Overview
Title
To require the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to take risk profiles and business models of institutions into account when taking regulatory actions, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
In 2025, the TAILOR Act asks rules for banks to fit each bank's way of doing business, so they don't have to follow rules that don't make sense for them. This means big banks and small banks might have different rules, to make everything fairer and not too hard for anyone.
Summary AI
S. 427, also known as the "Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2025" or the "TAILOR Act of 2025," requires Federal financial regulatory agencies to consider the risk profiles and business models of institutions when taking regulatory actions. The bill mandates that regulations be tailored to minimize unnecessary burdens on institutions, taking into account their specific characteristics. It also requires regular reports to Congress on efforts to tailor regulations and includes provisions for short-form reporting for certain banks, as well as a report on the modernization of banking supervision. The goal is to ensure regulations are effective while remaining flexible to meet the unique needs and lower risk of some financial institutions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, introduced in the United States Senate as the Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2025, or the TAILOR Act of 2025, is designed to adjust the way federal financial regulatory agencies develop and implement regulations for financial institutions. The primary goal of this bill is to ensure that these agencies consider the unique risk profiles and business models of different financial institutions when creating regulations. The intention is to minimize the regulatory burdens placed on institutions, aligning them more closely with each institution's specific operational characteristics. Additionally, the bill mandates periodic reporting, calls for simplified regulatory reporting for certain community banks, and requires a modernization report on bank supervision practices.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several significant issues have been identified within the bill's text. One major issue is the complexity that may arise from the requirement for regulatory agencies to tailor their actions based on the risk profiles and business models of financial institutions. This stipulation could result in inconsistent regulatory applications and may challenge the agencies' capabilities, leading to potential financial and political implications.
Additionally, the bill's exclusion of individual regulatory actions from the definition of "regulatory action" could create accountability gaps and transparency issues. The possibility of overlooking some regulatory agencies due to the way they are defined might also present gaps in regulatory oversight.
Further complexities arise due to the frequent reporting requirements imposed on agencies, which could lead to inefficiencies and resource allocation challenges. Moreover, the mandate for a retrospective review of regulations issued up to seven years prior may strain agency resources without offering clear benefits.
Impact on the Public
The bill's requirement for tailored regulations could benefit the public by fostering a more efficient and responsive banking sector that can adapt more flexibly to local and customer needs. It could lead to more targeted regulations that impose fewer unnecessary burdens on financial institutions, potentially lowering costs and improving service delivery.
However, the complexities involved in implementing tailored regulations could result in inconsistent regulatory oversight, which might cause confusion and reduce public trust in the financial regulatory system. The administrative burdens and increased resource demands on regulatory agencies might divert attention from addressing current and future financial stability concerns, potentially affecting consumers negatively if not managed well.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Financial Institutions: The primary stakeholders, financial institutions stand to benefit from reduced regulatory burdens if the tailoring of regulations is successfully implemented. Smaller institutions with lower-risk profiles might especially benefit from more lenient reporting requirements and reduced compliance costs.
Regulatory Agencies: These bodies may face significant challenges under the bill due to the increased complexity of implementing tailored regulations and meeting frequent reporting requirements. Agencies might also struggle with resource allocation due to the retrospective review of past regulations, potentially affecting their operational effectiveness.
Community Banks: These institutions may experience a positive impact from the bill, with the specific provisions for reduced reporting requirements easing their regulatory burden. However, this could raise concerns about equity if such benefits are not extended to other banking entities not eligible for the Community Bank Leverage Ratio.
Congress and Policymakers: The bill mandates ongoing reporting to Congress, ensuring that policymakers remain informed about the implementation and impact of the tailoring approach. This increased oversight could enhance accountability, but it might also lead to increased administrative expenses and burden without necessarily improving regulatory outcomes.
In conclusion, while the TAILOR Act of 2025 aims to modernize and streamline financial regulations in consideration of risk profiles, its implementation would need careful management to balance benefits against potential challenges and ensure that its objectives are met without unintended negative consequences.
Issues
The requirement for Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to tailor regulatory actions based on risk profiles and business models in Section 2 may introduce significant complexity and challenges in implementation, leading to potential inconsistencies in regulatory applications across different institutions, which could have financial and political implications.
The definition of 'Federal financial institutions regulatory agency' in Section 2 might exclude other relevant agencies not listed, creating potential gaps in regulatory oversight and ethical concerns over comprehensive regulation.
The exclusion of individual regulatory actions from the definition of 'regulatory action' in Section 2 could lead to potential loopholes in accountability, raising issues of legal and ethical transparency.
Section 1's title, 'Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2025,' and the acronym 'TAILOR Act of 2025' may cause confusion due to a lack of specific context about the institutions it refers to, potentially causing political and communication issues.
The broad and potentially overlapping factors outlined in Section 2 for tailoring regulations could lead to ambiguity and complications in practical application, causing political and legal challenges.
The requirement in Section 2 for agencies to disclose tailoring considerations in notices of proposed and final rulemaking may result in extensive administrative burdens, raising concerns about governmental efficiency and financial strain.
The mandate in Section 2 for annual reports to Congress on tailored regulatory actions might be perceived as unnecessarily frequent and lead to inefficiencies, which could provoke political and financial concerns.
The 'limited look-back application' in Section 2, requiring examination of regulations from up to 7 years prior, could lead to significant resource expenditure with unclear benefits, posing financial and political questions about resource allocation.
The lack of specification on what constitutes 'reduced reporting requirements' in Section 3 could create ambiguity and potential legal challenges, influencing the financial sector.
Section 3 may implicitly favor banks eligible for the Community Bank Leverage Ratio, potentially raising ethical and financial concerns about equity among banking institutions.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the Act states its official and short title, which is the "Taking Account of Institutions with Low Operation Risk Act of 2025" or simply the "TAILOR Act of 2025."
2. Tailoring regulation to business model and risk Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, Congress outlines requirements for federal financial regulatory agencies to consider the risk and business models of different financial institutions when creating regulations. The aim is to ensure that rules are appropriately tailored to minimize unnecessary burdens, and it requires regular reports to be submitted to Congress on how these goals are being met.
3. Short-form call reports for all banks eligible for the community bank leverage ratio Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill requires federal banking agencies to create rules for simplified reporting requirements for small banks that qualify under the Community Bank Leverage Ratio. This simplification applies when these banks submit their first and third condition reports each year.
4. Report to Congress on modernization of supervision Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Federal banking agencies will deliver a report to Congress within 18 months of this Act's passage, detailing how to update bank supervision. The report will discuss various issues, such as evolving bank business models, examiner training, communication improvements, and the use of technology in supervision, with special attention to community banks and any necessary legal changes.