Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well that's precisely what we were doing until 2018 when lobbyists and the Trump Administration carved out exceptions for banks with less than (or equal to) $250 Billion in assets (see link above). So a more pertinent question from my perspective is: "Who's brilliant idea was this anyway? /s"

But if "the answer" you are referring to is to prevent consolidation in banking, then I think it's not quite as cut-and-dry. Regulation, especially risk-management regulations, can act as barriers to entry and create an environment that favors larger/established institutions leading to market consolidation. As an over simplification by a layman, it could look something like:

    - Higher regulation constrains profitability and raises fixed costs of running a bank (compliance burden).
    - This means that the amount of assets under control by a bank has to be higher in order for the bank to be profitable.
    - This higher floor reduces the likelihood new banks start (since the asset requirements to be profitable are higher).
    - Existing banks, in an effort to increase profits, acquire and merge with other banks.
These final two trends (less banks starting, more MnA's) are what could drive market consolidation. In a lot of ways Airlines are an example of this in a different industry.

I am definitely _not_ suggesting small banks should be exempted from Dodd-Frank like they were. I actually found the 2018 deregulation disturbing and disappointing. I am only trying to illustrate that even if 2018 hadn't happened, I don't know for sure if there would be more competition in the banking industry. (Only that the banks we do have would be less risky)



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: