Invest1 publisher3 min readPublished
The OCC and FDIC now want supervisory criticism aimed at risks with material financial impact, which turns process and control weaknesses into informal observations a board can fund, defer or ignore.
The Investor · Invest desk
Compiled by The InvestorSomething wrong?How this is made
A Matter Requiring Attention is addressed to the board of directors, and a supervisory observation is not, and that distinction in addressee is what drives the transfer [2]. Under the final framework, process, documentation, governance and control weaknesses that fail the materiality test are more likely to be logged the informal way [15], and the weakness still exists; what changes is that follow-up shifts from a supervisor's written directive to a management judgement call. Todd Phillips of the Klaros Group, a former FDIC lawyer, expects banks to use the room this creates, telling American Banker that the rule lets them push back when examiners raise things with no immediate material financial hook [4], and he notes that examiners have traditionally written up both live risks and weaknesses that might grow into something bigger [5].
FDIC Chairman Travis Hill reads his own rule more narrowly than his critics do, saying it neither prevents examiners from proactively identifying issues nor requires them to wait for financial harm to occur [8], and describing the change as part of a broader reform of supervision [16]. Monica Freas, a Skadden partner and former OCC enforcement director, expects examiners to welcome the clarity of the finalised rule and the accompanying PPMs [14]. Both readings can hold at once, because a higher bar produces fewer criticisms that each carry more weight.
The floor Hill describes is qualitative rather than numeric, and as reported the rule attaches no dollar figure or ratio to material financial impact [17], while Freas says the standard flexes with a bank's size and complexity. The discretion has not gone away; it has moved from the question of whether a finding gets written to the question of which balance sheet the finding is measured against, since the same practice can clear the threshold at one institution and fail it at another [19].
Where the evidence stops is the size of the transfer. The reporting carries no count of MRAs issued, no split between MRAs and observations, and no estimate of what banks spend closing either, so the claim that unbudgeted risk work has moved in-house is a direction without a magnitude [20]. What would falsify it is a stable total: if examiners keep writing early findings under the more-than-speculative floor and banks close observations at the rate they closed MRAs, the early-warning function stays with the supervisor and the boards inherit paperwork rather than duty. The counter-reading is that the transfer is real but cheap, because the weaknesses now dropping below the line were the ones absorbing remediation budget without ever threatening the institution, which is roughly the Bank Policy Institute's case for the rule as relief [10].
The number that settles it is observations per MRA, by bank size, before and after, and neither agency has put it on the table.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
The OCC and FDIC's joint final rule would focus supervisory criticism on risks with a "material financial impact" and would define "safety and soundness" in regulation.
The new rules raise thresholds for supervisors to issue Matters Requiring Attention to bank boards of directors and could shift more responsibility for catching emerging risks from examiners to the banks themselves.
Banks may face less formal scrutiny of smaller weaknesses that some fear could grow into larger problems.
Todd Phillips, director at the Klaros Group and a former FDIC lawyer and Georgia State banking law professor, said the rule signals that examiners should not push too hard on things without an immediate material financial hook and allows banks to push back when examiners highlight such things.
Phillips said examiners have traditionally identified both existing risks and weaknesses that could develop into larger problems.
Phillips said the rule "handcuffs the examiners and prevents them from highlighting again things that don't have an obvious hook to material financial conditions."
Publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · September 8, 2026
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
invest
The OCC stages Revolut's charter product by product1 publisher
invest
The FFIEC's CAMELS rewrite rests on a term it never defines1 publisher
invest
Stablecoins may not drain deposits so much as relocate them to the biggest banks1 publisher
invest
23 of 40 New Bank Charter Applications Now Involve Digital Assets, OCC Says4 publishers
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
On the record, single outlet
The substance is quotation: Travis Hill describing what his own rule does, Todd Phillips and Monica Freas reading it from opposite ends, and the Bank Policy Institute's written statement. All of it is named and attributable, which is the strength. Sourcing on the rule's own text amounts to two quoted phrases, and the examiner policy manuals are not part of the record at all; American Banker is the only outlet we have, so the shape of the new standard reaches the reader entirely through people characterising it.
Rule finalized; conduct not yet seen
The rule is finalised and the reclassification of sub-material findings into informal observations is described as the new default, so this is not a proposal. What we know for certain is that the rule is now in force; how examiners are applying the threshold, whether any bank has reported a changed finding, and how MRA counts compare before and after all remain undocumented in our coverage. What exists is a rule in force whose effects are still on paper.
Framing runs mildly ahead
American Banker hedges in the right places — "could shift," "may face" — and Hill's own caveat that examiners need not wait for harm is given room. Our own framing of early-warning work passing to boards presses harder than anything measured. The Bank Policy Institute's promise that the rule lets banks innovate and compete more effectively is the claim in this story with no mechanism behind it.
Interested parties on every side
Hill is defending a rule he pushed for. The Bank Policy Institute lobbies for the institutions being relieved. Freas advises banks at Skadden after running enforcement at the OCC; Phillips reads the same text from an advisory firm after lawyering for the FDIC. Fenergo, a regtech vendor, argues through its regulatory affairs director that banks should keep tracking exactly what examiners stop writing up. Reading the disagreement here means reading where each speaker now sits.
Firm direction, open magnitude
The quotes are on the record and agree on what mechanically changed: the threshold for a formal finding rose, and softer findings move into a category with no deadline. Outside the interviews there is nothing to check against - no rule citation, no docket, no dissent, no number. The scale of this change stays unverified, but we would trust its direction in print.