Wall Street Industry Groups are seeking to lower safeguards critical for the safety of the banking system and the American economy.

getty

Wrapped in the technical language of Basel III capital reform, the Bank Policy Institute, American Bankers Association, Financial Services Forum, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Consumer Bankers Association have jointly asked federal regulators to cut the capital requirements that backstop the American banking system. Their request is large, the justifications are suspect, and the people who would bear the consequences—depositors and taxpayers—are nowhere in the room.

The industry's comment letter, filed June 18, 2026, targets three pillars of the proposed Basel III market risk rule. First, it wants operational risk-capital slashed by capping the Business Indicator coefficient at a flat 12 percent, rather than the tiered 12/15/18 percent structure regulators proposed. The banks' own data concede this would strip $272 billion from operational risk risk-weighted assets—roughly $27 billion less capital to absorb conduct failures, cyber breaches, and rogue-trading disasters. Second, the letter argues that the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book and the Federal Reserve's Global Market Shock stress test double-count tail risks, producing capital exceeding "actual economic exposure." Third, it seeks looser credit risk definitions, lower risk weights on mortgage servicing assets, and an implementation deadline no earlier than January 2028.

Each of these claims has a flaw. Together, they point in one direction: less capital, across every risk category, at the institutions whose failure would impose the largest costs on the rest of us.

Start with operational risk. The industry's benchmark is 2008, when operational losses equaled 15.5 percent of revenues compared to a proposed combined capital charge of 20.9 percent. But the industry's own footnote acknowledges that the database it used books litigation settlements by event date—meaning years of post-crisis legal costs from 2009 through 2014 all get stamped "2008." The actual peak-year cash impact was far lower, undermining the benchmark. More telling: U.S. globally systemically important bank legal settlements totaled over $321 billion between 2010 and 2023, according to the Government Accountability Office. Operational risk has not gone away. The industry is asking regulators to pretend it has.

The market risk argument is even bolder. Banks want credit for having moved beyond the Value at Risk models that failed so spectacularly in 2008, when trading-book losses at major institutions exceeded 99th-percentile VaR estimates by factors of three to ten, according to the Basel Committee's own post-crisis review. The FRTB standardized framework was created precisely because those internal models could not be trusted. Now the industry argues the standardized measure overstates risk. That argument must overcome a documented catastrophic failure. It has not done so.

The industry's impact numbers deserve even more scrutiny. The quantitative impact study underlying the letter was conducted by the eight largest U.S. Category I banks—the firms with the strongest financial interest in producing high estimates of regulatory burden. Regulators should commission an independent validation using their own supervisory data before treating these figures as the basis for binding calibration decisions.

Then there is the question of whose money is actually on the line. The FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund held $125.3 billion at the end of 2025. In a systemic crisis, Congressional appropriation—taxpayer money—backstops that fund. Every dollar of capital reduction at a large bank increases, at the margin, the probability that a stress event depletes the DIF and reaches the public balance sheet. As former FDIC Chair Sheila Bair has written, capital is the single most important safeguard against bank failure; when banks run short, the losses land on depositors and taxpayers.

History offers a third data point beyond 2008 that the industry letter conspicuously underweights. The March 2020 Treasury market dysfunction required $1.6 trillion in Federal Reserve emergency asset purchases. That crisis did not originate in bank capital inadequacy—it came from leveraged nonbank strategies in the hedge-fund sector. Banks were better capitalized in 2020 than at any point since the 1990s, and that capital provided the buffer that prevented the disruption from cascading into a full banking crisis. The lesson is precisely the opposite of what the industry implies.

Context also matters. Since 2022, regulators have already substantially scaled back the original Basel Endgame capital proposals, revised stress-testing transparency rules, reduced Supplementary Leverage Ratio requirements, and proposed removing Treasuries from SLR calculations. The current letter seeks further concessions on top of an already-relieved framework. At some point, iterative accommodation becomes cumulative erosion of the post-2008 firewall.

Some of the industry's technical points are legitimate. The overlap between the Stress Capital Buffer and risk-weighted asset frameworks is a real design tension. A January 2028 implementation date for an accord finalized in 2010 is not unreasonable. And the agencies should examine whether some regulatory overlaps create genuinely redundant charges.

But none of that changes the fundamental arithmetic. The aggregate direction of the industry's recommendations—lower operational risk coefficients, reduced market and CVA risk charges, narrower commitment definitions, lower mortgage servicing asset risk weights, constrained stress scenarios—points uniformly toward less capital. Less capital means a thinner cushion when the next tail event arrives. And tail events, as 2008, 2020, and the 2023 regional bank failures all demonstrated, are routinely underestimated by the very institutions being asked to assess their own risk.

The burden of proof for further capital relief lies squarely with the banking industry. That burden has not been met. Bank regulators owe it to depositors, taxpayers, and the broader economy to hold that line.