Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
...
To truly fix debanking, Congress has to propose structural changes to America's anti–money laundering (AML) framework. These regulations can be weaponized given their lack of objectivity, transparency, and due process. Congress should also reform the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which allows the collection and sharing (even to foreign competitors) of virtually all the financial and private information of Americans without their knowledge or consent.
...
...
Today, I'd like to address the Federal Reserve's approach to thinking about technology and tools like blockchain in context of bank supervision, including recent developments, the cost of supervisory focus on "reputational risk," and principles for a tailored regulatory framework that accommodates technology.
Reframing the Regulatory Mindset
Bank regulators work to promote safety and soundness in the financial system through regulation and supervisory practices. Our goal is not just a safe and sound banking system, but one that also serves its intended purpose of supporting consumers, businesses, and communities, and fostering economic growth. To accomplish this goal, regulators strive to strike a balance between managing risks that threaten safety and soundness, while also creating an environment that allows new technologies to take root and grow.
Innovation outside the banking system often complements the development and use of technology within the banking system, and often far outpaces that growth. As you're all aware, many groundbreaking tech innovations have been pioneered by developers outside of the traditional banking system.
...
In late June, the Board announced that reputational risk would no longer be considered in our supervisory process.4 To implement this lasting change, we are updating guidance, examination manuals, handbooks, and other supervisory materials to ensure the durability of this approach, which is a critical step in addressing the problem of de-banking. I am also considering whether we need a regulatory change to provide greater transparency and certainty about this approach. It is not the role of examiners or policymakers to direct which customers or industries to serve or which products to offer. That decision lies solely within the purview of bank management, limited by the safety and soundness of the institution,, the legal activities of its customer, and risks, if any, to financial stability.
Over time, "reputational risk" emerged as a priority area that policymakers emphasized for examinations. Exams or reviews focused on reputational risk have often lacked a sufficient nexus to financial risk and safety and soundness considerations that are the appropriate focus of our supervisory activities.
Let me be clear. We must adopt an approach that does not penalize or prohibit a bank from banking a customer engaged in legal activity. This approach must allow and encourage banks to provide banking products and services to any legal business, without disfavoring any particular viewpoints, businesses, or industries.
...
How about, never.When's P Diddly gonna be unbanked?
There's a lot of things that we used to agree, is "wrong." Sexually grooming kids is wrong. More wrong when it's done by the schools - Drag-Queen Story Hour, unisex locker rooms, etc.Republican and Democratic leaders agree: Closing the bank accounts of Americans for no apparent reason is wrong.
Opinion piece, take it fwiw and dyodd.
A Chinese-style social credit system is coming to America
The ease with which personal banking is conducted in the modern West would surely cause some envy to our mattress-stuffing ancestors. Cashpoint machines abound, plastic is easy to carry, and, most comforting, one’s money is backed by the full faith and credit of the government. Importantly, unless one fundamentally transgresses the legal order, we can be sure our capital is always at a moment’s access.
Put another way, except in cases usually pertaining to national security, banks are rather indifferent to a client’s private life. The good, the bad, and the ugly are all welcome provided they have the right decimal count. And so, it pains me to report that in America, a peculiar phenomenon dubbed “de-banking” is beginning to occur with increasing visibility.
“De-banking” (or “de-risking”) is what it sounds like. A bank will, for legal, liability, or reputational risk, terminate – with notice – an individual account. Normally, this does not grab our attention. Criminal organizations and terrorists, we all agree, should be frozen out. And, of course, banks may choose with whom to conduct business.
More:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?