> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.theglobalbanker.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# US Banking Agencies Close Comment Period on Basel III Endgame Capital Rule as Industry Pushback Mounts
- URL: https://www.theglobalbanker.com/us-banking-agencies-close-comment-period-basel-iii-endgame-capital-rule-industry-pushback/
- Published: 2024-01-16T17:11:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-02T12:47:05.000Z
- Description: The Federal Reserve, OCC and FDIC closed the public comment period on proposed Basel III capital rules that could raise CET1 requirements for the largest banks by an estimated 19%.
- Author: TGB Editorial Team
- Tags: Regulations, Americas, #archive

The Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation closed the public comment period on their joint Basel III endgame capital proposal on 16 January 2024, having received hundreds of submissions from banks, trade associations and advocacy organisations. The proposed rule, first published in July 2023, would increase aggregate common equity tier one requirements for the largest US banks — Category I and II firms, chiefly the global systemically important banks — by an estimated 19%. 

Major US banks and industry groups have argued publicly that the proposal is too conservative relative to international peers and would constrain lending capacity, particularly for corporate credit and mortgage finance. Advocacy organisations have taken the opposite view, arguing that higher capital buffers are needed to protect the financial system and taxpayers from future shocks.

#### ADVOCACY GROUPS PUSH FOR STRONGER RULES

Better Markets, the financial reform advocacy group, submitted a formal comment letter ahead of the deadline calling on the agencies to maintain or strengthen the proposed capital requirements. The organisation argued in its submission that higher capital ratios represent a legitimate and necessary safeguard, and pushed back against what it characterised as a sustained lobbying campaign by the banking industry to dilute the proposal before finalisation. Better Markets used its letter to urge regulators not to accommodate arguments that it considered economically overstated and self-serving.

Regulators are required under the Administrative Procedure Act to consider each substantive comment received. The agencies have offered no firm public timeline for completing the review or publishing a final rule.

#### G-SIB REQUIREMENTS

Affected institutions — a group that includes the eight banks carrying the G-SIB designation — have argued that the methodology underpinning the increase is flawed, citing concerns about the treatment of operational risk, the proposed standardised approach for credit risk and the calibration of the trading book component relative to what their European and Asian peers are expected to implement under broadly equivalent frameworks.

The three agencies have emphasised that the proposal is designed to bring the United States into closer alignment with the Basel III standards agreed internationally through the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.