美国消费者金融保护局（CFPB)监督、执法和公平借贷部副主任 Steven L. Antonakes先生答：这是一个很好的问题。一直以来，美国消费者金融保护局都全力构建并维系与其他银行业监管机构之间良好、稳固的工作关系。十分幸运的是，美国货币监理署（OCC）现在的负责人是我过去的老板，我们二者间已经建立了良好的工作关系。
美国银行家协会（ABA）总裁 Frank Kneating先生答：美联储现在已经启动了量化宽松政策（QE）的退出进程。问题的关键在于经济形势能否给予其充足的时间使其按计划逐步缓慢退出QE。美联储认为他们能够通过每月削减100亿美金的QE规模以逐步退出QE（本月QE规模是450亿美元，6月份将减至350亿美元，7月份将进一步减至250亿美元，之后按此规模逐月递减）。然而经济形势能否给予美联储足够的时间完成退出计划将是一个问题。市场对于利率的推动超出了美联储对利率的管控。美联储正在试图管控长期利率，在此之前它从未成功过，此次它能否取得成功将会是一个问题。
美国货币监理署（OCC)副总检察官及国立银行首席检察官 John C. Lyons Jr.先生答：美国的“双轨制银行体制”已有150余年的历史，我们认为这种体系有助于创新。我们拥有7000多家银行，如此庞大的数量不仅利于创新，还提供了广阔的信贷市场。从监管角度，这对于联邦银行监管机构监管下的银行以及控股公司（即大型国民银行和银行控股公司）也是有益处的，因为监管机构需要权衡两套观点和意见。美国还成立了联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）负责接管倒闭银行或储蓄机构。我认为在美国这种银行体系下，多个监管机构需要综合考虑、讨论多样化的观点并最终达成一套标准。
问：1）“不良资产救助计划”是否盈利？2）通过“不良资产救助计划”，一些大型的金融机构得到了政府的救助资金，也经历了所谓的“国有化”。现在是什么情况？这些机构是否已经偿还了救助资金并完成了“去国有化”呢？ 3） 鉴于“不良资产救助计划”是一个临时性的项目，那么当它的使命完成之后会有什么安排呢？
Q&A Session of 38th IBFed Board Meeting
I. the relationship between Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) and Banking Regulation Authorities
Question:As an independent agency after crisis, what’s the relationship between Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) and Banking Regulation Authority? If there are some conflicts between CFPB’s target and Regulation Authority’s target, how do you work out conflicts?
Answered by Steven L. Antonakes, Deputy Director, and Associate Director for Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection（CFPB): It’s a great question and it’s the question we need to answer all the time. Building and maintaining a strong working relationship with other Banking Regulation Authority is something what we strive to do. Fortunately for me, at this moment time, the gentleman in charge of Office of Comptroller of Currency (OCC) is my former boss. So we have a strong working relationship between each other for many years. However, I’ll mention a couple of things. I have experienced 2 different banking crises in my career. The first crisis is in early 90s and the other is more recent crisis. A lesson for me in both of those is that it’s hard and unsustainable to both make money and not treat your customers well.Generally speaking, in my experience some management teams and some managing directors are generally quite good in both in terms of financial strength of organization and ensuring a lasting and appropriate customer relationship as well.
Besides, we work with financial regulators regularly. We share examination procedures, share training resources and we actually require when we do our exams not only to coordinate with those regulators but we actually train our examiners to review one or another. So we conduct exams, taking Citi bank for example, we provide exam report to bank regulators for their review and comment and likewise they provide their report to us.
The last point is we go to some financial institutions with significant financial challenges and misunderstanding the value of customer protection to learn how their working groups do the consumer protection work. There are opportunities for both to know what each other do and work out conflicts. I’d like to say like any relationship, the relationship between us will get better over time and gets better if you have strong communication. "
II. Expectation on US’s QE policy
Question:What’s your expectation on US’s QE policy? Will it get out this year? If so, what’s the impact on your banking sector?
Answered by Frank Kneating， President&CEO, American Bankers Association(ABA): Right now, it seems that the Fed is already starting to fade it out. The question is whether the economy will give them as much time as they want. They think they can do it by cutting down 10 billion dollars of QE every month ($45 billion right now, $35 billion next month, $25 billion, and so forth). The question is whether the economy could allow as much as time for the Fed to slowly get out QE? The market will drive the interest rate faster than the Fed could control. The Feds is trying to do something that it’s never successfully done in the past, which is controlling long-term interest rate. The question is whether they are able to do it.
This morning, there was one article reported by CNBC online (one of our business TV channels) that said the business fear is that once the QE is completed, there will be a major market correction. That frightens everybody. The Federal Reserve is a political body. A lot of articles like that may say maybe we are out of QE. But who knows?
Janet Yellen appears to be, at least through our meeting with her, very much like Mr. Ben Bernanke. This is important for us to do this. We’ll watch the TV to see whether we should cut down another 10 billion a month, 5, or whatever. But there is a very noisy and inappropriate group in US saying that what you are doing is killing senior citizens. The elders can’t afford to live. They are selling their home and assets. The Feds doesn’t want this and the political class does neither because senior citizen vote. They are very angry about zero interest."
III. the US’S multiple regulatory authorities
Question:Compared with other countries with single or higly centralized banking regulation authority such as UK, other European Countries and also China, what advantages and disadvantages do you think your country’s “multiple regulatory authorities” have?
Answered by John C. Lyons Jr., Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief National Bank Examiner, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency(OCC): "*US has a dual banking system for 150 years and we think what it does is to fertilize innovation.We have more than 7000 banks and we think the large number of banks stimulates not only innovation but provides great access to credit and great access to debts. From the regulatory standpoint, there are benefits for federal regulated banks and all holding companies, i.e. all large national banks and banks holding companies because there are 2 sets of eyes and opinions that supervising institutions need to reconcile. We get FDIC in large banks’ resolution authority. I think it’s the diversity of opinion that multiple regulators bring to table and agree on one set of standards.
I think it’s important in US, for vey much pinciple-based approach supervision which is Basel will a little bit be changed because we are coming into a fix standard for liquidity ratio. We never get liquidity ratio before. It’s new.We have capital ratio but it has always been very low. Supervisors decided how much it needs to be. So there is judgement allowed. I think when judgement is allowed, you are better off with multiple opinions than you are just with single opinion.So it gets diversity defending and innovation opportunity.
The downside is that because we give so much felxibility to judgement, people will make mistakes. It’s especially difficult during the crisis when the monetary policy is very aggressive.
IV. Deposit Insurance System
Question:In China, the deposit insurance arrangement is just under way. There are two concerns about this. One is that state credit will disappear if the deposit insurance arrangement starts. I mean behind China banking system, national/ state credit protects our banking system. So many counterparts worry that once the deposit insurance system starts, perhaps the national/state credit will disappear. Another concern is that some small and medium banking institutions (SMBs) worry that if deposit insurance system starts, their deposit will move out. For example, deposits of RMB 500, 000 or below will be insured while deposits of above RMB 500,000 will move out. So Many SMBs are vey worried that their deposit will move away. I wonder whether the same concerns also exist in US’s deposit insurance history? And another relative question is whether the deposit insurance arrangement could only resolve SMBs but could not resolve “too big to fail”? Any advice for China?
Answered by Martin Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): As you may know, we have a long and good relationship with People’s Bank of China (PBoC). They’ve studied in FDIC extensively for a number of years. They understand our organization a thousand times better than we know about ourself. In last October, we’ve paid a visit to PBOC and we have a discussion with Mr. Zhou, Mr. Liu and a number of staff of PBoC in terms of Deposit Insurance System, financial service, financial stability and other topics in China.
I think to set up and manage Deposit Insurance System as well as related some regulation matters are very challenging. I think as part of China’s efforts, more market space could be moved for banking system in China. And my understanding is that de-control of interest rates could release some concerns of smaller institutions about loss of deposits. Putting in place a positive deposit insurance system must take depositors’ expectations and reactions into full consideration. Deposit Insurance System should provide absolute guarantees for depositors in banking system and must get depositors’ support.
Deposit Insurance System will be a very significant element in terms of China’s financial reform, which is a great challenge for China to take. We really welcome the opportunities of exchanges and communications. We think it’s very meaningful given the importance of China’s financial system and the role it plays. And FDIC hopes to be helpful by ongoing engagements with China. As part of that visit, FDIC has signed pages of MOU with PBOC in terms of not only deposit insurance but also cross-border resolution, etc. So we have built a long-standing relationship with China. I believe the establishment of deposit insurance system in China will be very significant.
V. the Troubled Asset Relief Programs (TRAP)
Question:1)Does your program (TRAP) make profits or not?2) Through your program, some significant financial institutions experience nationalization of ownership? How about current situation? Has the de-nationalization is already finished?3) SinceTRAP is a temporary program, what’s the futute of TRAP after the mission is finished?
Answered by Christy Romero, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Programs (TRAP): No profits. There is a loss of estimated 40 billion dollars right now. It was not done for profits while it’s done for rescue. Maybe there is a profit for certain institutions. But it’s not really profits.You invest and then get paid dividends and interests. But dividents and interests are not profits. It’s payment for taking on risks.
Particularly when the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and Feds Chairman Mr. Ben Bernanke invested, they did not want nationalization. These institutions invest by taking back preferred stock as opposed to common stock. But then they started taking common stock like in General Motors (GM) and GM’s Finance Company. General Motors just got out. AIG is buying back common stocks. GM’s finance firm is still in TRAP.
At this point, it looks like this program will go out until the end of Dec 2021 at least. There are still 140 banks and also some housing support programs because the Congress said you can’t just bail out the banks.So those programs will go out until Dec 2021 at the minimum, probably 2022.
VI. Internet Finance
Question:In China, discussion about the topic of Internet Finance is very hot but it’s not so much in USA or other countries. I even couldn’t find the specific definition for Internet Finance in English literature. I wonder as the President and CEO of Institute of International Finance, what’s your opinion on so hot internet finance in China but not so much in other western world?
Answered by Timothy Adams, President and CEO, Institute of International Finance(IIF): All of above it, it’s a real wake of call for me. They are deposits taking institutions. In Beijing, governor Zhou of PBOC said that CBRC need give banking licence. But in fact the real innovation is going on here. In fact we may see the most innovation coming out of China is from Internet Banking, whatever it is a bank or not a bank or how you restrict it. I certainly hear from ICBC, ABC and others who see it as a competitive threat.In fact some people told me that they knew PBOC and others, they want it to be a competitive threat at least for Big 4 institutions to try to provide funding and financing to sectors to which they think they banks necessarily need to serve.