The industry has eagerly awaited revisions to the Volcker Rule, but so far regulators' proposal to simplify the compliance process is getting panned both by critics of the proprietary trading ban and by its most ardent supporters.
Bankers and industry representatives argue in comments letters that a set of changes unveiled in May by five federal agencies may do more harm than good, particularly a new proposed definition of prohibited trades that they say could eliminate positions not intended to be part of the ban.
The focus of industry criticism is a proposed alternative to how regulators identify short-term trades banned by the rule. Under the current regulation, positions held for less than 60 days are presumed to be part of a bank's "trading account" and are therefore prohibited. Yet banks can attempt to rebut that determination.
Yet on the other side, investor and consumer advocates—who had hailed the ban, first proposed by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker, when it was added to the Dodd-Frank Act—as well as some Democratic lawmakers see the effort to ease banks' compliance burden as a capitulation.
Read more in American Banker.