federal spending when he said, ``in 2020 Wile E. Coyote is going to go off the cliff.'' Last week, the San Francisco Fed released a study finding that the rosy forecasts of the tax bill are likely ``overly optimistic.'' It found that the bill's boost to growth is likely to be well below projections--or as small as zero. It also suggested that these policies could make it difficult to respond to future economic downturns and manage growing Federal debt. And it's not just the tax bill--the economic recovery hasn't been evenly felt across the country, either. Mr. Chair, I'd like to enter into the record an article from the New York Times this weekend which talks about those families still struggling from the lack of meaningful raises and other job opportunities. While hours have increased a bit over the past year for workers as a whole, real hourly earnings have not. \1\ And for production and nonsupervisory workers, hours are flat and pay has actually dropped slightly, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ https://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The number of jobs created in 2017 was smaller than in each of the previous 4 years. Some of the very companies that announced billions in buybacks and dividends are now announcing layoffs, shutting down factories, and offshoring more jobs. Some of the biggest buybacks are in the banking industry, assisted in part by the Federal Reserve's increasingly lax approach to financial oversight. Earlier this month, as part of the annual stress tests, the Fed allowed the seven largest banks to redirect $96 billion to dividends and buybacks. This money might have been used to pay workers, reduce fees for consumers, protect taxpayers from bailouts, or be deployed to help American businesses. Three banks--Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and State Street--all had capital below the amount required to pass the stress tests, but the Fed gave them passing grades anyway. The Fed wants to make the tests easier next year. And Vice Chair Quarles has suggested he wants to give bankers more leeway to comment on the tests before they're administered--that's like letting the students help write the exam. The Fed is considering dropping the qualitative portion of the stress tests all together--even though banks like Deutsche Bank, Santander, Citigroup, HSBC, and RBS have failed on qualitative grounds before. That doesn't even include the changes the Fed is working on after Congress passed S. 2155 to weaken Dodd-Frank, making company-run stress tests for the largest banks ``periodic'' instead of annual, and exempting more banks from stress tests altogether. Vice Chair Quarles has also made it clear that massive foreign banks can expect goodies, too. And on and on and on it goes. The regulators are loosening rules around big bank capital, dismantling the CFPB, ignoring the role of the FSOC, undermining the Volcker Rule, and weakening the Community Reinvestment Act. When banks are making record profits, we should be preparing the financial system for the next crisis, building up capital, investing in workers, and combating asset bubbles. And we should be turning our attention to bigger issues that don't get enough attention, like how the value placed on work has declined in this country, and how our economy increasingly measures success only in quarterly earnings reports. Much of that is up to Congress to address, but over the last 6 months, I have only seen the Fed moving in the direction of making it easier for financial institutions to cut corners, and I have only become more worried about our preparedness for the next crisis. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you. ______ PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEROME H. POWELL Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System July 17, 2018 Good morning. Chairman Crapo, Ranking Member Brown, and other Members of the Committee, I am happy to present the Federal Reserve's semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress. Let me start by saying that my colleagues and I strongly support the goals the Congress has set for monetary policy--maximum employment and price stability. We also support clear and open communication about the policies we undertake to achieve these goals. We owe you, and the public in general, clear explanations of what we are doing and why we are doing it. Monetary policy affects everyone and should be a mystery to no one. For the past 3 years, we have been gradually returning interest rates and the Fed's securities holdings to more normal levels as the economy strengthens. We believe this is the best way we can help set conditions in which Americans who want a job can find one, and that inflation remains low and stable. I will review the current economic situation and outlook and then turn to monetary policy. Current Economic Situation and Outlook Since I last testified here in February, the job market has continued to strengthen and inflation has moved up. In the most recent data, inflation was a little above 2 percent, the level that the Federal Open Market Committee, or FOMC, thinks will best achieve our price stability and employment objectives over the longer run. The latest figure was boosted by a significant increase in gasoline and other energy prices. An average of 215,000 net new jobs were created each month in the first half of this year. That number is somewhat higher than the monthly average for 2017. It is also a good deal higher than the average number of people who enter the work force each month on net. The unemployment rate edged down 0.1 percentage point over the first half of the year to 4.0 percent in June, near the lowest level of the past two decades. In addition, the share of the population that either has a job or has looked for one in the past month--the labor force participation rate--has not changed much since late 2013. This development is another sign of labor market strength. Part of what has kept the participation rate stable is that more working-age people have started looking for a job, which has helped make up for the large number of baby boomers who are retiring and leaving the labor force. Another piece of good news is that the robust conditions in the labor market are being felt by many different groups. For example, the unemployment rates for African Americans and Hispanics have fallen sharply over the past few years and are now near their lowest levels since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began reporting data for these groups in 1972. Groups with higher unemployment rates have tended to benefit the most as the job market has strengthened. But jobless rates for these groups are still higher than those for whites. And while three-fourths of whites responded in a recent Federal Reserve survey that they were doing at least okay financially in 2017, only two-thirds of African Americans and Hispanics responded that way. Incoming data show that, alongside the strong job market, the U.S. economy has grown at a solid pace so far this year. The value of goods and services produced in the economy--or gross domestic product--rose at a moderate annual rate of 2 percent in the first quarter after adjusting for inflation. However, the latest data suggest that economic growth in the second quarter was considerably stronger than in the first. The solid pace of growth so far this year is based on several factors. Robust job gains, rising after-tax incomes, and optimism among households have lifted consumer spending in recent months. Investment by businesses has continued to grow at a healthy rate. Good economic performance in other countries has supported U.S. exports and manufacturing. And while housing construction has not increased this year, it is up noticeably from where it stood a few years ago. I will turn now to inflation. After several years in which inflation ran below our 2 percent objective, the recent data are encouraging. The price index for personal consumption expenditures, which is an overall measure of prices paid by consumers, increased 2.3 percent over the 12 months ending in May. That number is up from 1.5 percent a year ago. Overall inflation increased partly because of higher oil prices, which caused a sharp rise in gasoline and other energy prices paid by consumers. Because energy prices move up and down a great deal, we also look at core inflation. Core inflation excludes energy and food prices and generally is a better indicator of future overall inflation. Core inflation was 2.0 percent for the 12 months ending in May, compared with 1.5 percent a year ago. We will continue to keep a close eye on inflation with the goal of keeping it near 2 percent. Looking ahead, my colleagues on the FOMC and I expect that, with appropriate monetary policy, the job market will remain strong and inflation will stay near 2 percent over the next several years. This judgment reflects several factors. First, interest rates, and financial conditions more broadly, remain favorable to growth. Second, our financial system is much stronger than before the crisis and is in a good position to meet the credit needs of households and businesses. Third, Federal tax and spending policies likely will continue to support the expansion. And, fourth, the outlook for economic growth abroad remains solid despite greater uncertainties in several parts of the world. What I have just described is what we see as the most likely path for the economy. Of course, the economic outcomes we experience often turn out to be a good deal stronger or weaker than our best forecast. For example, it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of current discussions over trade policy as well as the size and timing of the economic effects of the recent changes in fiscal policy. Overall, we see the risk of the economy unexpectedly weakening as roughly balanced with the possibility of the economy growing faster than we currently anticipate. Monetary Policy Over the first half of 2018 the FOMC has continued to gradually reduce monetary policy accommodation. In other words, we have continued to dial back the extra boost that was needed to help the economy recover from the financial crisis and recession. Specifically, we raised the target range for the Federal funds rate by \1/4\ percentage point at both our March and June meetings, bringing the target to its current range of 1\3/4\ to 2 percent. In addition, last October we started gradually reducing the Federal Reserve's holdings of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities. That process has been running smoothly. Our policies reflect the strong performance of the economy and are intended to help make sure that this trend continues. The payment of interest on balances held by banks in their accounts at the Federal Reserve has played a key role in carrying out these policies, as the current Monetary Policy Report explains. Payment of interest on these balances is our principal tool for keeping the Federal funds rate in the FOMC's target range. This tool has made it possible for us to gradually return interest rates to a more normal level without disrupting financial markets and the economy. As I mentioned, after many years of running below our longer-run objective of 2 percent, inflation has recently moved close to that level. Our challenge will be to keep it there. Many factors affect inflation--some temporary and others longer lasting. Inflation will at times be above 2 percent and at other times below. We say that the 2 percent objective is ``symmetric'' because the FOMC would be concerned if inflation were running persistently above or below our objective. The unemployment rate is low and expected to fall further. Americans who want jobs have a good chance of finding them. Moreover, wages are growing a little faster than they did a few years ago. That said, they still are not rising as fast as in the years before the crisis. One explanation could be that productivity growth has been low in recent years. On a brighter note, moderate wage growth also tells us that the job market is not causing high inflation. With a strong job market, inflation close to our objective, and the risks to the outlook roughly balanced, the FOMC believes that--for now--the best way forward is to keep gradually raising the Federal funds rate. We are aware that, on the one hand, raising interest rates too slowly may lead to high inflation or financial market excesses. On the other hand, if we raise rates too rapidly, the economy could weaken and inflation could run persistently below our objective. The Committee will continue to weigh a wide range of relevant information when deciding what monetary policy will be appropriate. As always, our actions will depend on the economic outlook, which may change as we receive new data. For guideposts on appropriate policy, the FOMC routinely looks at monetary policy rules that recommend a level for the Federal funds rate based on the current rates of inflation and unemployment. The July Monetary Policy Report gives an update on monetary policy rules and their role in our policy discussions. I continue to find these rules helpful, although using them requires careful judgment. Thank you. I will now be happy to take your questions. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR BROWN FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. In response to questions at your confirmation hearing on Federal Reserve efforts to increase diversity in the System, you said, ``I assure you that diversity will remain a high priority objective for the Federal Reserve. Reserve banks, working closely with the Board, have also been looking at ways to further develop a diverse pool of talent in a thoughtful, strategic fashion, readying them for leadership roles through the Federal Reserve System.'' Since you have become chair, what specific steps have you taken to encourage more diversity in the Federal Reserve System? A.1. The Federal Reserve System (System) needs people with a variety of personal and professional backgrounds to be fully effective in discharging its responsibilities, and we have observed that better decisions are made when there are many different perspectives represented around the table. Since 2016, my colleagues and I on the Federal Reserve Board (Board) have implemented a framework to better understand and discuss a range of Board and System efforts that address diversity and inclusion as well as research on economic inclusion and economic disparities in the economy. Since becoming the Chairman in February, I have worked with Board staff to refresh the framework and prioritize our focus on diversity and economic inclusion initiatives both at the Board and elsewhere in the System and have ongoing discussions with staff, including the Board's Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (OMWI) Director, on ways to support various efforts. I continue to stress to Federal Reserve leaders and staff the importance of having a diverse workforce and providing an inclusive work environment to our people. System leaders have fostered a range of diversity and inclusion initiatives, including the development of leadership pipelines and ongoing engagements with our own staff and with the financial services, economic, and academic communities more broadly. Of the various efforts, I would like to highlight the following:The System launched a leadership development initiative to provide a structured way to share information about our talent pool and to find opportunities throughout the System to more rapidly grow our talent and prepare them to take on expanded roles. Through the Financial Services Pipeline Initiative, \1\ the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago is working to increase the representation of people of color in the financial services industry in the Chicago region. Over the last several months, the Reserve Bank of Chicago has hosted events designed to develop leadership skills for high-performing people of color. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ For more information about the Financial Services Pipeline initiative, go to: https://www.fspchicago.org/. Researchers throughout the System continue to produce cutting-edge research on how and why disparities exist for different demographic groups in their experiences in employment, education, and health, and in the housing and credit markets. In addition, seminars and panels about diversity and inclusion topics are being fostered by local leadership and employee resource networks and are shared across the --------------------------------------------------------------------------- System. Through the Opportunity & Inclusive Growth Institute, \2\ the Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is conducting research on structural barriers that limit full participation in economic opportunity and advancement in the country. The Institute looks beyond aggregate economic indicators in order to examine how national policies impact diverse communities of people within the U.S. economy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ For more information about the Opportunity & Inclusive Growth Institute, go to: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute. The Board cosponsored a Gender and Career Progression \3\ conference with the European Central Bank and the Bank of England in May of this year. There were about 140 people in attendance, including participants from central banks, academia, think tanks, private industry, as well as a number of local students. The topics and papers from the conference focused on gender diversity in economics, finance, and central banking, including gender-based discrimination, the benefits of increased diversity, the role of culture, and the approaches that could be used to improve gender diversity. We continue to explore ways to leverage the knowledge gained from this event for the Board, the System, and the broader economic community. The Board subsequently held a panel discussion for its employees sharing key insights from the conference. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ The conference program and discussion materials are available on the Bank of England's website at: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/ events/2018/may/gender-and-career-progression. Throughout the System, we continue to increase our outreach to local universities, with a particular focus on outreach to under-represented groups. The Board will soon be hosting Exploring Careers in Economics, \4\ an event for high school and college students, in October. Organized to broaden awareness of careers in economics and to further develop a diverse pool of talent interested in the field, Exploring Careers in Economics will offer students a chance to learn about and discuss opportunities in economics generally, and learn about mentoring opportunities, resources, and career opportunities within the System. The agenda includes a discussion of why inclusion and diversity matter for economics. In addition to welcoming students to the Board in Washington, students from around the country will participate in this event via webcast. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ For more information about the Exploring Careers in Economics event, go to https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/ other20180823a.htm. The Board's OMWI Office, in collaboration with the OMWI Directors from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (collectively, the Agencies), hosted a Diversity and Inclusion Summit (Summit) on September 13 at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the institutions regulated by each regulatory agency. The primary purpose of the Summit was for the Agencies' OMW is to provide feedback on submissions received from regulated entities responding to the questionnaire developed through the Policy Standards for Assessing Diversity Policies and Practices pursuant to section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). Additionally, an important aspect of the Summit was the dialogue and insights between representatives from the regulated entities and the OMWI Directors on leading diversity --------------------------------------------------------------------------- practices. Q.2. In your role as the head of the Reserve Bank Affairs Committee and now as Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, did you ever ask the search committees in Atlanta, Richmond, or New York for a lists of candidates under consideration? At any point did you urge the search committees at any of the Banks to broaden their searches to include more women or minority candidates? A.2. As the Chair of the Reserve Bank Affairs Committee, I had worked closely with the search committees to ensure a strong and transparent process that identifies a broad and diverse slate of qualified candidates for president searches. Now as Chairman of the Board, I continue to work closely with my colleague Lael Brainard, Chair of the Reserve Bank Affairs Committee, to exercise the Board's oversight responsibility and stress the importance of conducting a broad search throughout the search process. We also recognize that the appointment of a president is, as a legal matter, a responsibility of the Class Band Class C directors. During the recent Reserve Bank president searches, the search committees proactively sought out candidates from a variety of sources. The search committees have also carried out extensive outreach programs intended to solicit input and candidate recommendations from a range of constituencies across the districts. These engagement efforts were done with the goal of having as broad and diverse of candidate pools as possible for the searches. Throughout the search process, the chair of the search committee typically provides status updates, including information about the candidate pools, and discusses potential candidates with the Chair of the Reserve Bank Affairs Committee. Q.3. What is your role, directly and indirectly, in the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank's search to select its next President? A.3. The San Francisco Fed announced the appointment of Mary Daly as its new president on September 14. As Chairman of the Board, I stayed abreast of the search through the Chair of the Reserve Bank Affairs Committee. When the search committee settled on the finalist, my colleagues and I at the Board interviewed Ms. Daly. Upon final approval by all Class B and Class C directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, my colleagues and I at the Board voted on the Bank board's request for approval of the appointment of Ms. Daly as the new president for the Reserve Bank. Q.4. Recently proposed legislation would override the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) 2014 reforms to money market funds. Specifically, that legislation would permit sponsors of money market funds that satisfy certain conditions to utilize a stable net asset value, or NAV. In addition, the proposal would exempt those funds from the liquidity fee requirements in the SEC's rules. As you know, the SEC's 2014 reforms require institutional money market funds investing in corporate or municipal debt securities to use a floating NAV and provide nongovernment money market fund boards with new tools--liquidity fees and redemption gates--to prevent runs. Those mechanisms are intended to prevent runs on money market funds and the freezing of the short-term liquidity market that occurred during the financial crisis. Nellie Liang, who served for 11 years in senior roles at the Federal Reserve in the Division of Financial Stability and the Division of Research and Statistics, recently wrote an article titled, ``Why Congress shouldn't roll back the SEC's money market rules'' (attached). Ms. Liang's article explains the market dislocation that occurred during the crisis that led to the SEC's implementation of the 2014 reforms. Ms. Liang highlights several important improvements to the structure of money funds, explaining that during the crisis ``there was no doubt that the structure of prime MMF's amplified losses and spread problems to many companies when their investors ran.'' She concludes that the ``post crisis rules aim not only to prevent a repeat of the last crisis but to reduce the probability and costs of the next one,'' and that, ``reverting to precrisis rules would risk a return to high levels of private short-term liabilities and another destabilizing run on money market funds, and threaten stability in the financial system and the economy as a whole''. Do you agree with Ms. Liang's concerns that reverting to precrisis rules could create vulnerabilities in the stability of the financial system? A.4. Susceptibility of money market funds (MMFs) to runs was a significant vulnerability and flashpoint in the U.S. financial system during the financial crisis and afterwards. The run on MMFs in September 2008 destabilized wholesale funding markets used by banks, dealers, nonfinancial firms, and municipalities for short-term financing. The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) reforms were designed to mitigate these risks. In part due to these regulatory changes, funding markets have undergone significant shifts; while markets have largely adjusted to these shifts, considering additional changes at this moment would likely be unhelpful to the funding markets. Q.5. In your testimony, you noted that the banking industry is well-capitalized. Recent research from the Fed system suggests that large banks may hold less capital than is optimal in terms of balancing the cost of another financial crisis with any incremental increase in bank lending rates. \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Former Fed Chair Yellen cited research noting that ``research points to benefits from capital requirements in excess of those adopted.'' See remarks by Chair Janet L. Yellen. ``Financial Stability a Decade After the Onset of the Crisis''. Speech at the ``Fostering a Dynamic Global Recovery'' Symposium Sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, August 25, 2017. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/ yellen20170825a.htm; Firestone, Simon, Amy Lorenc, and Ben Ranish, ``An Empirical Economic Assessment of the Costs and Benefits of Bank Capital in the U.S.'', Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2017. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/ 2017034pap.pdf; Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, ``The Minneapolis Plan To End Too Big To Fail'', December 2017. Available at: https:// www.minneapolisfed.org/-/media/files/publications/studies/endingtbtf/ the-minneapolis-plan/the-minneapolis-plan-to-end-too-big-to-fail- final.pdf?la=en. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you think of this research? Do G-SIBs need to hold additional capital? A.5. Maintaining the safety and soundness of the largest U.S. banks is critical to maintaining the stability of the U.S. financial system and the broader economy. These firms must be well-capitalized in order to be considered safe and sound. Accordingly, the U.S. banking agencies have substantially strengthened regulatory capital requirements for large banking firms, thereby improving the quality and increasing the amount of capital in the banking system. From before the crisis to today, large U.S. banking firms have roughly doubled their capital positions, making them significantly more resilient, as well as able to support lending and financial intermediation in times of financial stress. Firestone et al., the staff working paper that you cite, analyzes aggregate capital levels across the U.S. banking sector and does not address targeted capital requirements that apply to specific banks. A firm identified as a global systematically important bank (G-SIB) is currently subject to more stringent capital requirements than those required of other, less systemic firms. Under the Federal Reserve's final G-SIB surcharge rule, a G-SIB is required to hold an additional amount of risk-based capital that is calibrated to its overall systemic risk as well as an additional supplementary leverage ratio buffer of 2 percent above the 3 percent minimum in order to avoid restrictions on distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments. G-SIBs, together with certain other large banks, also are subject to annual examination of capital planning practices through the Federal Reserve's Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) and to a supervisory stress test. Finally, G- SIBs are required to maintain minimum levels of unsecured, long-term debt and total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC), which is made up of both capital and long-term debt, in order to further help reduce the systemic impact of the failure of a G- SIB. The purpose of these more stringent requirements is to increase a G-SIB's resiliency in light of the greater threat it poses to U.S. financial stability. This capital regulatory framework is designed to ensure that G-SIBs, as well as the banking industry as a whole, maintain strong capital positions. Q.6. When asked at the July 17 hearing about your plans to implement S. 2155, you said it is your intention ``implement the bill as quickly as we possibly can.'' Does that mean you are going to move to the rulemakings and implementation of S. 2155 before you finish the remaining unfinished rulemakings required by the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act enacted 8 years ago? A.6. Many of Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act's (EGRRCPA) changes require amendments to existing rules. The Board is working expeditiously on these rulemakings and plans to solicit public comment on the proposed rule changes. EGRRCPA includes a number of statutory deadlines for implementing certain sections of the law. It is our intention to prioritize rulemakings with statutory deadlines in order to ensure that the Board's rules are compliant with the law in the timeframe mandated by Congress. The Board has implemented the majority of its assigned provisions from the Dodd-Frank Act. Sections of EGRRCPA, along with the remaining unimplemented sections of the Dodd-Frank Act, which do not have statutory deadlines, may take longer to complete. Q.7. Does the Fed view any provisions in S. 2155 as providing a statutory requirement to revisit or recalibrate the enhanced prudential standards applicable to bank holding companies with more than $250 billion in total consolidated assets? A.7. One of the fundamental lessons from the financial crisis was that the largest, most interconnected financial firms needed to maintain substantially more capital, take substantially less liquidity risk, and face an effective orderly resolution regime if they fail. Firms with assets of $250 billion or more can present a range of safety and soundness and financial stability concerns. Therefore, the Board has tailored, and will continue to tailor, as appropriate, our regulations to the risk profiles of the firms subject to those regulations. In light of EGRRCPA's amendments, and consistent with the Board's ongoing refinement and evaluation of its supervisory program, the Board is evaluating whether any changes to the enhanced prudential standards applicable to bank holding companies with more than $250 billion in total consolidated assets are appropriate. In doing so, the Board will consider individual firms' capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities (including the financial activities of their subsidiaries), size, and any other risk-related factors that the Board deems appropriate, as provided in EGRRCPA. Q.8. Either pursuant to S. 2155 or pursuant to other authority conferred to the Fed, does the Board intend to alter the threshold at which foreign banking organizations must establish a U.S. Intermediate Holding Company? Does the Fed intend to provide any regulatory relief to foreign banking organizations that have more than $50 billion in domestic assets? If so, what regulatory relief is the Fed planning to propose? A.8. Pursuant to the Board's regulations, foreign bank organizations (FBOs) with global assets of at least $100 billion and U.S. nonbranch assets of at least $50 billion are required to establish or designate a U.S. intermediate holding company (IHC). In our supervisory experience, the requirement to establish an IHC has worked effectively, providing for appropriate application of capital, liquidity, and other prudential requirements across the U.S. nonbranch operations of the FBO, as well as a single nexus for risk management of those U.S. nonbranch operations. The Board presently sees no reason to modify this threshold. We continue to review our regulatory framework to improve the manner in which we deal with the particular risks of FBOs in light of the distinct characteristics of such institutions. Q.9. Does the Fed have any economic evidence suggesting that the recently enacted tax bill, S. 2155, or any deregulation finalized by regulators since 2017 has benefited the overall economy through increased lending? A.9. Economic conditions remain strong. Gross domestic product growth thus far this year is estimated to have averaged a little above 3 percent at an annual rate. Households and businesses have been able to obtain the financing needed to support this growth. Financial institutions are well-positioned to meet the needs of borrowers. However, it is too early to determine the economic effects of the tax bill or recently implemented changes in regulation. Generally speaking, it is difficult to isolate the effects of such changes given the myriad factors influencing the economy. Q.10. Does the Fed intend to revisit the calculation of the G- SIB surcharge? If so, when and in what ways? A.10. The Board's capital rules have been designed to reduce significantly the likelihood and severity of future financial crises by reducing both the probability of failure of a large banking organization and the consequences of such a failure, were it to occur. Capital rules and other prudential requirements for large banking organizations should be set at a level that protects financial stability and maximizes long- term, through-the-cycle, credit availability and economic growth. Consistent with these principles, the Board originally calibrated the G-SIB surcharge so that--given the circumstances of the financial system--each G-SIB would hold enough capital to lower its probability of failure so that the expected impact of its failure on the financial system would be approximately equal to that of a large non- G-SIB. The bulk of the postcrisis regulation is largely complete, with the exception of the U.S. implementation of the recently concluded Basel Committee agreement on bank capital standards. It is therefore a natural and appropriate time to step back and assess those efforts. The Board is conducting a comprehensive review of the regulations in the core areas of postcrisis reform, including capital, stress testing, liquidity, and resolution. The objective of this review is to consider the effect of those regulatory frameworks on the resiliency of the financial system, including improvements in the resolvability of banking organizations, and on credit availability and economic growth. In general, I believe overall capital for our largest banking organizations is at about the right level. Critical elements of our capital structure for these organizations include stress testing, the stress capital buffer, and the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio. Work is underway to finalize the calibration of these fundamental building blocks, all of which form part of the system in which the G-SIB surcharge has an effect. In this regard, I would note that the G-SIB surcharge rule does not take full effect until January 2019. Q.11. When does the Fed intend to finalize a 2016 proposed rulemaking related to bank holding companies' allowable activities in physical commodities markets? A.11. The Board undertook a review of the physical commodities activities of financial holding companies after a substantial increase in these activities during the financial crisis. In January 2014, the Board invited public comment on a range of issues related to these activities through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. In response, the Board received a large number of comments from a variety of perspectives. The Board considered those comments in developing the proposed rulemaking that was issued in September 2016. The proposed rulemaking would address the potential catastrophic, legal, and reputational risks of financial holding companies' (FHC) physical commodities activities by applying additional risk-based capital requirements to some of these activities; tightening some of the existing limitations on physical commodities trading by FHCs; and establishing new reporting requirements for physical commodities holdings and activities of FHCs. Under the proposal, FHCs would be permitted to continue to engage in a number of physical commodities trading activities with end users subject to new limits on physical commodities trading activities. After providing an extended comment period (150 days) to allow comm enters time to understand and address the important and complex issues raised by the proposal, the Board again received a large number of comments from a variety of perspectives, including Members of Congress, academics, users and producers of physical commodities, and banking organizations. The Board continues to consider the proposal in light of the many comments received. Q.12. At the July 17 hearing, when asked when the Fed will finalize the rulemaking required under Dodd-Frank related to incentive-based compensation at large bank holding companies, you stated that the interagency regulators have been unable to reach consensus and that the Fed has accomplished some of the goals of the rulemaking through the supervisory process. Please provide specific examples. A.12. Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act \5\ prohibits incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks. Federal Reserve staff have worked with firms in the implementation of the 2010 Federal Banking Agency Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies, \6\ a core principle of which is that incentive compensation should appropriately balance risk and reward. In so doing, Federal Reserve staff have observed improvement in incentive compensation practices in the following areas: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). \6\ 75 Federal Register 36395. Risk adjustment: Firms have increasingly begun adjusting compensation to more appropriately take into account the risk an employee's activities may pose to the organization, including through use of deferral and forfeiture features in compensation arrangements. Firms also have increasingly focused on nonfinancial risk (e.g., compliance failures, misconduct, and operational --------------------------------------------------------------------------- challenges) in risk adjustment decisions. Involvement of risk management and control personnel: Risk management and control personnel generally play a greater role in the design and operation of incentive compensation programs than before the financial crisis. Director oversight: Boards of directors are now increasingly focused on the relationship between incentive compensation and risk. For example, at the board level, finance and audit committees generally work together with compensation committees with the goal of promoting prudent risk-taking. Policies and procedures: Firms have increasingly developed written policies and procedures to guide managers in making appropriate risk adjustments. Q.13. What is the your view on the Fed's role as the consolidated Federal regulator for insurance companies that have a savings and loan holding company? A.13. The Federal Reserve is charged with consolidated supervision of savings and loan holding companies to promote the safety and soundness of the subsidiary insured depository institution (IDI) and the holding company. Our principal supervisory objectives for consolidated supervision of insurance savings and loan holding companies (ISLHCs) are to ensure that they operate in a safe-and-sound manner so that the subsidiary insured depository institution is protected from risks related to nonbanking activities, including insurance, as well as intercompany transactions between the parent and IDI, and to ensure that the IDI is not adversely affected. To avoid duplication, we rely on the State insurance departments to the greatest extent possible, including their supervision of the business of insurance. In applying our consolidated supervision, we work to ensure that regulations, supervisory guidance, and expectations are appropriately tailored to account for the unique complexities and characteristics of ISLHCs. We remain committed to tailoring our supervision of ISLHCs to the firms and their insurance operations, as well as conducting our consolidated supervision of these firms in coordination with State insurance regulators. Moreover, the Board continues to welcome feedback from ISLHCs and other interested parties on the potential impact of our supervision and proposed rulemakings in the context of ISLHCs' business and practices. Q.14. Vice Chair Quarles recently gave a speech suggesting that the Fed should ``consider scaling back or removing entirely resolution planning requirements for most of the firms'' in the $100 billion to $250 billion total consolidated asset range. Please describe further the Fed's plans in this regard, along with any cost-benefit analysis suggesting that the economy would benefit from such a change. How does the Fed view the directive in S. 2155 that company-run and certain supervisory stress tests be made ``periodic'' rather than semi-annual or annual? Does the Fed anticipate changing the frequency of stress tests for banks with more than $250 billion in total consolidated assets? A.14. Consistent with the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA), the Board is considering the application of enhanced prudential standards, including resolution planning requirements, to firms in the $100 billion to $250 billion total consolidated assets range. Resolution planning is especially critical to ensure that the largest, most complex, and most interconnected banking firms structure their operations in ways that make it more possible for them to be resolved upon failure without causing systemic risks for the broader economy. The Board therefore anticipates focusing resolution planning requirements on these firms. Firms with total assets between $100 billion and $250 billion, especially those that are less complex and less interconnected, do not pose a high degree of resolvability risk. Therefore, we should consider no longer imposing the resolution planning requirement on at least a subset of the firms with total assets between $100 billion $250 billion. The Board will solicit feedback, including feedback on costs and benefits, on any proposed changes to the applicability of resolution planning requirements through the public notice and comment process. The provisions of EGRRCPA are generally consistent with the Board's view that supervision and regulation should be appropriately tailored to the risks posed by firms to the financial system. The Board also recognizes that the complexity of banks can vary significantly from bank to bank, even for institutions within the $100 billion to $250 billion group. Those banks, which provide a significant amount of credit to the economy, range from large regional banks to an institution that has been designated a systemically important financial institution given its size and complexity. That suggests we may need to consider factors beyond size when we consider whether it is appropriate to reduce the frequency of the stress test. Pursuant to the provisions of EGRRCPA, the Board will assess the necessary and appropriate frequency of supervisory and company-run stress tests to effectively ensure the safety, soundness, and resiliency of the financial system while concurrently minimizing regulatory burden. In general, firms that pose limited risk to financial stability would be expected to be subject to less frequent supervisory and company-run stress tests than those with a large systemic footprint. Of course, we would invite public comment on any proposal to change the frequency of the stress test. Q.15. Does the Fed intend to exempt any firms from the requirement to calculate risk-weighted assets according to Advanced Approaches? A.15. The Board is currently focused on ways to simplify the existing capital rules and to reduce any unwarranted complexity of the applicable capital requirements overall, rather than on considering exemptions for particular firms. The Board believes there is room to simplify the capital framework, while preserving the stringency of the overall capital requirements. The Board is also actively reviewing the requirements applicable to firms with more than $250 billion in total assets to make sure they are appropriately tailored to the firms to which they are applied. Q.16. How does the Fed's planned rulemaking regarding ``reach back'' application of enhanced prudential standards anticipate expeditiously capturing quickly growing firms whose risk to the economy may rapidly escalate? For example, Countrywide grew from $26 billion in total consolidated assets in 2000 to $211 billion in 2007, and posed systemic threat to the economy. A.16. EGRRCPA tailors supervisory requirements to the size and complexity of banking organizations. As is reflected in EGRRCPA, regulations should be the most stringent for the largest and most complex institutions. Rulemakings proposed by the Board to tailor existing requirements would be designed to maintain a safe, sound, and stable banking system that supports economic growth without imposing unnecessary costs. Under this principle, if a bank grows in size and complexity, the Board's regulatory framework would apply increasingly stringent requirements to that banking organization commensurate with the organization's size and complexity. Q.17. In what ways, if any, does the Fed intend to revamp the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)? A.17. The Federal Reserve supports modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations so that they better reflect structural and technological changes in the banking industry and strengthen the rules to help address the credit needs of low- and moderate-income communities. We think an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) is a good starting point to gather input on the impact of the significant advancements in technology and other changes in the financial services marketplace since the regulations were last revised. We value input from all stakeholders on the impact of the significant advancements in technology and other changes in the financial services marketplace since the regulations were last revised. We look forward to reviewing suggestions that result from the OCC's ANPR on possible refinements to CRA regulations. While there are many positive aspects of the current regulations, we believe that there are opportunities to improve clarity and consistency through modernization efforts, which would benefit both banks and the communities they serve. The Board also believes that revised regulations should recognize that banks vary widely in size and business strategy and serve communities with different credit needs. An interagency modernization process is also an opportunity to define ways to evaluate a bank's CRA performance in light of its size, business strategy, capacity, and constraints, as well as its community's demographics, economic conditions, and credit needs and opportunities. To this end, more metrics could provide clarity. It is important that the use of metrics is sufficiently responsive to local credit needs and account for differences in performance expectations based on a bank's size, business model, and strategy. The Board values the interagency process, and we look forward to working with the OCC and the FDIC on any regulatory revisions that would promote consistency in the implementation of CRA across the industry, as well as offer the greatest impact to benefit reinvestment in local communities, consistent with the spirit and intent of the law. Q.18. Assessment Areas under CRA are geographical areas where bank performance is evaluated on CRA exams. Currently, these areas include bank branches and deposit-taking ATMs. Many banks are making loans outside of branch networks, using alternative delivery channels including the Internet. Has the Federal Reserve given thought to changing the definition of Assessment Areas to reflect the changing landscape of banking? A.18. Yes. The central focus of the law is on a bank's affirmative obligation to meet the credit needs of the communities it serves, including low- and moderate-income communities, consistent with safe-and-sound lending. The Board believes it is time to modernize the regulations, including making changes to the definition of a bank's ``assessment area,'' in which its CRA performance is evaluated. The banking environment has changed significantly since CRA's enactment and since the current CRA regulation was adopted. The regulation focuses on assessing performance where banks have branches, but many banks may now serve consumers in areas far from their physical branches. Therefore, the Board agrees that it is sensible for the agencies to consider expanding the assessment area definition to reflect the various ways a bank can serve local communities, while retaining the core focus on place. Q.19. Comptroller Otting, during Committee testimony in June, suggested reducing CRA performance measurement to a simple formula system comparing the sum of CRA activities to bank assets. Making this ratio the totality of a CRA exam would abandon current examination weights which judge certain activities as more important than others, based on local needs. Do you support this single ratio approach? A.19. We support updating the CRA regulations to make them more effective in making credit available in low- and moderate- income areas. In enforcing CRA, we have identified principles to guide our work. For example, the Board believes that revised regulations should be tailored recognizing that banks vary widely in size and business strategy and serve communities with widely varying needs. We believe this can be done while retaining the flexibility to evaluate a bank's CRA performance in light of its size, business strategy, capacity, and constraints as well as its community's demographics, economic conditions, and credit needs and opportunities. We recognize the importance of considering the ways in which a bank's business strategy, no matter its size, influences the types of activities it undertakes to meet its CRA obligations. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORKER FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has proposed a new regulatory capital framework for the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (each, an ``enterprise''). See Proposed Rule, Enterprise Capital Requirements (83 Federal Register 33,312) (Jul. 17, 2018). FHFA's proposed rule contemplates that the credit risk transfers (CRT) of the enterprises would provide capital relief. Id. at 33,356. According to FHFA, with respect to capital relief for CRT, ''the proposed approach is analogous to the Simplified Supervisory Formula Approach (SSFA) under the banking regulators' capital rules applicable to banks, savings associations, and their holding companies.'' Id. at 33,358. But FHFA also acknowledges that ``the proposed approach deviates from the SSFA in that it: (i) [p]rovides for a more refined view of risk differentiation across transactions by accounting for differences in maturities between the CRT and its underlying whole loans and guarantees, and (ii) docs not discourage CRT transactions by elevating aggregate post- transaction risk-based capital requirements above risk-based capital requirements on the underlying whole loans and guarantees.'' Id. What are the material differences between (i) the rules governing the capital relief afforded a CRT of an enterprise under FHFA's proposed rule and (ii) the rules governing the asset credit, liability reduction or other capital relief afforded a similar transaction of a banking organization under the rules of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board)? A.1. The Federal Housing Finance Agency's (FHFA) proposal on ``Enterprise Capital Requirements'' recognizes the risk mitigation effects of credit risk transfers (CRTs). CRTs are transfers of credit risk from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on a portion of their loan portfolio to private sector investors. If CRTs meet certain qualifying criteria, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are able to reduce the amount of capital held against those portfolios. The treatment for CRTs proposed by the FHFA is tailored for two types of products: single-family home loans and multifamily loans. These products have standardized characteristics that are incorporated in the FHFA's proposed approach for risk weighting these exposures. The regulatory capital rule, adopted by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively, ``banking agencies''), similarly recognizes credit risk mitigation effects of credit risk transfers and allows a banking organization to assign a lower risk weight to an exposure. However, relative to the approach proposed by the FHFA, the banking agencies' capital rule recognizes credit risk mitigation for a much broader variety of exposures. The banking agencies' approach for recognizing credit risk transfer through a securitization needs to be flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of securitized asset classes without standardized characteristics. The approach may require more capital on a transaction-wide basis than would be required if the underlying assets had not been securitized, in order to account for the complexity introduced by the securitization structure. Furthermore, the banking agencies' capital rule requires banking organizations to meet certain operational requirements. An inability by a banking organization to meet these operational requirements may lead to higher risk weighting, relative to the FHFA's proposed approach. Q.2. Does the Board expect to consider FHFA's approach to capital relief for CRT, and also the experience of the enterprises with CRT, when the Board next reviews its own rules governing the capital relief afforded to banking organizations for CRT and similar transactions? A.2. The FHFA's proposal is specifically designed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their specialized lending purposes. The FHFA has calibrated its proposed capital requirements and tailored its credit risk mitigation rules to two specific categories of exposures: single-family home loan and multifamily loan portfolios. Banks have a wider variety of exposures than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Thus, banks require a different calibration of capital requirements and a more general set of rules governing the recognition of credit risk mitigation. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR COTTON FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. International Organizations. Background: The Federal Reserve has membership in several international standard- setting bodies. Among them are the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). These standard-setting bodies provide opportunities to push U.S. interests and greater regulatory harmonization globally. The level of participation by the Federal Reserve going forward is unclear. The question is intended to give Chairman Powell an opportunity to describe his vision for the Federal Reserve's participation in these international organizations. Chairman Powell, the Federal Reserve has traditionally played an important and active role in international standard- setting bodies such as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). This has been important for both representing the interests of the United States and promoting policies that benefit the global financial system. In the Treasury Department's first report to the President on financial regulatory reform, it advocated for robust U.S. engagement in international financial regulatory standard-setting bodies as a way to ``promote financial stability, level the playing field for U.S. financial institutions, prevent unnecessary regulatory standard-setting that could stifle financial innovation, and assure the competitiveness of U.S. companies and markets . . . .'' The Treasury Department recommended in its report that U.S. regulators advocate for international regulatory standards that are aligned with U.S. interests. As Chairman, what will be your top priorities when representing the United States in international standard- setting bodies such as BIS and FSB? A.1. One of our top priorities in international standard setting bodies is to consolidate the financial reform gains we have achieved globally. These include a responsible increase in bank capital standards, introduction of liquidity standards, recovery and resolution planning for the most globally active and systematically important banks, and mandates to increase incentives for financial firms to centrally clear derivatives. As we get further from the financial crisis, it will become easier to forget the reasons for which we took actions to strengthen significantly the prudential framework for banks and global financial stability. Therefore, it is important that the United States, with its large number of globally active financial firms, continue to play a central role in reenforcing this message at the international level. At the same time, we believe now is an appropriate time to evaluate the reforms to ensure that they are working as efficiently and effectively as they can and do not give rise to adverse incentives. The evaluation work, already underway, may lead us to adjust various standards to achieve these objectives while maintaining the strength and resiliency of the system. Q.2. Can you describe the work you hope to accomplish or new initiatives you hope to pursue in BIS, FSB and other relevant international standard-setting bodies? A.2. One priority is to finalize the bank capital framework for trading activities. Strong standards are necessary for these activities as trading activities facilitated many of the riskier bank practices that led to the crisis. At the same time, it is important to ensure that these standards are well- crafted in order to avoid adverse effects on market liquidity. The international standard-setters are also working to build up financial firms' resiliency to operational risks, including those emanating from cyber-risks. These risks are some of the most important risks that financial firms face today. These international efforts are aimed at ensuring that we have common terminology to discuss these risks and have a common set of expectations for firms' resiliency in the face of operational risk incidents. Q.3. EU. Background: Legislative bodies in Europe are considering draft revisions to the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) that would bring U.S.-based and other third-country central counterparties (CCPs) under the regulation and supervision of the EU for the first time. The proposed changes would expand the European Securities and Markets Authority's (ESMA) and the European System of Central Banks' supervisory authority over third-country CCPs, including U.S. CCPs, that are recognized to do business in Europe. EMIR's stated purpose for making these changes is to address the potential risks that third-country CCPs could pose to the EU's financial system. These changes could also reopen a 2016 equivalence agreement for derivatives clearinghouse supervision between the CFTC and the EU authorities. CFTC Chairman Giancarlo has expressed significant concerns regarding the potential impact this proposed legislation could have on U.S. CCPs. In recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee, Chairman Giancarlo stated that ``regulatory and supervisory deference needs to remain the key principle underpinning cross border supervision of CCPs. Deference continues to be the right approach to ensure that oversight over these global markets is effective and robust without fragmenting markets and trading activity.'' The question is intended to determine how Chairman Powell's intends to address this issue and whether his views align with that of other U.S. regulators. The European Union is considering legislation that, for the first time, would permit EU regulators, including the European Central Banks, to directly supervise systemically important U.S.-based and other third-country CCPs, including U.S. CCPs in the securities and derivatives markets. This approach itself could pose risks and potentially interfere with the Federal Reserve's ability to ensure its policies are being effectuated without interference by EU supervisors. The U.S. Congress and regulators have chosen to not take this approach and instead adhere to the long-standing principal of regulatory deference. How do you plan to address this situation as Chair? The proposed legislation (EMIR 2.2) would subject U.S. CCPs to overlapping EU regulation and supervision without deferring to U.S. regulators that oversee these entities; namely, the Federal Reserve, SEC, and CFTC. Do you share CFTC Chairman Giancarlo's concerns about this proposal? If so, are you coordinated in your position and messaging to the EU? A.3. The U.S. central counterparties (CCPs) that may potentially fall within the scope of the proposed European Union (EU) legislation to amend the European Market Infrastructure Regulation include those designated as systemically important financial market utilities (DFMUs) by the Financial Stability Oversight Council under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission are the supervisory agencies with primary responsibility for supervising and regulating these firms. The Federal Reserve Board (Board) plays a secondary role in the oversight of these CCPs under Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposed EU legislation has more direct implications for the primary supervisors of these firms, and those agencies are actively involved in a dialogue with EU authorities. To date, Board staff has worked to educate EU authorities on the legal framework created by Title VIII, explained the nature of the Board's role in the oversight of DFMUs, pointed out differences considered in the proposed EU legislation, and expressed support for cooperation among authorities. The Board has a long-standing policy objective to foster the safety and efficiency of payment, clearing, and settlement systems and to promote financial stability, more broadly. \1\ In that policy, the Board has set out its views, and related standards, regarding the management of risks that financial market infrastructures, including CCPs, present to the financial system and the Federal Reserve Banks. It has also described how it will engage cooperatively with authorities with direct responsibility for particular CCPs located outside of the United States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See, Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk: https:// www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/files/psr_policy.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a central bank, the Federal Reserve has a particular interest in liquidity issues. As far as liquidity risks are concerned, it is immaterial whether a CCP is based in the United States or abroad so long as it clears U.S. dollar denominated assets and makes and receives U.S. dollar payments. The current EU legislative proposal outlines that the European Commission, in consultation with the European Securities and Markets Authority and the relevant EU member central bank, may determine a third country CCP to be of such systemic importance to the EU that the only way to mitigate the risks posed would be for that CCP to establish its clearing business within the EU. This aspect of the proposed legislation presents a risk of splintering central clearing by currency area, which could fragment liquidity and reduce netting opportunities. Given the extensive cross-border nature of the firms potentially covered by the proposed EU legislation, we support the EU and U.S. authorities' efforts to search for cooperative solutions to these issues that promote CCP resilience while upholding the aims of both U.S. and international authorities. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR ROUNDS FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. Supervising large, globally active banking organizations-- such as those covered by the Federal Reserve's Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee (LISCC)--are among your agency's most important responsibilities. While LISCC supervision traditionally relates to areas such as lending, credit risk, and capital and liquidity risk, many of the strategic and operational risks that larger banks manage are in areas unrelated to traditional banking services and functions. My concern is that as these areas become a larger potential source of risk, supervisory teams may not have the technical expertise to properly oversee these complex financial institutions and may in fact be tempted to substitute their judgement rather than apply bright line regulations. In fact, if regulators without technical expertise begin to substitute their judgement for that of bank management in these areas, this could lead to increased systemic risk. How do you make certain that your field supervisory teams possess the requisite amount of technical experience in areas like cybersecurity, technology, incentive compensation planning, and human resources management to oversee banks in the LISSC portfolio? Do you agree that supervisory staff should not substitute their judgment on such matters of general corporate strategy, especially when they do not have the requisite technical expertise? A.1. As you note, supervising Large Institution Supervision Coordinating Committee (LISCC) firms is one of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Reserve. The purpose of this supervision is to ensure that these firms operate in a safe-and-sound manner, consistent with U.S. financial stability. The Federal Reserve conducts supervision of LISCC firms by assessing the adequacy of firms' capital and liquidity positions, effectiveness of resolution and recovery planning, the strength of risk management, governance and controls, and compliance with laws and regulations, including those related to consumer protection. All areas of supervision--including quantitative assessments--require some amount of judgment. Supervisors undergo extensive training to ensure that this judgment is exercised in a fair and consistent manner that furthers the safety and soundness of the supervised firms. While the Federal Reserve has significant experience in evaluating lending, credit risk, and capital and liquidity risk, it also has a depth of experience in evaluating strategic and operational risks. We assess these risks by considering the effectiveness of boards of directors, senior management oversight, reporting quality, independent risk management, and internal audits, among others. As needed, the Federal Reserve develops or hires personnel with the necessary expertise. In all technical areas, the Federal Reserve uses both quantitative and qualitative analysis to assess the strength of firms' practices. \1\ We also use cross-firm comparative analysis, commonly referred to as horizontal analysis, to ensure that our assessments reflect the range of practices that constitute safety and soundness standards; furthermore, this tool allows for a more consistent application of supervisory standards. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Other technical areas include, for example, trading and counterparty credit risk management, stress testing, and credit underwriting, and risk management monitoring models. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To ensure the appropriateness of supervisory findings, material supervisory judgments and assessments of LISCC firms are subject to a rigorous internal governance process, which includes oversight by committees of individuals from different parts of the Federal Reserve System. This process is designed to bring the collective expertise and perspective of the Federal Reserve to bear on assessments of LISCC firms. A key objective of LISCC supervision, and in fact, supervision for all firms, is to ensure that a firm's governance, risk management activities, and internal controls adequately support the firm's current risk taking and strategic objectives. To this end, the Federal Reserve has well-defined and controlled processes that are appropriate for technical and specialized activities. Q.2. For several years, banking organizations that provide services such as safekeeping and custody to asset managers, have engaged with the Federal Reserve on the critical need to refine exposure measurement calculations for use in capital rules and credit exposure limits. These discussions have led to the inclusion of technical changes to these capital rules in the finalization of the Basel Committee's postcrisis capital reforms agreed to by the Federal Reserve in December 2017. One of the most important portions of this agreement relates to securities lending which provides a critical source of revenue to pension funds, mutual funds, endowments, and other institutional investors. Given the importance of securities lending to these asset managers which include pension funds, such as the South Dakota Retirement System, enacting these technical changes to the capital rules for securities financing transactions is an urgent matter. I hope the Federal Reserve will consider separating these targeted, technical changes from the rest of the Basel IV package and begin domestic implementation. Is there an opportunity for the Federal Reserve to propose rules to implement these technical changes, and perhaps others, separately and ahead of its longer range plan to solicit public input on the broader and more substantive capital changes later this year through the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) process? A.2. The Federal Reserve Board (Board) understands the concerns with respect to the capital rules' treatment of securities financing transactions, and Board staff participated with their international colleagues on the technical changes provided by the Basel Committee in December 2017. These changes would provide a more risk-sensitive treatment of such products, including to better account for diversification and correlation. Board staff, in coordination with the other Federal banking agencies, are evaluating this new standard as well as other standards adopted by the Basel Committee at the end of 2017 to determine whether and how best to incorporate them into the capital rules. In addition, the Board has been tailoring its regulations regarding the treatment of securities lending and, more generally, securities financing transactions. On June 14, 2018, the Board finalized the Single-Counterparty Credit Limits rule. The final rule applies to the largest banking firms, placing limits on a firm's credit exposures to a single counterparty. These limits address the risks to the economy that are created when large firms are highly interconnected. During the public comment period, commenters argued that the measurement methodology for exposures resulting from securities financing transactions would not create proper incentives for risk reduction and would not accurately measure the actual exposures associated with securities lending activities. In order to address this concern, the final rule allows a firm to use any methodology that it is authorized to use under the Board's risk-based capital rules to measure exposure resulting from securities financing transactions. This approach is consistent with other Board regulations, including the capital rules. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCOTT FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. I appreciate your timely response to my written questions from your March 1, 2018, appearance for this Committee. In your reply, you wrote that ``the State-based system of insurance regulation provides an invaluable service in protecting policyholders.'' I could not agree more--and believe that the U.S. system of insurance regulation is the best in the world. That is why I'm concerned that recent International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) negotiations on the International Capital Standard (ICS) in Kula Lumpur (KL) suggest an embrace of a European-centric approach to insurance capital standards. For example, in the KL agreement, it was decided that the reference ICS shall have European-like capital requirements (Prescribed Capital Requirement) and use a European accounting method (Market Adjusted Valuation). In the past, the Federal Reserve has stated that the IAIS does not have any authority to impose enforceable obligations on U.S. insurance firms and that there is no way that IAIS negotiations could result in the application of a capital standard on U.S. insurance firms that is inconsistent with U.S. laws and regulations. However, if U.S. negotiators agree to a standard at the IAIS that does not formally recognize the U.S. insurance regulatory system or, worse, requires that the U.S. change its regulatory system to match the agreed upon standard and we do not change our laws, then the EU or other jurisdictions could penalize U.S. firms operating in said jurisdictions. Please answer the following with specificity: What positions will you take during upcoming IAIS negotiations on the ICS to ensure the protection of the U.S. system of insurance regulation? A.1. I agree that, in order for an Insurance Capital Standard (ICS) being developed through the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) to be implementable, it cannot be unsuited or inappropriate for the United States, which remains the world's largest insurance market. As such, an overly European-centric ICS would face challenges to being readily implementable in the United States. As the Federal Reserve Board (Board) has suggested in relation to insurance firms supervised by the Board, such a framework may not adequately account for U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), may introduce excessive volatility, and may involve excessive reliance on supervised firms' internal models. \1\ Indeed, the Board strongly supports the U.S. State-based insurance supervisory system, which has proven its strength and resilience for well over a century. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Capital Requirements for Supervised Institutions Significantly Engaged in Insurance Activities, 81 Federal Register 38631, 38637 (June 14 2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Among other things, this motivates our advocacy of an aggregation alternative, and the use of the GAAP-plus valuation method, in the ICS. We continue to advocate, and contribute to developing, the GAAP-plus valuation method for inclusion in the ICS. In addition, we support the collection of information through the monitoring period on an aggregation-based approach. We also participate along with the other U.S. members, together with other jurisdictions including Canada, Hong Kong, and South Africa, in the development of such an approach through the IAIS. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve continues to develop the Building Block Approach, an aggregation-based approach that, together with the Group Capital Calculation of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), can be used to advocate the aggregation method. Through field testing and monitoring, we will advocate that an aggregation method provides comparable outcomes in supervisory actions and insurance company results relative to the standard calculation method for ICS that is emerging from the IAIS. As a member of the IAIS, the Federal Reserve, in partnership with the NAIC and Federal Insurance Office, remains committed to pursuing an engaged dialogue to achieve outcomes that are appropriate for the United States. As a general proposition, we believe in the utility of having effective global standards for regulation and supervision of internationally active financial firms. When implemented consistently across global jurisdictions, such standards help provide a level playing field for global financial institutions. Further, consistent global regulatory standards can help limit regulatory arbitrage and jurisdiction shopping, as well as promote financial stability. While we would refrain from agreeing to any international standard that is inappropriate for the United States, it is important to recall that the IAIS has no ability to impose requirements on any national jurisdiction, and any standards developed through this forum are not self-executing or binding upon the United States unless adopted by the appropriate U.S. lawmakers or regulators in accordance with applicable domestic laws and rulemaking procedures. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR TILLIS FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. Chairman Powell, I'd like to turn to S. 2155 implementation. Many of us are hoping that you and Vice Chairman Quarles will be taking a robust role in crafting the rules to implement the newly enacted law. What role are you currently playing in the implementation of S. 2155? A.1. The Federal Reserve Board (Board) is working in an expeditious manner to implement the recently enacted Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA). The Board has a well-established governance process for implementing rulemakings and ensuring that such rulemakings are compliant with the law, including statutory deadlines set by Congress. Draft rulemakings are carefully reviewed and considered by the Board's Committee on Supervision and Regulation, which is chaired by Vice Chairman Quarles. I meet with staff on a regular basis to discuss regulatory proposals and provide direction. The Committee's proposals for amendments to the Board's regulations are finalized only after a vote by the full Board of Governors. Q.2. Many of your staff are the same staff that helped write the implementing rules for the Dodd-Frank Act. In some sense, the new law mandates they revise their own prior work. From experience, I would say that such a mandate will take robust oversight on your part and on our part--do you agree? Can you give us some insight into how you and Vice Chair Quarles are managing these workstreams and orchestrating the workstreams? A.2. As I mentioned above, the Board is working in an expeditious manner to implement the recently enacted EGRRCPA. The highest priority of the Federal Reserve is to implement the laws that we have been entrusted to administer and to work to protect and enhance the safety and soundness of financial firms and the financial stability of the U.S. financial system. The Board has a well-established governance process for implementing rulemakings and ensuring that such rulemakings are compliant with the law. I meet with staff on a regular basis to discuss regulatory proposals and provide direction. Of course, Vice Chairman Quarles has a statutory obligation to develop policy recommendations for the Board regarding supervision and regulation of depository institution holding companies and other firms we supervise. He is actively involved in the development of proposals to implement EGRRCPA from the initial design through finalization. I would also note that, in general, Board staff regularly revisits, revises, and tailors previously approved rulemakings. Through the rule implementation process, the Board receives feedback from affected banking organizations and other interested parties. The Board also learns from the experience of the on-the-ground Reserve Bank examiners. Because of this continuous dialogue, the Board may conclude that aspects of a regulation require amendment or streamlining. Q.3. One area where I would hope that congressional intent is followed is with respect to the SIFI threshold in Section 401 of the bill. My view is that all banks under $250 billion in assets are out of the enhanced prudential standards and that those above $250B are able to take advantage of the mandated robust tailoring so that the larger regional banks are not treated like the money center banks and that we are taking business model and risk into account when applying enhanced regulations. Is this your view? A.3. Section 401 of the EGRRCPA raised the threshold for automatic application of enhanced prudential standards for bank holding companies from $50 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets. Under this section, the Board has the discretion to apply enhanced prudential standards to bank holding companies with total consolidated assets between $100 billion and $250 billion, based on consideration of various factors, such as capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and any other risk-related factors that the Board deems appropriate. The core reforms put in place after the financial crisis-- stronger capital and liquidity requirements, stress testing, and resolution planning--have made our financial system more resilient. Firms with assets of $100 billion or more can present a range of safety and soundness and financial stability concerns, depending on their risks and systemic profile. These concerns typically increase for firms with assets of $250 billion or more. Therefore, the Board has tailored, and will work to continue to appropriately tailor, our regulations to the risk profiles of the films subject to those regulations. The Board is carefully considering the statutory criteria under the EGRRCPA for determining which enhanced prudential standards should continue to apply to firms with $100 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets. The Board is also evaluating whether any changes to the enhanced prudential standards applicable to bank holding companies with more than $250 billion in total consolidated assets are appropriate. Board staff have begun working on proposals to amend these aspects of our rules and we look forward to hearing feedback through the public notice and comment process in the coming months. Q.4. I also expect the agencies to take a look at all of the regulations where they used $50 billion as the asset threshold for application, including those outside of DFA Section 165, and raise the number accordingly. What are your thoughts? A.4. As part of its implementation of EGRRCPA, the Board is considering which of its regulations require changes given the amended applicability thresholds in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), including section 165, as well as section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act. In addition, in light of EGRRCPA's amendments to section 165 and consistent with the Board's ongoing refinement and evaluation of its supervisory program, the Board is evaluating whether any other changes to the prudential standards applicable to large banking organizations are appropriate. The Board's capital plan rule utilizes a $50 billion asset threshold and was not affected by the changes made to section 165. Per the Board's public statement on July 6, 2018, the Board will not take action to require bank holding companies with total consolidated assets greater than or equal to $50 billion but less than $100 billion to comply with the capital plan rule. Q.5. Chairman Powell, the Federal Reserve and the Office of Financial Research have studied systemic risk and have determined that banks under $250BB do not pose a systemic risk and Congress passed and the President signed S. 2155 to raise the threshold to $250BB for the application of enhanced prudential standards. I believe that the FED should expeditiously follow this directive and should follow the will of Congress, and not wait 18 months. Will you commit to me that you will direct Fed staff to effectuate this new threshold and then move on to tailoring above the $250BB threshold? A.5. As stated above, the core reforms put in place after the financial crisis--stronger capital and liquidity requirements, stress testing, and resolution planning--have made our financial system more resilient, and I would not want to see any material weakening of these reforms. The Board has the discretion under the EGRRCPA to apply enhanced prudential standards to firms with total consolidated assets between $100 billion and $250 billion. When doing so, the enacted legislation requires us to consider various factors, such as capital structure, riskiness, complexity, financial activities, size, and any other risk-related factors that the Board deems appropriate. The Board is carefully considering the statutory criteria under the EGRRCPA and is evaluating whether any changes to the enhanced prudential standards applicable to bank holding companies with more than $250 billion in total consolidated assets are appropriate. Board staff have begun working on proposals to amend these aspects of our rules and we look forward to hearing feedback through the public notice and comment process in the coming months. Q.6. The relief in S. 2155 is not immediate, and without prompt action, the relief will not come until Nov. 24, 2018, 18 months after enactment. Do you plan to take action immediately? A.6. There are a number of provisions in EGRRCPA that provided relief immediately upon enactment. The Board, along with the other Federal banking agencies, have taken action to address the EGRRCPA changes that took effect immediately. As described in the Board's July 6, 2018, statements, the Board will not take action to enforce existing regulatory and reporting requirements in a manner inconsistent with EGRRCPA. For example, the Board will not take action to require bank holding companies with less than $100 billion in total consolidated assets to comply with certain existing regulatory requirements. These requirements include the enhanced prudential standards in the Board's Regulation YY, the liquidity coverage ratio requirements in the Board's Regulation WW, and the capital planning requirements in the Board's Regulation Y. The Board's statement and interagency statements also discuss other changes that took effect upon enactment and the interim positions that will be taken until the relevant regulations are amended to conform with EGRRCPA, including the treatment of high volatility commercial real estate exposures and certain municipal securities in the context of liquidity regulations. EGRRCPA also raised the threshold for automatic application of enhanced prudential standards for bank holding companies from $50 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets. Under this section, the Board has the discretion within 18 months of enactment to apply enhanced prudential standards to bank holding companies with total consolidated assets between $100 billion and $250 billion based on consideration of various factors. The Board is carefully considering the statutory criteria under the EGRRCPA for determining which enhanced prudential standards should continue to apply to firms with $100 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets. In addition, in light of EGRRCPA's amendments, and consistent with the Board's ongoing refinement and evaluation of its supervisory program, the Board is evaluating whether any changes to the enhanced prudential standards applicable to bank holding companies with more than $250 billion in total consolidated assets are appropriate. Board staff have begun working on proposals to amend these aspects of our rules and we look forward to hearing feedback through the public notice and comment process in the coming months. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. If changes are made to the Community Reinvestment Act that lead to financial institutions, including those that have an online presence, to take deposits from communities but actually make less of an effort to reinvest in these same communities, would you consider that to be a good or bad outcome? A.1. I would view revisions to the regulation that cause financial institutions to make less of an effort to reinvestment in these communities as an undesirable outcome. In addition, a successful update to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) regulations should encourage banks to spread their community investment activities across the areas they serve and encourage them to seek opportunities in areas that are underserved. Currently, a bank's performance in its major markets is evaluated most closely and weighs most heavily in its CRA rating. This emphasis has resulted in what banks and community organizations refer to as credit ``hot spots'' where there is a high density of banks relative to investment opportunities. Meanwhile, other areas have a difficult time attracting capital because they are not in a bank's major market, if they are served by a bank at all. We believe that any new set of regulations should eliminate such market distortions and avoid creating new ones. No matter how we define a bank's assessment area in the future, new regulations need to be designed and implemented in a way that encourages performance throughout the areas banks serve. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR MENENDEZ FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. In response to my question about the joint agency rulemaking required by Section 956 of Dodd-Frank, you said, ``We tried--we were not able to achieve consensus over a period of many years between the various regulatory agencies that need to sign off on that. But that didn't stop us from acting, you should know. We--particularly, for the largest institutions, we do expect that they will have in place compensation plans that--that do not provide incentives for excessive risk-taking. And we expect that the board of directors will make sure that that's the case. And so, it's not something that we haven't done. We've, in fact, moved ahead through supervisory practice to--to make sure that these things are better than they were and they're substantially better than they were. You see much better compensation practices here, focusing mainly on the big firms where the problem really was.'' \1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5358712?4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your response suggests that the relevant agencies have ceased work on this rulemaking. Is that correct? A.1. After the Federal Reserve Board (Board), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Securities Exchange Committee, National Credit Union Association, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the agencies), jointly published and requested comment on the revised proposed rule in June 2016, the agencies received over one hundred comments. These comments raised many important and complicated questions. The agencies continue to consider the comments. The Federal Reserve believes that supervision of incentive compensation programs at financial institutions can play an important role in helping safeguard financial institutions against practices that threaten safety and soundness, provide for excessive compensation, or could lead to material financial loss. In particular, supervision can help address incentive compensation practices that encourage inappropriate risk- taking, which may have effects on not only the institution in question, but also on other institutions or the broader economy. Additionally, The Federal Reserve continues to work with firms to improve incentive compensation practices and promote prudent risk-taking at supervised entities. Q.2. Please provide a detailed explanation of how the Federal Reserve is either limiting or prohibiting incentive-based compensation practices that encourage excessive risk-taking through supervision. A.2. The Federal Reserve, along with the other Federal banking agencies, issued Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies (Guidance) in June 2010. The interagency guidance is anchored by three principles: Balance between risks and results: Incentive compensation arrangements should balance risk and financial results in a manner that does not encourage employees to expose their organizations to imprudent risks; Processes and controls that reinforce balance: A banking organization's risk-management processes and internal controls should reinforce and support the development and maintenance of balanced incentive compensation arrangements; and Effective corporate governance: Banking organizations should have strong and effective corporate governance to help ensure sound incentive compensation practices, including active and effective oversight by the board of directors. The Guidance explains how banking organizations should develop incentive compensation policies that take into account the full range of current and potential risks, and are consistent with safe-and-sound practices. Relevant risks would vary based on the organization, but could include credit, market, operational, liquidity, interest rate, legal, conduct, and related risks. The Guidance also discusses the importance of considering compliance risks (including consumer compliance) when evaluating whether incentive compensation arrangements balance risk and rewards. Currently, supervisory oversight focuses most intensively on large and complex banking organizations, which warrant the most intensive supervisory attention because they are significant users of incentive compensation arrangements and because flawed approaches at these organizations are more likely to have adverse effects on the broader financial system. Q.3. Please provide any guidance issued to regulated institutions or materials provided to bank examiners on incentive-based compensation practices. A.3. Attached to this response are: Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies, issued by the Federal banking agencies in June 2010; \2\ and --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/ bcreg201000621a.htm A Report on the Horizontal Review of Practices at Large Banking Organizations, issued by the Board in October 2011. \3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/other-reports/ incentive-compensation-report-201110.htm Q.4. What metrics, thresholds, and standards is the Federal Reserve using to evaluate incentive-based compensation --------------------------------------------------------------------------- practices? A.4. The Federal Reserve's approach is principles-based, and recognizes that organizations have unique incentive compensation practices that vary depending on the firm's organizational model and operating structure. The supervisory process focuses on assessing how firms have integrated their approaches to incentive compensation arrangements with their risk-management and internal control frameworks to better monitor and control the risks these arrangements may create for the organization. Supervision also considers whether appropriate personnel, including risk-management personnel, have input into the organization's processes for designing incentive compensation arrangements and assessing their effectiveness in restraining imprudent risk-taking. Q.5. Which institutions are subject to the Federal Reserve's supervision of incentive-based compensation practices? A.5. The Guidance, issued by the Federal banking agencies in June 2010, applies to global consolidated operations of all U.S.-headquartered banking organizations and to the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations with a branch, agency, or commercial lending company in the United States that use incentive compensation. Because of the size and complexity of their operations, Federal Reserve supervision focuses on large banking organizations, those with the most significant use of incentive compensation, and those with the most complex operations. Q.6. Were those institutions selected for supervision by asset size or some other factor? A.6. The principles-based Guidance issued by the Federal banking agencies in June 2010, applies regardless of size; however, the Federal Reserve focuses supervisory oversight on the largest banking organizations, those with the most significant use of incentive compensation, and those with the most complex operations. The banking organizations involved in the horizontal reviews \4\ were selected based on asset size and complexity of operations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ For additional information on the Federal Reserve's horizontal reviews of compensation practices, see: ``Incentive Compensation Practices: A Report on the Horizontal Review of Practices at Large Banking Organizations'', October 2011, available at: https:// www.federalreserve.gov/publications/other-reports/incentive- compensation-report-201110.htm. Q.7. If there is no rule clearly delineating prohibited practices, how are you ensuring consistency across regulated --------------------------------------------------------------------------- institutions? A.7. Supervision of incentive compensation by the Federal Reserve is governed by the Guidance, which is integrated into the Bank Holding Company Supervision Manual. Federal Reserve understanding of incentive compensation practices was developed through the information collected during the horizontal reviews. With that understanding, the Federal Reserve has integrated incentive compensation in ongoing supervisory reviews, whether targeted (such as sales incentives or compliance reviews) or within individual lines of business (such as mortgage lending operations, or trading). A team at the Board monitors these reviews to encourage constituency. To foster implementation of improved incentive compensation practices, the Federal Reserve initiated multidisciplinary, horizontal reviews of incentive compensation practices at larger banking organizations. The primary goal was to consistently guide firms in implementing the interagency guidance. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Q.8. Many economists, including President Trump's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, have long advocated for less restrictive immigration policies to help grow the U.S. labor force, especially in light of an aging population and low birth rate. According to the Pew Research Center, without a steady stream of a total of 18 million immigrants between now and 2035, the share of the U.S. working-age population could decrease to 166 million. \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/08/immigration- projected-to-drive-growth-in-us-working-age-population-through-at- least-2035/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- What repercussions would restrictive immigration policies have on our workforce and economy? A.8. Immigration is an important contributor to the rise in the U.S. population, accounting for roughly one-half of population growth annually. And population growth, in turn, affects the growth rate of the labor force as well as the growth of the overall economy. Thus, from an economic growth standpoint, reduced immigration would result in lower population growth and thus, all else equal, slower trend economic growth. However, immigration policy is not the purview of the Federal Reserve but rather is the responsibility of the Congress and the Administration. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARNER FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. Alternative Reference Rate: Some underappreciated work that you have guided at the Federal Reserve is that of the Alternative Reference Rate Committee. Global regulators have acknowledged that at the end of 2021, banks will no longer be required to submit to the panel that determines LIBOR, meaning that the rate could stop publication at that time. LIBOR is currently critical to the smooth functioning of our financial system, as it underlies $200 trillion in notional value, or ten times U.S. GDP, including a significant amount of floating-rate mortgages. As the FSOC's annual report highlighted, if LIBOR disappears without a liquid market in the replacement rate, the effects could be catastrophic. Yet a switch to an alternative rate, the secured overnight financing rate, requires tremendous collaboration by the private sector and the official sector and the creation of financial markets that would facilitate the arbitrage between LIBOR and the secured rate, and the creation of new products in the new secured rate. Do you believe end users will demand products in the new secured rate sufficient to build a deep and liquid market in the secured rate before the end of 2021, even though first movers in this space are likely to pay a premium for the product before the market is fully developed? Why? A.1. As you note, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) has highlighted the potential risks to U.S. financial stability from the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) since 2014. These concerns led the Federal Reserve to convene the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (or ARRC) at that time. The ARRC is a diverse group of private sector firms and institutions that has widespread support from the U.S. official sector. In addition to the Federal Reserve Board, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission (FDIC), the Federal Housing Finance Authority, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Office of Financial Research, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the U.S. Treasury Department (U.S. Treasury) all act as ex officio members of the ARRC. The ARRC's work in identifying the secured overnight financing rate (SOFR) as a recommended alternative to U.S. dollar LIBOR and developing a plan to promote use of SOFR on a voluntary basis has unquestionably been necessary in helping to make sure that the financial stability risks identified by the FSOC do not materialize. I have been greatly encouraged by the response of the private sector since SOFR began publication in April of this year. Even in this short period of time, we have already seen evidence that SOFR can and will be used by a wide range of market participants. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange is offering futures contracts on SOFR, and trading activity has already risen to above 5,000 contracts (or about $15 billion) per day with a total open interest of $75 billion. SOFR futures already have far more daily transactions underlying them than LIBOR. In addition, the London Clearing House group has begun offering clearing of SOFR swaps. And importantly, we have already seen two recent issuances of debt tied to SOFR. Both of these issuances were met with high demand and were oversubscribed, indicating that there is a robust pmt of the market that recognizes that SOFR instruments have value to them. There are several reasons that I believe we will see liquidity in SOFR instruments continue to grow. First, as a fully transactions-based, International Organization of Securities Commissions compliant benchmark based on the overnight U.S. Treasury repo market--the largest rates market in the world--SOFR really does represent a robust alternative to U.S. dollar LIBOR. Because so many firms are active in the Treasury repo market, they naturally have incentives to trade SOFR instruments. Second, many market participants have come to realize that the risks the FSOC has pointed to in LIBOR are quite likely to materialize, and I believe they see that it is in their own interest to move away from LIBOR and toward SOFR. The ARRC and the official sector will 'need to continue to educate market participants about the risks to LIBOR, and work to make sure that this transition is a smooth one. Q.2. Foreign banks and prudential rules: I noticed that in the single-counterparty credit limit (SCCL) final rule, the Fed applied limitations on domestic bank holding companies that have $250 billion or more in total assets and the intermediate holding companies of foreign banks with at least $50 billion in total assets. And in the recent CCAR results, the Fed exempted three U.S. banks with assets between $50 billion and $100 billion, but continued to apply CCAR to the intermediate holding company of one foreign bank that has nearly $900 billion in total assets but only $86 billion in the U.S. Can you describe the philosophy guiding the Fed's decisions to keep foreign banks' U.S. holding companies covered by these important prudential rules? A.2. In 2014, recognizing that the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations (FBOs) had become more complex, interconnected, and concentrated, the Board adopted a final rule that established enhanced prudential standards for large U.S. bank holding companies (BHCs) and FBOs to help increase the resiliency of their operations. These standards include liquidity, risk management and capital, and require a FBO with a significant U.S. presence to establish an intermediate holding company (IHC) over its U.S. subsidiaries to facilitate consistent supervision and regulation of the U.S. operations of the foreign bank. The standards applied to the U.S. operations of FBOs are broadly consistent with the standards applicable to U.S. bank holding companies. However, the standards can also take into account the combined footprint of FBOs' U.S. operations, including their branches and agencies. Accordingly, the 2018 final rule to implement single- counterparty credit limits (SCCL) for large U.S. bank holding companies tailors the application of SCCL to U.S. IHCs such that U.S. IHCs of similar size to U.S. BHCs covered under the rule are subject to the same SCCL, but the final rule also takes into account the IHC's role as one portion of a significantly larger banking organization. Similarly, the Board's annual Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) applies more stringent standards to an IHC based on whether it is large and complex, meaning it (1) has average total consolidated assets over $250 billion or (2) has average total nonbank assets of $75 billion or more, and (3) is not a U.S. global systemically important firm. The Board monitors the impact of its regulations after implementation to assess whether the regulations continue to function as intended. In implementing enhanced prudential standards for FBOs with a large U.S. presence, the Board sought to ensure that FBOs hold capital and liquidity in the United States and have a risk management infrastructure commensurate with the risks in their U.S. operations. In general, FBOs with $50 billion in U.S. subsidiary assets are among the largest and most interconnected foreign banks operating in the United States. As a result of the IHC requirement, these films have become less fragmented, hold capital and liquidity buffers in the United States that align with their U.S. footprint, and operate on more equal regulatory footing with their domestic counterparts. I believe our current IHC framework with the current threshold is working well. Q.3. Volcker Rule: The policy behind the Volcker Rule is to reduce risky activities in banks, in particular high risk proprietary trading. I've long been a supporter of the Volcker Rule, and I think this is a worthy goal, as we never want banks to go back to that type of risky trading. The rule aims to achieve this in part by prohibiting banks from investing in hedge funds and private equity funds. I've heard, however, that the current definition has captured investments that seem far removed from the statute's original concern--such as an incubator for women-run businesses--and prohibits bank investments in funds where banks are permitted to make the investment directly. The proposed rulemaking seems focused on easing compliance burdens that have been associated with the subjective intent test under the current rule, but it provides little clarity on the agencies' thinking on the covered fund side. Can you describe how the Federal Reserve is thinking about changes to the covered fund rules? A.3. The Board, along with the OCC, FDIC, CFTC, and SEC (the agencies) adopted regulations to implement section 13 of the BHC Act, the ``Volcker Rule'', in 2013. These regulations included a definition of ``covered fund'' that, in the agencies' view, was consistent with the statutory purpose of the Volcker Rule to limit certain investment activities of banking entities. Subsequently, and based on experience with the Volcker Rule regulations, the agencies identified opportunities for improvement and proposed amendments to the Volcker Rule regulations in June 2018. The proposal requests comment on how to tailor the regulations governing a banking entity's covered fund activities. For example, the proposal asks whether a different definition of ``covered fund'' would be appropriate. In addition, the proposal requests comment on potential exemptions for particular types of funds, or funds with particular characteristics. Since proposing the amendments in June, the agencies have held meetings with and received comments from interested patties regarding the treatment of covered funds. The agencies expect to meet with and receive comments from interested parties throughout the comment period, and will carefully consider each comment to determine whether any changes to the covered fund regulations would be appropriate. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORTEZ MASTO FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. I remain concerned about discrimination in mortgage lending, especially as we no longer have publicly available data on loan quality for 85 percent of the banks and credit unions. This means we need to rely on the staff of regulators to ensure banks comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. How will you make sure that your bank examiners are looking at credit scores, loan-to-value ratios, interest rates, and other indicators of loan quality to ensure African Americans, Latinos, and single women are not getting lower quality mortgage loans? A.1. The Federal Reserve's fair lending supervisory program reflects our commitment to promoting financial inclusion and ensuring that the financial institutions under our jurisdiction fully comply with applicable Federal consumer protection laws and regulations. For all State member banks, we enforce the Fair Housing Act, which means we can review all Federal Reserve-regulated institutions for potential discrimination in mortgages, including potential redlining, pricing, and underwriting discrimination. For State member banks of $10 billion dollars or less in assets, we also enforce the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which means we can review these State member banks for potential discrimination in any credit product. Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, marital status, familial status, age, handicap/disability, receipt of public assistance, and the good faith exercise of rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act (collectively, the ``prohibited basis''). We evaluate fair lending risk at every consumer compliance exam based on the risk factors set forth in the interagency fair lending examination procedures. Relevant to an evaluation of loan quality, those procedures include risk factors related to potential discrimination in pricing, underwriting, and steering. With respect to potential discrimination in the pricing or underwriting of mortgages, if warranted by risk factors, the Federal Reserve will request data beyond the public Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, including any data related to relevant pricing or underwriting criteria, such as applicant interest rates and credit scores. This data can be requested from any Board-supervised institution, including the institutions that were exempted from reporting additional HMDA data by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA). \1\ The analysis then incorporates the additional data to determine whether applicants with similar characteristics received different pricing or underwriting outcomes on a prohibited basis (for example, on the basis of race), or whether legitimate pricing or underwriting criteria can explain the differences. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See ``Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act'', Public Law 115-174, S. 2155 104(a) (May 24, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At every examination, the Federal Reserve evaluates whether a lender might be discriminatorily steering consumers towards certain loans. An institution that offers a variety of lending products or product features, either through one channel or through multiple channels, may benefit consumers by offering greater choices and meeting the diverse needs of applicants. Greater product offerings and multiple channels, however, may also create a fair lending risk that applicants will be illegally steered to certain choices based on prohibited characteristics. The distinction between guiding consumers toward a specific product or feature and illegal steering centers on whether the institution did so on a prohibited basis, rather than based on an applicant's needs or other legitimate factors. If warranted by risk factors, the Federal Reserve will request additional data, such as consumers' credit scores and loan-to-value ratios, to determine that consumers would not have qualified for conventional loans. Q.2. Is it your expectation that the Fed will have the time and resources to proactively monitor these banks, without the required reporting in place? A.2. Provisions in the recently enacted bill, EGRRCPA, related to HMDA data collection requirements for certain institutions will not impact the Federal Reserve's ability to fully evaluate the risk of mortgage pricing or underwriting discrimination. Although not included in the public HMDA data, if warranted by risk factors, the Federal Reserve will request any data related to relevant pricing and underwriting criteria, such as the interest rate and credit score. The Federal Reserve's practice of requesting data relevant to pricing and underwriting criteria where warranted by risk factors predates EGRRCPA's enactment, and the practice will continue. Q.3. How many additional staff will it take to proactively monitor the more than 5,000 banks now exempted from reporting requirements? A.3. With respect to HMDA, the Federal Reserve supervises approximately 800 State member banks. Recently enacted EGRRCPA exempts certain institutions from reporting the additional HMDA data fields required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). However, institutions exempted by EGRRCPA that meet HMDA's data reporting threshold \2\ must continue to report the HMDA data fields that are not the additional fields required by the Dodd-Frank Act. As noted above in response subpart (b), the Federal Reserve's practice of requesting data relevant to pricing and underwriting criteria, where warranted by risk factors, predates EGRRCPA's enactment, and the practice will continue. The Federal Reserve continually evaluates its workload and staffing needs to ensure that we are fulfilling our supervisory responsibilities. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ In general, if a financial institution has assets exceeding $45 million and originated at least 25 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years, or originated at least 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years, it must meet the HMDA reporting requirements for its asset size. See ``A Guide to HMDA Reporting: Getting it Right!'', Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (Eff. Jan. 1, 2018), https:// www.ffiec.gov/Hmda/pdf/2018guide.pdf. Q.4. Volcker--Postpone the Deadline for Comment. Congress passed the Volcker Rule to prevent taxpayer backed banks from gambling with insured deposits, destabilizing the financial system and failing or requiring bailouts. Recently, the SEC, CFTC, Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the FDIC have issued a new Volcker Rule proposal. However, I am concerned that regulators have only allowed for a 60-day comment period to respond to a 689 page rule. That rule includes 342 enumerated questions, dozens of additional questions on the costs or benefits of aspects of the proposal, and invitations to comment on numerous technical concepts and provisions. A limited 2 month comment period may not allow for outside groups, academics and researchers the full time needed to analyze the proposal. Will you extend the comment period by an additional 90 days? A.4. In early June 2018, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (together, the ``agencies'') proposed revisions to the rules implementing section 13 of the Bartle Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1851), also known as the Volcker Rule. The proposal's comment period was for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register on July 17, 2018. On September 4, 2018, in response to requests from commenters, the agencies announced an extension of the comment period for an additional 30 days, until October 17, 2018. The extension will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments. The agencies will carefully consider all comments in formulating the final rule. Q.5. Wage Stagnation. For the past 8 years, we have added jobs every quarter. However, wages are not going up. In fact, worker pay in the second quarter dropped nearly one percent below its first-quarter level, according to the PayScale Index, one measure of worker pay. When accounting for inflation, the drop is even steeper. Year-over-year, rising prices have eaten up still-modest pay gains for many workers, with the result that real wages fell 1.4 percent from the prior year, according to PayScale. The drop was broad, with 80 percent of industries and two-thirds of metro areas affected. Meanwhile, many corporate profits have never been stronger. Banks are making record profits. Companies spent more than $480 billion buying their own stocks. The increased profits are not going to workers' salaries. Additionally, productivity has increased by 73.7 percent from 1973 to 2016. Please expand on your views about the connection between wages and productivity. A.5. Over long periods of time, I believe that the best way to get faster sustainable wage growth (adjusted for inflation) is to raise productivity growth. The linkage between real wages and productivity is well-grounded in economic theory and both tended to rise together in the several decades following World War II. However, wage growth and productivity growth do not necessarily track closely over shorter periods, and even over a longer period of time, higher productivity growth does not guarantee a faster rise in real wages, as there are other factors that influence wages as well. This was evident between 1990 and 2010, when real wage growth for the average worker lagged despite a pickup in productivity growth. \3\ That said, in recent years, both productivity growth and wage growth have been disappointing, and my sense is that efforts to boost productivity growth will be needed to support a faster sustained pace of real wage gains. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ This pattern is evident in many other industrialized countries as well. Economists have been actively researching this issue, but thus far have not come to a consensus about the cause. Plausible explanations include the rapid advances in information and computing technologies during that period, increased international trade and outsourcing, and increased product market concentration among firms. But this is clearly an issue that warrants further study. Q.6. At the hearing, you said that investment in education and skills were ``the single best'' way to increase wages for workers. But many have found that connection to be overstated. For example, Thomas Picketty, author of Capitalism in the 21st Century, wrote in a blogpost: \4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Brinker, Luke. ``Thomas Picketty Slams Jeb Bush on Education and Inequality: `I Think There's a Lot of Hypocrisy.' '' Salon. March 11, 2015. Available at: https://www.salon.com/2015/03/11/thomas- piketty-slams-jeb-bush-on-education-and-inequality-i-think-theres-a- lot-of-hypocrisy/. ``there's a lot of hypocrisy' in the rhetoric of conservatives who condemn inequality while failing to support policies like an increased minimum wage and ramped-up infrastructure spending . . . You're saying let's tax the top and invest that money into education --------------------------------------------------------------------------- for all. [Jeb Bush] is a proponent of school choice, of giving schools vouchers so they can attend public school or private school, whatever they want. Is this a good solution in terms of dealing with what he calls the opportunity gap?'' Ball asks Piketty. ``From what I can see, he doesn't want to invest more resources into education. He just wants more competition . . . there's limited evidence that this is working. And I think most of all what we need is to put more public resources in the education system. Again, if you look at the kind of school, high school, community college that middle social groups in America have access to, this has nothing to do with the very top schools and universities that some other groups have access to,'' Piketty replies. ``[I]f we want to have more growth in the future and more equitable growth in the future, we need to put more resources in the education available to the bottom 50 percent or 80 percent of America. So it's not enough just say it, as Jeb Bush seems to be saying, but you need to act on it, and for this you need to invest resources,'' he says. Asked about claims by Bush and other conservatives that a so called ``skills gap'' is responsible for the growth in inequality, Piketty dings that narrative as simplistic. ``The minimum wage today is lower than it was 50 years ago, unions are very weak, so you need to increase the minimum wage in this country today. The views that $7 and hour is the most you can pay low- skilled worker in America today . . . I think is just wrong--it was more 50 years ago and there was no more unemployment 50 years ago than there is today. So I think we could increase the minimum wage,'' Piketty says, adding that the U.S. should also invest in ``high-productivity jobs that produce more than the minimum wage.'' Education is important, Piketty acknowledges, but education alone is not enough to ameliorate inequality. ``You need wage policy and you need education policy,'' he says. ``And in order to have adequate education policy, you also need a proper tax policy so that you have the proper public resources to invest in these public services. Also you need infrastructure. Many of the public infrastructure in this country are not at the level of what the very developed should have. You cannot say, like many of the Republicans are saying, we can keep cutting tax on these top income groups who have already benefited a lot from growth and globalization over the past 30 years.'' Data from the Survey of Consumer Finances indicates that, even when accounting for educational and racial disparities, black households headed by a college graduate are still less wealthy than less- educated white ones. \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Reeves, Richard V., and Katherine Guyot. ``Black Women Are Earning More College Degrees, but That Alone Won't Close Race Gaps''. Brookings. December 4, 2017. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/ blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/12/04/black-women-are-earning-more- college-degrees-but-that-alone-wont-close-race-gaps. Please provide citations for your argument that education is the main driver for falling wages. How do you respond to analysis from other economists that say other reasons--tax policies, weakening unions, regulations that benefit the financial sector--are a stronger predictor for wage stagnation? Can you further elaborate on the wage inequities between racial and educational disparities? A.6. I would like to start by noting two good references detailing the important link between education and wages are: The Race Between Education and Technology by Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz; \6\ and ``The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market: Implications for Employment and Earnings'' by David Autor. \7\ The book by Goldin and Katz traces the coevolution of educational attainment and the wage structure in the United States through the twentieth century. They argue, in particular, that the demand for educated workers outpaced the supply beginning in about 1980, and that this supply-demand imbalance resulted in a rise in the wage premium for college-educated workers. In addition, both resources note that increases in educational attainment have not kept pace with rising educational returns, suggesting that the slowing pace of educational attainment has contributed to the rising gap between college and high school earnings. And, although the college wage premium has leveled off in recent years, it remains large. \8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz, ``The Race Between Education and Technology'', Belknap Press, 2010. \7\ David Autor, ``The Polarization of Job Opportunities in the U.S. Labor Market: Implications for Employment and Earnings'' Brookings, April 2010, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/06/04jobs_autor.pdf. \8\ A recent paper by Robert Valletta estimates that the wage premium for a college-educated worker (relative to a high school graduate) rose from about 30 percent in 1980 to 57 percent in 2010 and has leveled off since then. See Robett Valetta, ``Recent Flattening in the Higher Education Wage Premium: Polarization, Skill Downgrading, or Both?'' Working Paper No. 2016-17, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, August 2016. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, education is not the only factor that influences wage growth. For example, the paper by David Autor points out that the rise in the relative earnings of college graduates reflected both rising real earnings for college workers and falling real earnings for noncollege workers. He attributes these trends to the polarization of job growth, with job opportunities concentrated in relatively high-skill, high-wage jobs and low-skill, low-wage jobs, and cites the automation of routine work and the increased globalization of labor markets through trade and outsourcing as the primary influences on this trend. He acknowledges that changes in labor market institutions, in particular, weaker labor unions and a falling real minimum wage, may also play a role but argues that these factors are less important, in part because these wage trends are evident in many industrialized countries. With regard to racial disparities in wages, research by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco shows that African American men and women earn persistently lower wages compared with their white counterparts and that these gaps cannot be fully explained by differences in age, education, job type, or location. \9\ I agree with their conclusion that these disparities are troubling and warrant greater attention by policymakers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Mary C. Daly, Bart Hobijn, and Joseph H. Pedtke, ``Disappointing Facts About the Black-White Wage Gap'', FRBSF Economic Letter No. 2017-26, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Q.7. Regulation. Chair Powell, at your nomination hearing, you told me that you supported strong consumer protections. Please name at least five issues areas where the Federal Reserve will continue to lead in consumer protection. A.7. The Federal Reserve has a strong commitment to promoting a fair and transparent financial services marketplace. We conduct consumer-focused supervision and enforcement; conduct research and policy analysis; develop and maintain relationships with a broad and diverse set of stakeholders; and work to foster community development. Our consumer protection efforts include investigating consumer complaints, assuring consumers' fair and equal access to credit and treatment in financial markets, assessing the trends shaping consumers' financial situations, and offering consumer help via tools and resources developed by Reserve Banks and other agencies. Examples of the range of our consumer protection priorities and efforts are described below. As part of our supervisory outreach, our Reserve Banks have various consumer and community advisory councils. Additionally, the Board meets semiannually with its Community Advisory Council (CAC) as well as with a wide range of consumer and community groups throughout the year. The CAC is a diverse group of experts and representatives of consumer and community development organizations and interests. This important line of communication provides the Board with broad perspectives on the economic circumstances and financial services needs of consumers and communities, with a particular focus on the concerns of low- and moderate-income populations. With regard to our enforcement of fair lending laws and unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) laws, our supervisory program is rigorous and we are clear in our communications with firms about our expectations when we find weakness in their compliance management systems or violations of consumer laws. When we find consumer hmm, we make sure that consumers are provided any appropriate restitution, and when the situations warrant, we also impose civil money penalties. Fair lending violations may cause significant consumer harm as well as legal, financial, and reputational risk to the institution. The Federal fair lending laws--the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA)--prohibit discrimination in credit transactions, including transactions related to residential real estate. The ECOA, which is implemented by the Board's Regulation B (12 CFR part 202), prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction. It applies to any extension of credit, including residential real estate lending and extensions of credit to small businesses, corporations, partnerships, and trusts. Lending acts and practices that are specifically prohibited, permitted, or required are described in the regulation. Official staff interpretations of the regulation are contained in Supplement I to the regulation. The FHA, which is implemented by regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, \10\ prohibits discrimination in all aspects of residential real estate-related transactions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ See 24 CFR part 100. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Board is committed to ensuring that every bank it supervises complies fully with Federal financial consumer protection laws, including the fair lending laws. A specialized Fair Lending Enforcement Section at the Board works closely with Reserve Bank staff to provide guidance on fair lending matters and to ensure that the fair lending laws are enforced consistently and rigorously throughout the Federal Reserve System (System). Fair lending risk is evaluated at every consumer compliance examination. Additionally, examiners may conduct fair lending reviews outside of the usual supervisory cycle, if warranted by elevated risk. Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) prohibits UDAP and applies to all persons engaged in commerce, including banks, and the law extends to bank arrangements with third parties. The Federal Reserve has the authority to take appropriate supervisory or enforcement action when unfair or deceptive acts or practices are discovered at institutions under the Federal Reserve's jurisdiction, regardless of asset size. We apply longstanding standards when weighing the need to take supervisory and enforcement actions and when seeking to ensure that unfair or deceptive practices do not recur. Examples of practices the Federal Reserve has found to be unfair or deceptive include certain practices related to overdrafts and student financial products and services. With respect to these and other UDAP issues, the Federal Reserve's enforcement actions have collectively benefited hundreds of thousands of consumers and provided millions of dollars in restitution. In addition to carrying out enforcement actions, we provide training, direction and support to Reserve Bank examiners in assessing institutions' compliance with applicable laws and regulations. On the consumer level, the System also has a robust process for responding to consumer complaints about the banks we supervise. We investigate every complaint of an institution under our supervisory jurisdiction and refer them to the appropriate agency if it involves an institution that we do not supervise. Reserve Banks must respond in writing in a timely manner. For the financial institutions we regulate, we develop and offer guidance to help reduce risk to consumers that supports our desire to ensure equitable treatment of all consumers, including those in underserved and economically vulnerable populations. We collect and analyze risk data and trends in the financial services sector affecting consumers and the financial institutions that we supervise, and we identify emerging consumer protection issues and promote compliance by highlighting these areas in publications, webinars, and other outreach. Examples include our recently launched Consumer Compliance Supervision Bulletin, which provides to banks and others high-level summaries of pertinent supervisory observations related to consumer protections, as well as our Consumer Compliance Outlook, a System publication focused on consumer compliance issues, and its companion webinar series, Outlook Live, both of which are targeted to the industry to support banks' compliance efforts. Another example is our annual Survey of Household Economic Decisions (SHED). The SHED is designed to enhance our understanding of how adults in the United States are faring financially, and the results of the survey are posted on our public website. Other areas include research particularly focused on the housing market, small business access to credit, and rural economic development issues. Through a number of events and on a variety of matters, we provide outreach to consumer advocacy and community development organizations that outlines the risks in consumer financial product markets. Examples of such programs have focused on auto lending, FinTech/marketplace lending, and student lending. Q.8. Monetary Policy. If the Fed usually cuts the Federal funds rate by 5 percentage points to fight a recession and the neutral rate is around 2.5 percent, what steps can the Federal Reserve currently take to offset a recession? \11\ Expand the balance sheet by buying treasuries? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ Bosley, Catherine. ``Summers Warns Next U.S. Recession Could Outlast Previous One'', Bloomberg. February 28, 2018. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-28/summers-warns-next- u-s-recession-could-outlast-the-previous-one. A.8. The possibility that the Federal funds rate could be constrained by the effective lower bound in future economic downturns appears larger than in the past because of an apparent decline in the neutral rate of interest in the United States and abroad. Several developments could have contributed to such a decline, including slower growth in the working-age populations of many countries, smaller productivity gains in the advanced economies, a decreased propensity to spend in the wake of the financial crises around the world since the late 1990s, and perhaps a paucity of attractive capital projects worldwide. In any case, the Federal Reserve has a number of tools that it can use in the event that the Federal funds rate is constrained by the effective lower bound. One such tool is explicit forward guidance about the path of future policy. By announcing that it intends to keep short-term interest rates lower for longer than might have otherwise been expected, the Federal Reserve can put significant downward pressure on longer-term borrowing rates for American families and businesses. Another tool is large-scale asset purchases, which can also put downward pressure on longer-term borrowing rates and ease financial conditions. These tools have been an important part of the Federal Reserve's efforts to support economic recovery over the past decade. Studies have found that these tools eased financial conditions and helped spur growth in demand for goods and services, lower the unemployment rate, and prevent inflation from falling further below the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) 2 percent objective. The Federal Reserve is prepared to use its full range of tools if future economic conditions were to warrant a more accommodative monetary policy than can be achieved solely by reducing the Federal funds rate. Q.9. Many Federal Reserve officials--including most recently outgoing New York Fed President Bill Dudley--have talked about the need for Congress to beef up fiscal stabilizers that can react automatically to a downturn. Do you agree that Congress should be working on this? If so, which stabilizers do you think are most effective? \12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ ``Officials on Record: Automatic Stabilizers'', Dudley, William C. ``Speech: Important Choices for the Federal Reserve in the Years Ahead'', The Federal Reserve in the Years Ahead. April 18, 2018. Available at: https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2018/ dud180418a. A.9. The current monetary policy tools available to the Federal Reserve can provide significant accommodation in the event of an economic downturn, although we recognize that there are limits stemming importantly from the effective lower bound on the nominal Federal funds rate. As a matter of prudent planning, we continue to evaluate potential monetary policy options in advance of an episode in which our primary policy tool is constrained by the effective lower bound. Since monetary policy is not a panacea, countercyclical fiscal policy actions are a potentially important tool in addressing a future economic downturn. In particular, automatic fiscal stabilizers have been and continue to be helpful in providing timely accommodation and thus tempering the extent of a downturn. A range of fiscal policy tools and approaches could enhance their effectiveness in helping to provide cyclical stability to the economy. However, it is appropriate that the details of fiscal --------------------------------------------------------------------------- policy changes be left to the Congress and the Administration. Q.10. At your most recent press conference you said--``we can't be too attached to these unobservable variables.'' If that's the case, do you think it is possible that the United States could sustain a long period of unemployment at 3 percent or even lower? Japan's unemployment has fallen to 2.7 percent and Germany is at 3.4 percent. A.10. Monetary policy necessarily involves making judgments about aspects of the economy that cannot be measured directly but instead must be inferred. One of those aspects is the level of the unemployment rate that can be sustained in the longer term without generating either upward or downward pressure on inflation. That level is sometimes referred to as the natural rate of unemployment. Economic modelers have only a limited ability to estimate the natural rate of unemployment at any given moment; moreover, there is every reason to believe that the natural rate can and does change over time. For both of these reasons, policymakers must always be vigilant in looking for evidence that might cause them to revise their existing estimates of parameters such as the natural rate of unemployment. As of today, most estimates of the natural rate of unemployment in the United States range between 4 percent and 5 percent. Other countries will have different rates of unemployment that are sustainable in the longer run (sometimes markedly so), depending on the characteristics of the workforces in those countries (such as age and education), the geographic mobility of jobs and workers, and structural labor market policies, to name a few factors. Q.11. At the last hearing you described the risks to the economy as balanced, but it seems like the Fed has much more room to tighten policy--by raising rates and running down the balance sheet--than it does to loosen policy. Doesn't that change the balance of risks? If you hike interest rates too fast, you have limited tools to address an economic slowdown. If you hike too slowly, you have ample tools to address the overheating. A.11. The FOMC recognizes that the effective lower bound (ELB) on the Federal funds rate can impose a significant constraint on the conduct of monetary policy. This is one of the reasons that the Committee has normalized the stance of monetary policy at a gradual pace during the current economic expansion. That said, the Federal Reserve has other tools at its disposal to provide economic stimulus when the Federal funds rate is constrained by the ELB, including explicit forward guidance about the path of Federal funds rate and large-scale asset purchases. Moreover, with strong labor market conditions, inflation close to 2 percent, and the level of the Federal funds rate at a bit below 2 percent, the risk of returning to the ELB has diminished substantially since earlier in the recovery. Overall, the FOMC currently sees the risks to its economic outlook as roughly balanced. History has shown that moving interest rates either too quickly or too slowly can lead to bad economic outcomes. If the FOMC raises interest rates too rapidly, the economy could weaken and inflation could run persistently below the FOMC's objective. Conversely, there are risks associated with raising interest rates too slowly. Waiting too long to remove policy accommodation could cause inflation expectations to begin ratcheting up, driving actual inflation higher and making it harder to control. Moreover, the combination of persistently low interest rates and strong labor market conditions could lead to undesirable increases in leverage and other financial excesses. While the Federal Reserve has tools to address such developments, these circumstances could require the FOMC to raise interest rates rapidly, which could risk disrupting financial markets and push the economy into recession. Q.12. Fed Governance, Diversity, and the San Francisco Fed Vacancy. At your confirmation hearing, you expressed your support for more diversity among the Federal Reserve's leadership, saying, ``We make better decisions when we have diverse voices around the table, and that's something we're very committed to at the Federal Reserve.'' \13\ You also commented on the role that the Board of Governors plays in approving new Reserve Bank presidents, and assured the Senate Banking Committee that there is always a ``diverse pool'' in searching for candidates to fill those positions. However, the December selection of Thomas Barkin as the president of the Richmond Fed gives reason for doubt. \14\ Press reports note that you were very involved in vetting candidates. \15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ CNBC. ``Jerome Powell: I'm a big supporter of diversity.'' November 28, 2017. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/11/28/ jerome-powell-im-a-big-supporter-of-diversity.html. \14\ Sebastian, Shawn. ``Fed Up Blasts Process, Outcome of Richmond Federal Reserve Presidential Appointment'', The Center for Popular Democracy. Available at: https://populardemocracy.org/news-and- publications/fed-blasts-process-outcome-richmond-federal-reserve- presidential-appointment. \15\ Condon, Christopher. ``Fed Documents Show Powell's Hand in Richmond President Search'', Bloomberg. July 16, 2018. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-16/fed-documents-show- powell-s-hand-in-richmond-president-search. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, in April, John Williams was announced as the new New York Fed president. A source close to the process said that the New York Fed search committee just could not find qualified candidates who were interested in this position, even though community groups had given a list of qualified and diverse candidates to the New York Fed board in January. \16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Guida, Victoria, and Aubree Eliza Weaver. ``In Defense of the NY Fed Search Committee'', Politico. March 30, 2018. Available at: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2018/03/30/in- defense-of-the-ny-fed-search-committee-154624. Guida, Victoria. ``Warren Leads Crusade for Diversity at Fed'', Politico. April 2, 2018. Available at: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/federal- reserve-diversity-elizabeth-warren-452122. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you explain why these candidates were not considered? A.12. It is crucial for us to conduct search processes that are transparent and open to public input, and that encourage interest and applications from qualified candidates with as wide a variety of personal and professional backgrounds as possible. The Federal Reserve System needs such diversity to be fully effective in discharging its responsibilities, and we have observed that better decisions are made when there are many different perspectives represented around the table. I am firmly committed to conducting each president search in as open a manner as possible. However, I also recognize the importance of maintaining the privacy of candidates and the confidentiality of the composition of the candidate pool in order to encourage as many qualified individuals to apply as possible. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the qualification of individual candidates. During the recent Reserve Bank president searches, the search committees proactively sought out candidates from a variety of sources. More specifically, in addition to engaging the search firm Spencer Stuart, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) search committee engaged Bridge Partners, which has a specific expertise in the identification of diverse talent. The FRBNY search committee itself also undertook an extensive program of outreach intended to solicit input and views from a range of constituencies across the district: The search committee sent approximately 400 letters soliciting feedback on the attributes that would enable success in the role of FRBNY president, as well as specific names for consideration. Members of the search committee met with the FRBNY's standing advisory committees, including the Advisory Council on Small Business and Agriculture, the Community Advisory Group (comprised of nonprofit organizations), the Economic Advisory Panel (comprised of academic economists), and the Upstate New York Regional Advisory Board. The search committee also held two meetings at the FRBNY with ad hoc groups of invitees, one focused on labor and advocacy organizations and the other on business and industry. Out of these large candidate pools, the search committees identified candidates who not only had the desired experiences and key attributes but also confirmed their interests in the president positions. The FRBNY search committee, at the conclusion of its search process, published the process timeline and the characteristics of the candidate pool. \17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ For more information about the FRBNY's president search timeline, see https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/presidential- search-timeline. Q.13. Former Honeywell CEO David Cote served as a banker- elected member of the New York Fed board and search committee, but abruptly stepped down in mid-March. We later learned he had resigned this position to take a job with Goldman Sachs. \18\ According to the New York Fed, the search committee had already settled on John Williams by the time that Cote resigned from the board. The outgoing New York Fed president was formerly Goldman Sachs' chief economist, and there have been many reported instances of an overly cozy relationship between the Fed and Goldman Sachs, including tapes that leaked in 2014 showing that the New York Fed was very lenient in supervising Goldman. \19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Campbell, Dakin. ``Goldman Sacks Teaming up With Former Honeywell CEO Cote To Strike an Unusual Acquisition'', Business Insider. Accessed July 16, 2018. Available at: http:// www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-and-former-honeywell-ceo-cote- teaming-up-to-buy-an-industrial-company-filing-2018-5. \19\ Haedtler, Jordan. ``Why Do Former Golden Sachs Bankers Keep Landing Top Slots at the Federal Reserve?'' The Nation. November 30, 2015. Available at: https://www.thenation.eom/article/why-do-former- goldman-sachs-bankers-keep-landing-top-slots-at-the-federal-reserve/. Bernstein, Jake. ``The Carmen Segarra Tapes'', ProPublica. November 17, 2014. Available at: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-carmen- segarra-tapes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you think it is appropriate that one of the people responsible for choosing a top Wall Street regulating position was negotiating a job with Goldman Sachs at the very moment he was making the decision about who the next New York Fed president should be? Does this event raise concerns that the financial industry has too much influence on regional Reserve Banks boards? A.13. The process for selecting a Federal Reserve Bank president is set forth in the Federal Reserve Act. Subject to the approval of the Board of Governors, a Reserve Bank president is appointed by that Bank's Class Band Class C directors. These are the directors who are not affiliated with banks or other entities supervised by the Federal Reserve. Class A directors, who are bankers, are not involved in the search process. Since 2014, Mr. Cote served on the board of the FRBNY and on the search committee as a Class B director, representing the public. Mr. Cote brought to the board his background in the manufacturing and represented the industry while serving as a director. Mr. Cote promptly resigned his position on the FRBNY board of directors, recognizing that pursuing new business opportunities in the banking sector would affect his eligibility to serve as a Class B director. \20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ For more information about our policies governing the directors, see https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/directors/ policy-governing-directors.htm. Q.14. A recent analysis by the Center for Popular Democracy found that although there has been an increase in the gender and racial diversity of the Federal Reserve Bank's directors, the Fed is still falling short of true public representativeness. \21\ Williams' selection has opened up a vacancy at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank. The twelfth Federal Reserve district is the largest and most diverse in the country, including a significant Latino population. Latinos comprise 30 percent of the district. There has never in the Fed's history been a Latino Federal Open Markets Committee participant, either as a governor or as a Reserve Bank president. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ Fed Up. ``New Report Analyzes Diversity at the Federal Reserve in 2018'', The Center for Popular Democracy. February 14, 2018. Available at: https://populardemocracy.org/blog/new-report-analyzes- diversity-federal-reserve-2018. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you think it would be valuable for you and your colleagues to hear the perspective of a Latino FOMC participant? A.14. As I have said, we make better decisions when we have diverse voices around the table, and that is something we are very committed to at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve seeks diversity in personal and professional backgrounds to be more effective in discharging its responsibilities. We value a broad representation of perspectives, and are working hard towards greater diversity at all levels of the Federal Reserve. Recognizing that the appointment of a Reserve Bank president is, as a legal matter, the responsibility of the Class B and Class C directors who are by definition not affiliated with financial institutions in the district, we at the Board worked closely with the search committee to ensure a strong and transparent process that identified a broad and diverse slate of qualified candidates. As you know, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (FRBSF) recently selected Mary Daly as its next president. The processes of the FRBSF search committee were fair, transparent, and inclusive. \22\ The FRBSF search committee included eligible directors from its board who brought diverse backgrounds and experiences to the process. Further, the search committee partnered with Diversified Search, the largest female-founded and owned firm that specializes in identifying candidates from diverse backgrounds. The search committee carried out an extensive outreach program, both in person and virtually, with a range of constituencies across the district, to gain their input on the search process, obtain their views on the most important attributes for the Bank president role, and solicit their recommendations of potential candidates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ For more information about the San Francisco search, go to: https://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/news-releases/2018/mary-c- daly-named-federal-reserve-bank-of-san-francisco-president-and-chief- executive-officer/?utm_source=frbsf-home-in-the-news&utm_medium=frbsf& utm_campaign=in-the-news. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the conclusion of its search process, the FRBSF published additional information about the outreach conducted, timeline, and characteristics of the candidate pool. The FRBSF noted that of 283 prospective candidates 33 percent were from a minority background and 33 percent were female. Q.15. Inflation Target. In a paper that was recently presented to Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic, economist Dean Baker argued that the Fed should consider removing the shelter component from its core inflation indexes. \23\ The reason is that higher housing costs, particularly in a handful of metropolitan areas, are significantly outpacing other measures of inflation--and that these increases stem from a lack of supply. Baker further argues that continued interest rate increases from the Fed might have the perverse effect of sapping housing construction, thereby exacerbating the very problem (rising inflation) that the Fed is trying to address. What do you make of this analysis? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Baker, Dean, ``Measuring the Inflation Rate: Is Housing Different?'' Center for Economic and Policy Research. June 2018. Available at: http://cepr.net/publications/reports/measuring-the- inflation-rate-is-housing-different. A.15. We interpret the Federal Reserve's price-stability mandate as applying to a broad measure of the price of goods and services purchased by consumers. Shelter makes up a large component of consumers' expenditures, and a price index that excludes shelter would provide a highly incomplete measure of the cost of living. To be sure, because monetary policymakers need to be forward looking in setting policy, we also pay attention to less-comprehensive inflation measures to help gauge whether a particular inflation movement is likely to persist. For example, we examine price indexes excluding food and energy items, as food and energy prices often exhibit large transitory movements. But idiosyncratic price movements are by no means limited to food and energy, and they could well occur in shelter prices at times; we need to be attentive to whether such movements might be providing a misleading signal about inflation's likely future course. My fellow policymakers and I will continue to factor such judgments into our analyses, even as we remember that overall consumer price inflation must be the ultimate focus of our policy. Q.16. Immigration. Neel Kashkari, the chief of the Minneapolis Fed, stated that immigration has a net benefit on economic growth. He said slowing down immigration may slow down job growth and the U.S. economy as a whole. Do you agree with President Kashkari? A.16. Immigration is an important contributor to the rise in the U.S. population, accounting for roughly one-half of population growth annually. And population growth, in turn, affects the growth rate of the labor force as well as the growth of the overall economy. Thus, from an economic growth standpoint, reduced immigration would result in lower population growth and thus, all else equal, slower trend economic growth. However, as you know, immigration policy is for Congress and the Administration to decide. Q.17. SIFI Designation. As a voting member of FSOC, you and your fellow members are tasked with the mission of identifying and responding to risks that threaten the financial stability of the United States, particularly in the shadowy nonbank ecosystem that required numerous massive bailouts following the 2008 financial crisis. Despite the large number of bail-outs conferred, only four nonbanks were designated as systematically significant by the FSOC. As you considering whether to reduce monitoring and oversight of one of those institutions? What about the financial state or inherent systemic risk of large nonbank institutions has changed since FSOC made the considerations that warrants removing any enhanced prudential oversight? A.17. The financial crisis showed that the distress of large and systemic nonbank financial companies could imperil the financial stability of the United States, ultimately putting the American economy at risk. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) gave regulators new tools to address this problem, including authorizing the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to determine that a nonbank financial company's material financial distress would threaten the financial stability of the United States. If such a determination is made, such firms are then subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board (Board). The Dodd- Frank Act authorizes the Board, in consultation with the FSOC, to establish enhanced prudential requirements and to supervise nonbank financial companies that have been designated as systemically important. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the FSOC to reevaluate each determination of a nonbank financial institution as systemically important on at least an annual basis. The FSOC is also responsible for making the determination to retain or rescind the designation of a nonbank financial institution. Financial vulnerabilities, such as high leverage levels and maturity mismatches between assets and liabilities, are not at the elevated levels they were prior to the crisis. Regulators have developed a deeper understanding of the ways in which nonbank financial institutions differ from banks, particularly in terms of their vulnerability to runs and the potential systemic impact this may have on the U.S. financial system. Further, several nonbank financial institutions have made significant changes to the organizational structure of their firms as well as the markets that they participate in, which has further reduced their overall risk to the U.S. financial system. However, the regulatory community has learned from the experience of the financial crisis that it is important to focus on potential regulatory gaps and to deal with vulnerabilities that may build in nonbank financial institutions before the risks become material. In this context, it is important to continue to monitor large nonbank financial firms to ensure that, should they encounter distress, the functioning of the broader economy is not threatened. Finally, the possibility of de-designation provides an incentive for designated firms to significantly reduce their systemic footprint. Q.18. Stock Buybacks. The Fed's 2018 CCAR cycle allowed the 22 largest banks to payout $170 billion in dividends and buybacks, around a quarter more than 2017. Banks subject to the CCAR process are likewise paying out close to 102 percent in buybacks and dividends as a percentage of forecasted earnings. \24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ Larkin, Michael. ``All Banks Clear Stress Test--But This Big Name's Payout Plan at Risk'', Investor's Business Daily. June 21, 2018. Available at: https://www.investors.com/news/stress-test-results- federal-reserve-bank-dividends-buybacks//. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the wake of the Federal Reserve's annual stress testing, Wells Fargo announced plans to buy back up to $24.5 billion in stock, and boost its quarterly dividend. Twenty-eight other firms were also allowed to proceed with additional proposals to boost stock buybacks and dividends. \25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ Bloomberg. ``Wells Fargo Plans $24.5 billion in Stock Buybacks After Passing Fed Stress Test''. Los Angeles Times. June 28, 2018. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-fargo- stock-buyback-20180628-story.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your testimony before the Committee, you noted that investments in training and education were ``the single best thing we can do to have a productive workforce.'' What does research suggest about whether dividends and buybacks raise wages for American workers? Does the Fed have any researching suggesting the impact on economic growth if a larger percentage of bank earnings instead went to raise wages of nonmanagerial and/or frontline bank workers? A.18. Productivity growth is a key determinant of wage growth, and investments in new capital equipment or innovative technologies are important factors for improving productivity growth. Similarly, increased worker compensation can be a factor in encouraging individuals to join or remain in the labor force and to develop new skills, which can further increase productivity and wage growth. However, comparing the economic effects of these uses of a company's earnings to the eventual economic effects of stock buybacks is difficult because we do not know where the gains from buybacks will ultimately turn up. In particular, when a company buys back its shares or pays higher dividends, the resources do not disappear. Rather, they are redistributed to other uses in the economy. For instance, shareholders may decide to invest the windfall in another company, which may in turn make productivity-enhancing investments. Or they may decide to spend the windfall on goods and services that are produced by other companies, who may in turn hire new workers. In these ways, stock repurchases would also be likely to boost economic growth. Ultimately, companies themselves are the best judges of what to do with their profits, whether it is to invest in their business or increase returns to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks. ------ RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR JONES FROM JEROME H. POWELL Q.1. In the Federal Reserve's 2018 Report on the Economic Well- Being of U.S. Households, the report finds that 40 percent of Americans do not have the sources to cover an unexpected $400 expense. While the number of Americans responding in this manner has shrunk since 2013, as noted in the report, it is still an alarmingly high number. The report notes that the most common response among those who could not cover an expense is to place the purchase on a credit card. Are there broader economic implications of such a reliance on potentially high-priced consumer credit? A.1. According to the survey, conducted in the fourth quarter of 2017, 18 percent of U.S. adults report that they would pay a hypothetical $400 emergency expense with a credit card that they then pay off over time. \1\ In the initial survey in 2013, this fraction was 17 percent. The fraction of adults who said they would not be able to meet a $400 expense by any means declined to 12 percent in 2017 from 19 percent in 2013. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ For the survey and report, see the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Household Economics and Decision Making at www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed.htm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Broader implications of such responses are difficult to gauge. The costs of financing such an expense would add financial burden on these households, relative to paying in cash. However, for some households, such credit access may act as a relief valve of sorts, allowing them to meet the emergency or avoiding even costlier forms of credit such as payday loans. Q.2. Does the Federal Reserve have further context on this response--how does the number of Americans unable to cover a $400 expense compare to previous decades, or to other advanced economies? A.2. The Federal Reserve first asked how individuals would handle a $400 unexpected expense in 2013. While we do not have an exact comparison in prior decades or in other countries, the Federal Reserve Board's triennial Survey of Consumer Finances (SCP) reports that the share of households with easily accessible savings remains low and has changed little in recent decades. \2\ Liquid savings, such as cash, checking or saving accounts, are the least costly and easiest assets to use for unexpected expenses. The 2016 SCP reports that nearly half of all families did not have $3,000 in liquid savings, almost the same fraction since 1989 in inflation-adjusted terms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ For more information, see reports and research on the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finance at www.federalreserve.gov/ econres/scfindex.htm. Q.3. Does this inability to cover expenses increase dramatically across certain groups for example, seniors, young --------------------------------------------------------------------------- people, or minorities? A.3. Yes, financial security and the ability to cover expenses, differs across demographic groups. As one example, in 2017, one-quarter of white adults without education beyond a high school degree did not expect to pay their current month's bills in full. Among African Americans and Hispanics with the same education level, that fraction was 41 percent and 35 percent respectively. Financial security is more common with more education, but a gap by race and ethnicity remains. As a second example, only half of young adults (under the age of 30) would use cash or its equivalent to cover an unexpected $400 expense, versus 57 percent of middle-aged adults (ages 30 to 64) and 71 percent of seniors (age 65 and older). Even with such differences by age, race, and education, the economic recovery has improved the finances across many groups. Q.4. I am concerned that for Americans that live paycheck to paycheck, the United States' payment system can, at times, fall short. In particular, I believe there is great need for faster payments, including quicker access to consumer funds after deposit. When consumers do not access to their own funds, they often resort to and rely on high-cost products that are outside of the traditional banking system. The Federal Reserve has acknowledged the need to help foster a faster payments system with its work and creation of the Faster Payments Task Force. What are the next steps and future priorities for the Task Force? A.4. In July 2017, the Faster Payments Task Force (FPTF) concluded its work upon release of its final report. The FPTF's Final Report reflected the task force's perspectives on challenges and opportunities with implementing faster payments in the United States, outlined its recommendations for next steps, and included the proposals and assessments for the 16 participants that opted to be included in the final report. \3\ The FPTF recommendations identified the need for ongoing industry collaboration to address infrastructure gaps; to develop models for governance, rules, and standards; and to consider actions and investments that will contribute to a healthy and sustainable payments ecosystem. A number of recommendations called for Federal Reserve support to facilitate this ongoing collaboration. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ Faster Payments Task Force, ``Final Report Part One: The Faster Payments Task Force Approach'', January 2017, and ``Final Report Part Two: A Call To Action'', July 2017. Available at https:// fasterpaymentstaskforce.org/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following up on the work of the FPTF and other efforts to advance the Federal Reserve's desired outcomes (focused on speed, security, efficiency, international payments, and collaboration) for the payment system, the Federal Reserve published, in September 2017, a paper presenting refreshed strategies and tactics that the Federal Reserve is employing in collaboration with payment system stakeholders. \4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ The desired outcomes are outlined in the Federal Reserve System's ``Strategies for Improving the U.S. Payment System'', January 26, 2015. Available at https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/wp-content/ uploads/strategies-improving-us-payment-system.pdf. The refreshed strategies and tactics are outlined in the Federal Reserve System's ``Strategies for Improving the U.S. Payment System: Federal Reserve Next Steps in the Payments Improvement Journey'', September 6, 2017. Available at https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/wp-content/uploads/ next-step-payments-journey.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Reserve kicked off these refreshed strategies and tactics in the summer of 2017, by facilitating the industry's work to address the FPTF recommendations related to governance, directories, rules, standards, and regulations. In addition, consistent with the FPTF recommendations, the Federal Reserve has been assessing the needs and gaps to enabling 24x7x365 settlement in support of a future ubiquitous real-time retail payments environment. Further, the Federal Reserve has started to explore and assess the need, if any, for any other operational roles to support ubiquitous, real-time retail payments. These efforts are being pursued in alignment with Federal Reserve's longstanding principles and criteria for the provision of payment services. Q.5. As you know, new accounting standards, based on a ``current expected credit loss'' (CECL) model, developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) will go into effect in 2020. While the new accounting standards underwent multiple years of study, the implementation of these standards will result in one of the larger changes to banking accounting in recent memory. The CECL standard is likely to affect bank capital in uncertain and potentially volatile ways, especially as banks begin the transition process to this new accounting standard. Did FASB consult with the Federal Reserve for how these changes might impact bank capital? A.5. The Federal Reserve Board (Board) along with the other U.S. Federal financial institution regulatory agencies have supported the Financial Accounting Standards Board's (FASB) efforts to improve the accounting for credit losses and provide financial statement users with more decision-useful information about the expected credits losses on loans and certain other financial instruments. Throughout the development of the current expected credit loss (CECL), the FASB conducted extensive outreach with a diverse group of stakeholders, including the Federal Reserve System. Stakeholders provided input and feedback through the public comment letters and participation in public forums. The FASB did not specifically consult the Board regarding CECL's impact to bank capital since their mandate is to establish and improve financial accounting and reporting standards to provide decision-useful information to investors and other users of financial reports. In response to CECL, the Board, with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (together, ``the agencies''), recently issued a joint proposal that would address the forthcoming changes. In particular, the proposal would provide firms the option to phase in the day-one regulatory capital effects of CECL over a 3-year period. The agencies intend for this transition provision to address films' challenges in capital planning for CECL implementation, particularly due to the uncertainty of economic conditions at the time a film adopts CECL. The agencies are currently reviewing comments to the proposal in preparation for finalizing it. In addition, the agencies will continue to monitor the effects of CECL implementation on regulatory capital and bank lending practices to help determine whether any further changes to the capital rules are warranted. Q.6. Is the Federal Reserve taking into these rule changes as it continues to implement capital rules created by the Dodd- Frank financial reform law? A.6. The Board is indeed taking into consideration the impact of CECL in connection with the Board's ongoing regulatory and supervisory functions. For example, the agencies, earlier this year issued a joint proposal entitled Implementation and Transition of the Current Expected Credit Losses Methodology for Allowances and Related Adjustments to the Regulatory Capital Rules and Conforming Amendments to Other Regulations. \5\ In the joint proposal, the agencies proposed to amend the regulatory capital rules of the agencies to address changes to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) resulting from the FASB's issuance of CECL. The proposal would provide firms subject to the capital rules with the option to phase in, over a 3-year period, the day-one adverse regulatory capital effects of CECL that may result from the adoption of the new accounting standard. This transition period is intended to address the potential challenges in planning for CECL implementation, including the uncertainty of economic conditions at the time that a firm adopts CECL. In addition, the proposal identifies certain credit loss allowances under the new accounting standard that would be eligible for inclusion in regulatory capital. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ 83 Federal Register 22312 (May 14, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The agencies are currently reviewing comments received from the public on the proposal. The Board will continue to monitor the effects of CECL implementation on firms supervised by the Board and on the U.S. financial system. Q.7. As the CECL requirements go into effect in 2020, the first tests of how they impact bank capital may come during annual CCAR process. Will the Federal Reserve be taking into account these rule changes as it undertakes the 2019 and 2020 CCAR process? A.7. In May 2018, the Board published a joint notice of proposed rulemaking with the OCC and FDIC to address changes to U.S. GAAP associated with CECL, issued by FASB in June 2016. Under the proposal, the Board would not incorporate CECL into the supervisory stress tests, and would not require a firm to incorporate CECL into its stress tests, until the 2020 cycle. If a banking organization were to adopt CECL for the first time in 2021, it would not be required to include provisioning for credit losses under the new standard until the 2021 stress test cycle. This proposal avoids ``pulling forward'' the effect of CECL, by aligning the dates that firms are expected to include CECL in their comprehensive capital analysis and review projections with the actual date of implementation for those firms implementing in 2020 and 2021. In advance of CECL implementation, the Federal Reserve is considering feedback received during outreach discussions with industry representatives, developing approaches for incorporating provision for credit losses in its supervisory models, and preparing for parallel testing of those models. Additional Material Supplied for the Record MONETARY POLICY REPORT TO THE CONGRESS DATED JULY 13, 2018 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BROWN [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]