The most extensive disclosure plan proposed by any federal bank
regulator has drawn sharp criticism from Laura N. Pringle, vice
president and general counsel of the Oklahoma Bankers Association.
The regulation, proposed in October 1985 by then-Comptroller C.T.
Conover, is twofold, she said.
- First, it would put national banks on a reporting system
modeled after federal securities reporting requirements. If adopted,
the banks would submit yearly, quarterly and current reports to the
Comptroller, rather than quarterly reports as they do now.
- Second, it would require public disclosure of all enforcement
orders issued by bank examiners. And if a bank has been notified by
the Comptroller's office of the intent to take administrative action,
that would also have to be disclosed.
If approved, Pringle said the rule would be effective January
1987. The first annual report of a bank to be affected would be that
The Comptroller of the Currency examines and regulates national
banks. State-chartered banks are regulated and examined jointly by
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Oklahoma Bank
Commmissioner. The Federal Reserve Bank regulates state-chartered,
Regulators do not use all information that is reported now,
Pringle testified Oct. 9 in a Chicago public hearing conducted by
Comptroller of the Currency Robert L. Clarke.
Representatives of bankers associations in Kansas, Texas,
Illinois, Nebraska and the American Bankers Association also
"We in the industry think rather than an increase in reporting
requirements, in most cases regulators can do the most effective job
by honing in on information most needed for regulatory purposes -and
decreasing reporting requirements for virtually all banks," she said.
Banks are willing to provide the information agencies need to
effectively regulate, Pringle added, "but not volumes of information
that's unnecessary or that the regulators already have."
The cost of the stepped-up requirement has bankers concerned, she
"Many banks are formed purposely keeping the amount of
shareholders below reporting requirements," Pringle said. "It's not
to avoid disclosure - they have to make disclosure to their
shareholders,anyway - but to avoid the continuing cost of securities
As to disclosing enforcement orders, Pringle said OBA members see
no reason for there to be public disclosure to non-investors.
"If the rest of the information is not carefully studied, it may
lead to a run," she said. …