1 See Memorandum to the Board of Governors No. 17-99, Federal Legislation Members No. 7-99, Primary Contacts -
Member Complex No. 27-99, and Public Information Comittee No. 8-99, dated March 18, 1999.
2 See Memorandum to the Board of Governors No. 8-99, Federal Legislation Members No. 5-99, Primary Contacts -
Member Complex No. 16-99, and Public Information Comittee No. 4-99, dated February 18, 1999.
3 See Memorandum to the Board of Governors No. 5-99, Federal Legislation Members No. 3-99, Primary Contacts -
Member Complex No. 7-99, and Public Information Comittee No. 2-99, dated February 2, 1999.
[10840]
March 30, 1999
TO: BOARD OF GOVERNORS No. 22-99
FEDERAL LEGISLATION MEMBERS No. 9-99
PRIMARY CONTACTS - MEMBER COMPLEX No. 33-99
PUBLIC INFORMATION COMMITTEE No. 11-99
RE: HOUSE BANKING COMMITTEE VOTES TO MODERNIZE BANKING LAWS,
APPROVES H.R. 10 - FINANCIAL SERVICES REFORM LEGISLATION
_________________________________________________________________
____________
The House Banking and Financial Services Committee recently
approved H.R. 10, the "Financial Services Act of 1999," by a vote
of 51-8. The House committee action came just one week after the
Senate Banking Committee approved a similar financial
modernization bill.1 H.R. 10 now proceeds to the House Commerce
Committee, which shares jurisdiction over the measure. The
Commerce Committee has been granted a 45-day review period, and
must act on the bill by May 14. The committee has indicated it
will hold hearings on the bill during April and Mike Oxley (R-
OH), Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials, has said a subcommittee vote on H.R. 10 is
scheduled for the week of May 10.
H.R. 10 would modernize the nation’s financial services
regulatory structure by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act’s
provisions that restrict bank and securities firm affiliations
within a bank holding company system. It also allows companies
to engage in any financial activities, including mutual fund and
insurance agency and underwriting activities. The Institute
testified before the House Banking Committee in support of H.R.
10 in early February.2
The bill approved by the full committee is similar to H.R.
10 as introduced,3 with regard to provisions that would affect
the investment company industry. However, the committee approved
some important changes, which are summarized below.
Holding Company Regulation
Under H.R. 10, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) would be
designated the "umbrella" regulator of both bank holding
companies (BHCs) and the new financial services holding companies
(FSHCs). The authority of the FRB when exercising its general
supervisory authority to regulate, examine or take enforcement
action against regulated, non-bank subsidiaries of the holding
companyCsuch as investment advisers, broker/dealers and
insurance companiesCis carefully prescribed. Exceptions exist
for certain safety and soundness, payment system, and deposit
insurance concerns.
The House Banking Committee approved an important change to
the original bill that places the same general supervisory
limitations that apply to the FRB and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, on to the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Community Reinvestment Act
The bill contains no provisions to extend the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) to investment companies or other non-bank
entities. However, the Banking Committee did approve an
amendment that would require the FRB in the future to report to
Congress on the impact that financial modernization efforts have
had on the operation and efficacy of the CRA.
The CRA provisions of H.R. 10 differ significantly from
those in the Senate Banking Committee bill and have received
bipartisan endorsement. Because of the perceived CRA issues in
the Senate version of the bill, the Administration has issued a
warning that it would veto the legislation unless these issues
are resolved.
Commercial Affiliations
H.R. 10 would still not directly allow financial services holding
companies to engage in commercial activities. However, the committee
approved an amendment that would expand the definition of the term
"financial in nature," to include a small amount of "complementary"
activities. This will enhance the FRB's flexibility in defining what
constitutes permissible activities, which may protect some existing
commercial activities of companies that become FSHCs.
Unitary Savings And Loan Holding Companies
The committee approved two changes to the provisions regulating
unitary savings and loan holding companies (USLHC). H.R. 10 would
freeze the number of unitary thrift charters to those existing or
under application as of March 4, 1999. Also, the committee approved
an amendment that permits the sale of USLHCs to any company whether
commercial or financial.
Financial Privacy Requirements
H.R. 10 as approved by the House Banking Committee includes
several new provisions regarding financial privacy. The first would
require financial holding company depository institutions to clearly
disclose to their customers the holding company’s policy concerning
disclosure of customers’ information to third parties for marketing
purposes. Financial holding companies would also be required to
disclose to their customers that they have the right to not have their
information shared among affiliates.
In addition, the bill now incorporates H.R. 30, the "Financial
Information Privacy Act," which would prohibit identity theft by
making it a federal crime for any company or individual to
fraudulently obtain personal financial information. The bill also
includes a provision requiring a study of how well current privacy
laws protect the privacy rights of customers of insured depository
institutions.
* * * * *
In the Senate, Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) recently
announced that financial modernization legislation is a high priority
for this Congress and that he plans to begin full Senate action on the
issue during the week of either May 3 or May 10.
We will keep you informed of further developments.
Matthew P. Fink
President
Latest Comment Letters:
TEST - ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Comment Letter Opposing Sales Tax on Additional Services in Maryland
ICI Response to the European Commission on the Savings and Investments Union