Anita H -1

To: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) I'm going to be commenting on a rule proposed by the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve System, and the FDIC on either 3/19/2026 or 3/27/2026. The title of the proposed rule is "Regulatory Capital Rule: Category I and II Banking Organizations, Banking Organizations with Significant Trading Activity, and Optional Adoption for Other Banking Organizations.” Document ID: OCC-2026-0265-0001 NOTE: This is a re-submission. I've made a few changes to mqk-7wds-gnh9. mqk-7wds-gnh9 I'm a concerned citizen of the United States of America. I'm writing to argue against the proposed reduction in capital requirements for banking institutions. The FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund currently holds approximately $1.17 for every $100 in insured deposits, which is absurd! It's no were near Sufficient! The fact that three bank failures occurred in 2023 and the FDIC had to borrow $93 billion to cover its obligations seems to me to be a clear indication that this measly amount of protection is woefully inadequate! In addition to this, reserve requirements for banks remain at zero percent since March 2020. This should never have been permitted! And, now there's a plan to reduce the capital cushion that protects depositors! WHAT?! Based on what I've heard and read, permitting banks to hold less capital amounts to moving in the wrong direction. Here are some of the Cons I encountered when I read some of the comments other citizens have submitted: ". . . . the proposal’s estimated reduction in required capital (approximately 3–8% depending on bank size, with up to nearly 7% for smaller banks under the standardized approach) raises serious risks to banking stability and depositor protection." ~ Jason Smith (submitted April 12, posted April 20) "Bank failures, while not daily occurrences, are not as rare as regulators sometimes imply. In 2026 alone, Metropolitan Capital Bank & Trust (Chicago) failed on January 30 with $261 million in assets, costing the Deposit Insurance Fund an estimated $19.7 million. This followed failures in 2025 and the more significant 2023 regional bank collapses (SVB, Signature, and First Republic). These events remind us that even “orderly” resolutions carry costs and potential for broader stress." ~ ditto Lowering capital buffers means banks would hold a thinner cushion against losses from loans, interest rate changes, commercial real estate exposure, or sudden deposit outflows. This directly increases the chance — even if incremental — of more frequent or more severe bank stresses in the future." ~ ditto A material reduction in loss absorbing capital could increase the likelihood of big bank failures, taxpayer bailouts, and economic disruption at a precarious moment for the U.S. economy. Consumer sentiment is at all-time lows, private credit markets are showing signs of distress, and President Trump's dangerous war with Iran has triggered a global energy shock that drastically increased the price of oil. American families are increasingly feeling the pain of President Trump's failed economic agenda. The last thing our economy needs are disruptive and costly bank failures that cut off credit to businesses and households. ~ Members of the US Senate (submitted & posted on June 15, 2026) Allowing major financial institutions to hold fewer capital reserves introduces massive, unnecessary systemic risk into our economy. These reduced requirements directly threaten the stability of the banking system and expose the financial assets of average Americans—including checking accounts, retirement funds, and home equity—to severe vulnerabilities. ~ Ben Fisher (submitted April 1, 2026) The safety of our financial system should never be compromised to increase leverage and profitability for {ANY} banks. ~ ditto Again, from what I've read and heard, I'm convinced reducing capital requirements for banks is a bad idea. So, I want to join with those who are urging the agencies to do right by the millions of Americans, who comprise this nation, by strengthening current capital requirements rather than weakening them. Americans (who simply want a fair chance to enjoy living their lives) don't need any banks - - - big or small or in between - - - putting their money at further risk! So, along with Ben Fisher, "I urge you to prioritize the security of everyday depositors over banking interests and reverse the decision to lower these critical capital requirements." Sincerely, Anita H. (Georgia resident)